- 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
re: The simple fix to the College Football Playoffs
Posted on 1/4/25 at 12:26 pm to iamandykeim
Posted on 1/4/25 at 12:26 pm to iamandykeim
Excellent! I still say the committee should be abolished and bring back the BCS computers. I like that much better than a group of people that don’t know chit. Adjust the software if needed. Do not expand the playoff beyond 12. I would prefer to go to 8 teams.
1
Posted on 1/4/25 at 1:27 pm to Penrod
quote:
How do you know ND would not have been their regional champion? And Texas might very well have been their regional champion (They would not have been in the SE regional). And Penn State might have been a NE regional champion?
Because there isn't a world that exist where teams would give up the money they are making by being in these conferences. And there isn't a world that exist where ND would share money with people by joining a conference.
You idiots come up with these plans that have absolutely no chance of happening.
Am I coward for saying this, little bitch?
Posted on 1/4/25 at 1:28 pm to LSUFAN2
quote:
I still say the committee should be abolished and bring back the BCS computers. I like that much better than a group of people that don’t know chit
What if I told you that more often than not the BCS rankings would have reflected almost exactly what the committee did?
Posted on 1/4/25 at 1:35 pm to Lsutigerturner
quote:
At this time regular season doesn’t matter a whole lot just the fight for top 4.
All of top 4 are out!
Posted on 1/4/25 at 1:43 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
Because there isn't a world that exist where teams would give up the money they are making by being in these conferences. And there isn't a world that exist where ND would share money with people by joining a conference.
You idiots come up with these plans that have absolutely no chance of happening.
Am I coward for saying this, little bitch?
That escalated quickly. Now I understand your point; you just see it as impossible that teams would agree to that concept. I agree with that. I was arguing the hypothetical that IF that was in place, some of the remaining four could still be in it. As I recall, you refuted that too, which makes you wrong but not a coward (at least based on that alone).
Posted on 1/4/25 at 1:46 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
What if I told you that more often than not the BCS rankings would have reflected almost exactly what the committee did?
I’d tell you that you have a habit of being wrong. I am in favor of the creation of a new word in the English language - “Nopinionated”. This would describe people like Hold That Tiger 10, who have incorrect opinions about everything.
Posted on 1/4/25 at 2:48 pm to Penrod
quote:
I’d tell you that you have a habit of being wrong. I am in favor of the creation of a new word in the English language - “Nopinionated”. This would describe people like Hold That Tiger 10, who have incorrect opinions about everything
With BCS this year:
1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3 Boise (9 in BCS, but 3rd highest conf champions)
4. Arizona St (10 in BCS, but 4th high conf champions)
5. Notre Dame (3 in BCS but no conf championship)
6. Texas (4 in BCS but no conf championship)
7. Ohio St
8. Penn St
9. Tennessee
10. Indiana
11. Alabama
12. Clemson (13 in BCS, but ACC champ)
But yeah, I'm wrong. All the BCS would have done was move around a few seedings and put Bama in ahead of SMU.
The outrage on here would have been 10 times worse had they actually used the BCS, even though the same morons are saying we should use the BCS.
And I know you have already more than shown you are a total idiot on here, but what I stated was not an opinion. It's verifiably factual that the BCS standings would have lined up very closely (or exactly the same) since the end of the BCS and beginning of playoffs. But coming from someone who decided to die on the hill of saying the New Orleans ISSIS idiot was not a coward, I'm not at all surprised you don't know the difference between opinions and facts.
This post was edited on 1/4/25 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 1/4/25 at 3:42 pm to TopWaterTiger
I don’t think they would be out of everyone played the first week. Or so. It’s a flawed system but I’d as long as they don’t touch it and teams can adapt and fine tune the prep
Posted on 1/4/25 at 4:31 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
All the BCS would have done was move around a few seedings and put Bama in ahead of SMU.
Well, of course the difference will be on the marginal teams, dummy.
When LSU won in 2003 it would have been USC instead of Oklahoma. If you allowed 100 teams in then the disputes would be over the 95th through 105.
Posted on 1/4/25 at 4:39 pm to Penrod
Then why are you calling the fact that I posted:
A - an opinion
B - wrong
You argued against my post, and then when proven wrong said "well yeah, of course it'll be exactly what you said."
A - an opinion
B - wrong
You argued against my post, and then when proven wrong said "well yeah, of course it'll be exactly what you said."
Posted on 1/4/25 at 4:48 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
You argued against my post, and then when proven wrong said "well yeah, of course it'll be exactly what you said."
Your characterization. I love the way guys like you spit out a half baked argument then claim you “PROVED” something.
I think that having different teams and different seedings is a big difference in the bracket, therefore you are wrong, imo.
