- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: BCS v. Playoff
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I think you missed what this was in response to.
wrong
1
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:47 pm to DVtiger
no i was replying to you
there is no elimination of controversy with a playoff
you'd have the exact same situation as with the BCS, but with a very watered-down champion pool
there is no elimination of controversy with a playoff
you'd have the exact same situation as with the BCS, but with a very watered-down champion pool
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:48 pm to DVtiger
quote:
All of the BCS games are guaranteed sell-outs. Whatever the teams can't sell are filled locally through corporate sponsorships:
link?
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Take your pick (4 or 8), but 8 would address all situations that have risen to date & includes points brought up in the lawsuit by non-BCS conferences.
well no shite
there are rarely 4 teams who have a legit claim to a title shot...there might not have been a season when 4 teams could make this claim except maybe 2004
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there is no elimination of controversy with a playoff
Not totally, because no system is perfect. However, 4 would at least in most cases level the SOS argument, which has been my issue all along. We were one fluke away from an absolute dogshit title game last year, because you would have had two teams, WV and OSU, with significantly easier roads to the game.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there is no elimination of controversy with a playoff
This is by far the lamest argument in favor of the BCS, I wish you'd stop using it. If they did an 8 team playoff, of course fans of the 9,10 and maybe 11 team would bitch, and yes some columnist or TV blowhard would gripe, but I guarandamntee you there would be no real controversy about it, even if the #8 team won.
quote:
you'd have the exact same situation as with the BCS
No, unlike 2003 and 2004, any griping about #5 or #9 being left out would go away with in a week or 2 of the playoff teams being announced. They bitch about bubble teams being left out of the 65 team BB tourney every year, can you even name one?
Posted on 7/19/08 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are replying to a reply to Hot Carl.
no i was replying to you
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:00 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
If they did an 8 team playoff, of course fans of the 9,10 and maybe 11 team would bitch,
exactly. same situation
the pool of teams vying for spots 7 and 8 is a lot larger than those vying for spot #2.
that quality of teams/arguments wouldn't be as high, but the quantity would more than make up for that
this is just talking about BCS teams. once you throw in the non-BCS teams it makes a playoff even less feasible. non-BCS teams are all but guaranteed 1 spot in the BCS. they'd almost be shut out of the D1 playoffs
*ETA: and if they weren't...controversy over TWO spots (possibly 3) would begin
This post was edited on 7/19/08 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:03 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Can't find a link but it came from the Alamo Bowl committe - trying to become a BCS bowl but could not come up with the required sponsorship to guarantee any unsold tickets per BCS contract.
link?
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:06 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
However, 4 would at least in most cases level the SOS argument, which has been my issue all a
I with you ObiWan, that's why I now think 4 is perfect. Look at 2000. Now SFP will argue that you can't argue with OU, as the only unbeaten BCS team being NC, and I agree. But look at Miami. They lost 1 game, at #4 Washington. Now if they stay home and play ULL, they go undefeated and play in the title game. Check out VT schedule in 99, compared to Nebraska's. Hell in 2006, Louisville loses by a FG at Rutgers or they are playing tOSU in the BCS CG.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:10 pm to H-Town Tiger
4 would cover most situations, but there are 2 problems
a. if the trend of the past 2 years continues, 4 teams won't be seen as enough
b. the non-BCS teams will sue if there is a 4 team playoff because they will be shut out
a. if the trend of the past 2 years continues, 4 teams won't be seen as enough
b. the non-BCS teams will sue if there is a 4 team playoff because they will be shut out
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
*ETA: and if they weren't...controversy over TWO spots (possibly 3) would begin
If they did 8, they should get at least 1 spot. And I completely disagree about controversy, it would consist of the teams on the outside looking in bitching for a week or 2, that's it. It wouldn't last. That's not really controversy, like the #1 team in both polls being left out of the BCS CG, or an undefeated BCS team being left out, that's controversy. Bitching about #5 or #9 being left out is not the same and would be dismissed by everyone, except for some fans or the "dissed" teams.
