- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:48 pm to lsumatt
quote:
How in the hell does this work? You would have 6 teams in the second round.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How in the hell does this work? You would have 6 teams in the second round
whoa
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:51 pm to novowels
WE COULD HAVE A 2-ROUND BYE!!!!
Posted on 7/15/09 at 2:02 pm to lsumatt
Agreed. Sorry. It would have to either be 8 teams or 12 teams. In the 12 team format 4 teams could have a bye in the first round. Just trying to lend a little importance to the top few teams with the byes.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 2:20 pm to hojo
Come to think of it, I think I have addressed this before.
You're still going to have problems with the "system" since everyone already hates the ratings. The difference between teams and their resume gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get from the top 2.
If you're going to include the major bowls in a playoff, you have to make it worth their while. Being a semifinal or quarterfinal game will hurt them and their city from a travel standpoint.
Who has the authority to pull this off? How about all the lost revenue for losing home games?
The biggest problem I see with most playoff ideas, and this isn't a shot at you, is that most people putting them forth have a fundamental misunderstanding of how major college football is organized and how many different parties are involved.
They all play under the regulation of the NCAA. The conferences set their schedules and decide how they want to crown their champion. The schools schedule their own OOC games. The Bowls want matchups that benefit them and their city.
It isn't like someone in charge of all of these entities sat around and said "ok, these are the bowls we're going to have and this is how our postseason will be played and how the champion will be determined".
The system we have is an idea that came about with input from all of these parties. If you change that, it will have to be something that benefits each one because no one party controls the rest. It's just the way it is. This isn't the NFL where the commish is the HMFIC. The vast majority of playoff ideas I've seen would damage one of the parties involved (the Bowls), or bring about change that some parties do not want (telling conferences they must have X number of teams or decide their champion a certain way, shortening the season and losing money for schools or lengthening it to a point where the presidents don't like it).
quote:
top 10 in BCS rankings
You're still going to have problems with the "system" since everyone already hates the ratings. The difference between teams and their resume gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get from the top 2.
quote:
11 games total. Mid major bowls (Capital one, Cotton, Outback, Chick fil-A, Gator, etc.) would get first and second round. BCS bowl sites would get last 2 rounds. Rest of bowls? Play 'em. Who the hell cares now anyway.
If you're going to include the major bowls in a playoff, you have to make it worth their while. Being a semifinal or quarterfinal game will hurt them and their city from a travel standpoint.
quote:
I'd limit the regular season to 10 games
Who has the authority to pull this off? How about all the lost revenue for losing home games?
The biggest problem I see with most playoff ideas, and this isn't a shot at you, is that most people putting them forth have a fundamental misunderstanding of how major college football is organized and how many different parties are involved.
They all play under the regulation of the NCAA. The conferences set their schedules and decide how they want to crown their champion. The schools schedule their own OOC games. The Bowls want matchups that benefit them and their city.
It isn't like someone in charge of all of these entities sat around and said "ok, these are the bowls we're going to have and this is how our postseason will be played and how the champion will be determined".
The system we have is an idea that came about with input from all of these parties. If you change that, it will have to be something that benefits each one because no one party controls the rest. It's just the way it is. This isn't the NFL where the commish is the HMFIC. The vast majority of playoff ideas I've seen would damage one of the parties involved (the Bowls), or bring about change that some parties do not want (telling conferences they must have X number of teams or decide their champion a certain way, shortening the season and losing money for schools or lengthening it to a point where the presidents don't like it).
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:09 pm to MOT
To do ten team you have 4 teams play their way into the field of 8 while 6 teams get straight in. It isn't really much different than an 8 team field except the last 4 have an extra game.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
frick that
...and anything that makes SFP say "frick that" has to be right.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:12 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
and anything that makes SFP say "frick that" has to be right.
you sound like the people who said i was dumb for calling out our defense
...after the AU and MSU games
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:12 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
To do ten team you have 4 teams play their way into the field of 8 while 6 teams get straight in.
So you want a system where 60% of the teams get a bye?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:15 pm to lsumatt
i could see a system where like, 2 teams are in no matter what, and you have an 8-team playoff to see who are the other 2 teams
but that's about all that makes sense
but that's about all that makes sense
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think the people that don't want a playoff are the people that like to argue over who was better. I hate that crap.
...And no SFP, I wasn't one of those people. Even you can get lucky once in a while...
...And no SFP, I wasn't one of those people. Even you can get lucky once in a while...
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:29 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
I think the people that don't want a playoff are the people that like to argue over who was better. I hate that crap.
you don't really hear much arguing
the BCS has gotten it right AT LEAST 8/10 times. i think they got it right 10/10 times
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the BCS has gotten it right AT LEAST 8/10 times. i think they got it right 10/10 times
...I disagree. I say to get it right the BCS has to have the two best teams playing in the title game. Under those terms, pretty much every year is up for debate.
If they don't implement a playoff with at least 8-teams they need a new rule to force more games between BCS conferences so that the relative strengths can be better measured.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 3:41 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
they need a new rule to force more games between BCS conferences so that the relative strengths can be better measured.
why would this not be needed with a playoff?
and who would get chosen to be the sacrificial lamb? the MSUs and Northwesterns of the BCS
Posted on 7/15/09 at 4:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why would this not be needed with a playoff?
With 2 teams it's much more likely that one of the teams might be over-rated from a weak conference. With a bigger field they would have gotten in anyway, and their weakness will be exposed on the field. Sure, it would still help in filling the last seeds, but that isn't as big as picking out #2.
quote:
and who would get chosen to be the sacrificial lamb? the MSUs and Northwesterns of the BCS
Watching a top tier team destroy a scrub doesn't tell you about conference strength. Both teams should come from about the same level of their conference or it is pointless.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 4:08 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
Both teams should come from about the same level of their conference or it is pointless.
And how do you know that when schedules have to be determined years in advance?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 4:11 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
to get it right the BCS has to have the two best teams playing in the title game. Under those terms, pretty much every year is up for debate.
For the playoffs to get it right, wouldn't they have to have the 8 best teams (or whatever the magic number is)...and wouldn't every year still be up for debate?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 4:15 pm to novowels
quote:
Doesn't matter what you did in the regular season once you make the +1 playoff.
EXACTLY the problem. Penalize the undefeated team. The only reason a plus one was proposed was in the instance you had two teams with same record and one was left out. The 2003 OU-LSU and USC debate.
You don't need it other wise.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 4:16 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
Sure, it would still help in filling the last seeds, but that isn't as big as picking out #2.
how can this be logical
if every team in a playoff has the ability to be the champ, then every slot matters as much as any other
the 8th slot in an 8-team playoff race means as much as the 2nd team in the BCS
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News