Obviously, the more teams you allow into the playoffs, the less impactful the omissions and inclusions on the margin. USC not getting in was a big deal in 2003; Bama not getting in made no difference to the final outcome in 2024 because Bama sucked.
So the computer rankings would make a big difference in the bracket, but not much in the outcome. Hence, you are nopinionated, or at least you would be if it was a word.
Posted on 1/4/25 at 5:06 pm to Penrod
quote:
Your characterization. I love the way guys like you spit out a half baked argument then claim you “PROVED” something
All I was simply doing was pointing out to the people who said the BCS should pick the teams that the BCS would mean pretty much the exact same teams. Nothing more, nothing less. You decided to come in and say it was an opinion, and wrong, and try to invent words for some reason.
And in this particular case, this board was going ape shite about the possibility of Bama being put in. The committee (who they don't want) left Bama out and the BCS (which they want) would have put Bama in.
quote:
Hence, you are nopinionated, or at least you would be if it was a word.
You are a damn moron. And that is a word.
This post was edited on 1/4/25 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 1/4/25 at 9:29 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
And that is a word.
Actually it’s two words, but it’s Hold That Tiger 10, so we’ll make allowance.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 10:29 am to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
With BCS this year:
1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3 Boise (9 in BCS, but 3rd highest conf champions)
4. Arizona St (10 in BCS, but 4th high conf champions)
5. Notre Dame (3 in BCS but no conf championship)
6. Texas (4 in BCS but no conf championship)
7. Ohio St
8. Penn St
9. Tennessee
10. Indiana
11. Alabama
12. Clemson (13 in BCS, but ACC champ)
Oregon vs Georgia would be the title game.
Others are just consolation prizes, and the matchups depend on whether we use the old or new conferences.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 10:50 am to iamandykeim
There have not been many years where more than 3 teams are really deserving of being national champs. The 12 teams gives every conference and some at large teams (Probably just for Notre Dame) a chance. The last few in would be controversial if it’s 2,4,8,etc.
I just don’t see a system working until it’s embedded within the season. For big conferences, there’s already a built in playoff.
I just don’t see a system working until it’s embedded within the season. For big conferences, there’s already a built in playoff.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:34 am to easy money
quote:
The 12 teams gives every conference and some at large teams (Probably just for Notre Dame) a chance.
Ohio St - at large
Texas - at large
Penn St - at large
Notre Dame - at large
Are some of you incapable of thinking at all before posting?
Posted on 1/5/25 at 12:30 pm to iamandykeim
All you have to do is make ND, Mich, OSU, Bama, USC, Texas, and OU the top 7 seeds every year. Regardless of record. The only debate will be on how to seed them. This will ensure the “right teams” get in and we all get to see the teams we really want to see on TV.
For the remaining five teams, it really doesn’t matter. No one cares. You should probably take at least two teams not in the SEC or BIG10 though in order to maintain the illusion of inclusion and fairness.
Weeks 1 and 2 will be bye weeks for the top 8 seeds, while the 9 through 12 seeds battle it out.
Week three sees the #8 seed play the winner of seeds 9-12 while the top 7 get a third week of rest. Crooked officiating can be employed in this game to ensure the #8 seed loses, which puts a worn down and beat up team as the new #8. They will be rewarded an opportunity to participate in a tourney with the original top 7 teams.
Now, all the “right teams” are in, the team who’s “probably the best” will win the title, and we, the shmucks get to watch the games we really wanted to see.
Everybody wins!
For the remaining five teams, it really doesn’t matter. No one cares. You should probably take at least two teams not in the SEC or BIG10 though in order to maintain the illusion of inclusion and fairness.
Weeks 1 and 2 will be bye weeks for the top 8 seeds, while the 9 through 12 seeds battle it out.
Week three sees the #8 seed play the winner of seeds 9-12 while the top 7 get a third week of rest. Crooked officiating can be employed in this game to ensure the #8 seed loses, which puts a worn down and beat up team as the new #8. They will be rewarded an opportunity to participate in a tourney with the original top 7 teams.
Now, all the “right teams” are in, the team who’s “probably the best” will win the title, and we, the shmucks get to watch the games we really wanted to see.
Everybody wins!
Posted on 1/5/25 at 12:41 pm to iamandykeim
The only way to guarantee that the champion is truly the best, is to keep the number at 12 but everybody plays everybody, best 2 out of 3 wins. That ought to keep the NCAA in the money and extend the season to year round.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 1:34 pm to NorthSider72
quote:
The only way to guarantee that the champion is truly the best, is to keep the number at 12 but everybody plays everybody, best 2 out of 3 wins
This is quite an accomplishment, but you came up with the worst post in this entire thread. Where in the hell is the game of football ever played in a best of format?
Posted on 1/5/25 at 1:58 pm to iamandykeim
Reduce the number of teams in the playoffs to 8 and take the top eight teams.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News