- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: BCS has achieved consensus on 4-team seeded playoff.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:12 am to Bestbank Tiger
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:12 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Conference champs unless Bama, Texass, FU, Southern Cal, or Notre Dame is a wild card. Those teams get a mulligan if ranked in the top 16.
This. ESPN will ruin the sport completely now. UGH.
0
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:14 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Under this standard:
2011: LSU/Stanford, Alabama/Ok. State
2010: Auburn/Wisconsin, Oregon/TCU
2009: Alabama/TCU, Texas/Cincinnati
2008: Oklahoma/Alabama, Florida/Texas
2007: Ohio State/Oklahoma, LSU/Virginia Tech
2006: Ohio State/LSU, Florida/Michigan
2005: USC/Ohio State, Texas/Penn State
2004: USC/Texas, Oklahoma/Auburn
2003: Oklahoma/Michigan, LSU/USC
2002: Miami/USC, Ohio State/Georgia
2001: Miami/Oregon, Colorado/Florida
2000: Oklahoma/Washington, Florida State/Miami
1999: Florida State/Alabama, Virginia Tech/Nebraska
1998: Tennessee/Texas A&M, Florida State/Ohio State
Wow that is awful
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:19 am to Baloo
quote:
Completely agree. LSU lost the national title last year because they played and beat Oregon. Had they not scheduled that game, or even lost it, Alabama does not play for the national title and LSU still does (against Oregon). LSU and Oregon were punished for playing an elite foe, which is an absurd outcome. LSU was further punished for beating Bama the first time, having to beat 10-win Georgia to qualify for the BCSCG.
LSU would have been better off not playing Oregon or losing to Bama, maybe both.
Bingo. LSU and Oregon both got screwed for playing tough OOC games.
In 2011, you literally crowned a National Champion (Bama) who was allowed to ride the coattails of a conference rival that they LOST TO AT HOME into the BCSNCG. Bama literally sat back, allowed LSU to do all the dirty work by winning the SEC, beating the Pac 12 and Big East Champs (on the road) and beating Bama at home. Bama's ticket to the BCSNCG was punched simply bc they had the "best loss" to LSU. Unreal.
Yet fans bitch when teams refuse to schedule tough OOC games. Why do that? Look at Bama's OOC schedule last year as well.
All this is going to do is further frick up the sport. Now you will have one team that earned their way in, with ESPN pushing 3 media darlings to take the other spots.
I can't wait to be proven right.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the problem is that you're basically assuming all conferences are equal OR ignoring the strength of a #2 team from a strong conference
You're saying this without even seeing he formulas.
In the end, the data should show 1) Relative strengths of each conferece 2) The validity of a particular conferences #2 versus another conferences #1
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:28 am to MrBiriwa
I think the ACC deserves their shot at the table if a team goes undefeated or has 1 loss for the most part.
The SEC has the most players in teh NFL followed by the ACC. The problem with the ACC is there is a shite load of parity. Not much difference between a VT, UNC, or NC State team or GT or FSU or Clemson for that fact. But, they're all loaded with NFL talent. So, if a team is good enough to run the table and go undefeated, they shouldn't be left out for a 1 loss SEC team.
OF course, I'm a huge fan of just taking the conference champs. If you can't win your conference you have no reason to bitch about not getting a chance to win the NC IMO.
The SEC has the most players in teh NFL followed by the ACC. The problem with the ACC is there is a shite load of parity. Not much difference between a VT, UNC, or NC State team or GT or FSU or Clemson for that fact. But, they're all loaded with NFL talent. So, if a team is good enough to run the table and go undefeated, they shouldn't be left out for a 1 loss SEC team.
OF course, I'm a huge fan of just taking the conference champs. If you can't win your conference you have no reason to bitch about not getting a chance to win the NC IMO.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 8:40 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
1998: Tennessee/Texas A&M, Florida State/Ohio State
Why would A&M be in that year over 10-1, BCS #5 ranked, Pac 10 champ UCLA?
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the problem is that you're basically assuming all conferences are equal
not equal, but the top 4, or more importantly the top teams in the top 4 conferences are not significantly different in quality.
On another note, should you just get credit for being in a strong conference without playing some of the better teams in your conference? Should you just judge the strength of the conference or the strength of each teams conference schedule? Bama only played 3 SEC teams that had winning records last year and lost to 1 of them. Only 2 teams that had winning records in the SEC. Was their conference schedule really tougher than Ok State or Oregons?
quote:
OR ignoring the strength of a #2 team from a strong conference
If they are #2 in their own conference, that means they probably already lost to the team above them. How does granting a rematch no diminish the regular season in that case? If you are #2 in your conference, what claim do you have to be the best team in the country.
This post was edited on 6/21/12 at 9:19 am
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:18 am to Moustache
quote:
I think the ACC deserves their shot at the table if a team goes undefeated or has 1 loss for the most part.
it would have to be an undefeated team or a 1 loss team with a legit OOC loss b/c the conference is so watered down and the bottom is really really bad.
quote:
The SEC has the most players in teh NFL followed by the ACC. The problem with the ACC is there is a shite load of parity. Not much difference between a VT, UNC, or NC State team or GT or FSU or Clemson for that fact. But, they're all loaded with NFL talent. So, if a team is good enough to run the table and go undefeated, they shouldn't be left out for a 1 loss SEC team.
just b/c they put player in the NFL does not make their teams good, like in the SEC multiple schools have 5+ guys drafted every year. ACC teams don't have that.
quote:
OF course, I'm a huge fan of just taking the conference champs. If you can't win your conference you have no reason to bitch about not getting a chance to win the NC IMO.
The ACC needs Miami to get back, VT to win when it matters, FSU(assuming they stay) to return to glory and Clemson not to Clemson if they don't want to be the odd man out year after year. If not some of the schools will have to beef up their OOC b/c the conference play will hurt them.
You can basically pencil in the SEC, Big12 and Pac12 champ with this format and if tOSU or UM win the B1G they are in for sure. The ACC is facing an uphill battle.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:19 am to nosaj56
quote:
@slmandel Via multiple sources, commissioners prefer a selection committee that picks "best four,"
terrible idea, imo.
a "supposedly" impartial selection committee for college baseball selected UF as the #1 national seed when they didn't even win the SEC East much less the SEC.
now, I realize the #1 seed in baseball really doesn't mean anything more than the #8 seed in baseball. but, for the sake of argument, assume the top 8 seeds for this years college baseball tournament are all football teams: UF, UCLA, FSU, Baylor, Oregon, UNC, LSU, USCe.
So UF makes the final four football teams over the team that won their division and the team that won their conference?
selection committee = far too subjective, i don't want the four teams to be dependent upon TV ratings.
it needs to be the top 4 BCS ranked teams. the computers and the number of poll voters limit the subjectivity to at least some degree.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:25 am to blzr
This system has the high probabiliyt of being more UNFAIR and BIAS than the current one.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:32 am to TheFranchise
quote:
the computers and the number of poll voters limit the subjectivity to at least some degree.
i agree that there does need to be a quantitative element involved in the formula (so we need computer rankings), but the "poll voters" are still a biased sample and often uninformed.
i dont think the selection committee is a bad idea, but i realize i am in the minority with that view.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:34 am to Tiger Ryno
quote:
This system has the high probabiliyt of being more UNFAIR and BIAS than the current one.
How so? The committee is a bad idea, because it won't be any different than just the top 4 in the BCS rankings most of the time. Maybe they would do something like last year take Oregon over Stanford, but that;s about it.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:35 am to rocket31
quote:
i dont think the selection committee is a bad idea
what makes you think they would be less biased and more informed than the AP voters?
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:38 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Maybe they would do something like last year take Oregon over Stanford, but that;s about it.
thats a pretty significant adjustment man; it is also gives evidence that using the committee is beneficial.
the selection committee would have given the nod to oregon in last years situation, despite stanford being the higher rank team. that is a good thing.
This post was edited on 6/21/12 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:38 am to H-Town Tiger
I actually like the committee. It puts a check on illogical poll results. look at the formula, and then make judgments instead of blindly taking whoever the poll spits out.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:38 am to rocket31
quote:
i agree that there does need to be a quantitative element involved in the formula (so we need computer rankings), but the "poll voters" are still a biased sample and often uninformed.
i dont think the selection committee is a bad idea, but i realize i am in the minority with that view.
I think it will depend on the selection committee's makeup and their ability to withstand heavy external lobbying
The opinion polls are essentially group-think which is heavily influenced by pre-season standing and name recognition. The computer polls are interesting to me but they are also limited by the games that are played. It is really not the fault of the computers if they rank a better team too low or a lesser team too high - there's nothing you can do when they can only analyze the data available.
A good selection committee would probably be superior to either the opinion polls or the computer polls - but a bad selection committee would be just as bad as what runs boxing
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:39 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
LSU was further punished for beating Bama the first time, having to beat 10-win Georgia to qualify for the BCSCG.
Had Oklahoma not imploded at the end of the season, had Stanford not lost to Oregon/had Oregon not lost to USC, and had Oklahoma State not lost to Iowa State, Alabama would not have been in that game. You fail to remember that a lot of crazy stuff had to happen in order for the Tide to make it into that game. Unfortunately for LSU, everything that had to happen for Alabama happened.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:44 am to RollTide1987
Who cares what OTHER teams did? I'm pointing out that things LSU did which should have been positive, actually HURT their chances of winning the title. Which is frankly absurd.
Last year was no more crazy than any other year.
Last year was no more crazy than any other year.
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:45 am to Baloo
quote:
I actually like the committee. It puts a check on illogical poll results. look at the formula, and then make judgments instead of blindly taking whoever the poll spits out.
So, looking at an objective formula results, and then flipping it around and making subjective decisions? Sounds great...
Posted on 6/21/12 at 9:48 am to TulaneUVA
Polls aren't objective. They are made with subjective biases. Why don't we just take teams as they are ranked in the RPI? The BCS poll is incredibly subjective, as 2/3 of it is an opinion poll. It is no accurate gauge of quality.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News