And some one saying, we'll I think team X should have been in or the #9 team was the "hottest" is not controversy btw.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
If they did 8, they should get at least 1 spot.
why?
if you want to see bad scheduling, just wait for the playoffs
quote:
And I completely disagree about controversy, it would consist of the teams on the outside looking in bitching for a week or 2, that's it. It wouldn't last
until you play bowl games and 2-3 teams who were left out absolutely destroy their competition
quote:
Bitching about #5 or #9 being left out is not the same and would be dismissed by everyone, except for some fans or the "dissed" teams
and the conference commissioners
and the writers covering that conference/team the next year
etc
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the trend of the past 2 years continues, 4 teams won't be seen as enough
By some sure, but the teams left out would have 2 losses and or not have won a conference. So there will be a built in argument against them. I don't think anyone outside of UGA fans think UGA had a good argument last year now, just 7 month's later.
quote:
b. the non-BCS teams will sue if there is a 4 team playoff because they will be shut out
Maybe but they wouldn't be automatically locked out. In the old BCS 6 of 8 spots were guaranteed to BCS teams. In a 4 team playoff, you wouldn't have an auto spot to any conference, just the top 4. Im the polls don't reserve spots for BCS teams, but BCS teams are ranked highest because they are better and its obvious. If there was a 4 teamer in 2004, a non-BCS team, Utah would have been in.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:28 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Maybe but they wouldn't be automatically locked out.
yes they would
you'd have to be fresno state this year, with their OOC schedule, and you'd have to fricking dominate all comers
quote:
If there was a 4 teamer in 2004, a non-BCS team, Utah would have been in.
no, and you can look at 2004 as to why
who went to the rose, UT or Cal?
why? mack got people to change votes. it's human nature
now think about UT (or Cal) v Utah: who gets in? UT
*ETA: you can also look to LSU's treatment late in 2007 as another example of the pollsters getting their team in
This post was edited on 7/19/08 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why?
because the NCAA does have a responsibility to all their members not just the big ones. It would give those teams a shoot at exposure and revenue they would not normally get.
quote:
if you want to see bad scheduling, just wait for the playoffs
You always say this, why? What shred of proof is there to back this claim up? Its not as if the BCS has lead to better scheduling (though Texas 2005 and LSU 2007 should serve as case studies for it). Some teams play tough OOC schedules and others don't, just like always. I see no reason to believe that a playoff which would mean 1 tough OOC loss (see Miami 2000) does not knock you out of NC contention would lead to weaker scheduling. I think it would basically remain the same. Some teams will play crap OOC schedules and others will schedule some good games.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Maybe but they wouldn't be automatically locked out.
yes they would
No they wouldn't there is not currently a formal rule that prevents the AP from voting for a Non-BCS team. They won't because the BCS teams are better, its not the same as an automatic bid going to the BCS teams, like with the old BCS. That's not the same as being automatically excluded.
quote:
you'd have to be fresno state this year, with their OOC schedule, and you'd have to fricking dominate all comers
Right, so they'd have a chance. Doesn't mean its likely.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:40 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
because the NCAA does have a responsibility to all their members not just the big ones
the non-BCS hold scheduling cards
if ESPN can broker ASU-LSU in 1 offseason, they can broker big match ups for non-BCS teams in 1 offseason
quote:
You always say this, why? What shred of proof is there to back this claim up?
you'd be stupid to schedule a hard OOC slate
i'm going to assume that team X is going to lose between 0 and 2 conference games. this is not a big assumption as this is what the top 8 will generally do (based on the definition of the top 8)
why would AD/Coach of team X want to risk 1 extra loss in OOC? if all they have to gun for is the top 8, then they can schedule easy, ride out the 2 likely losses, and get their playoff slot. remember 1 extra loss would likely keep them out
quote:
Some teams will play crap OOC schedules and others will schedule some good games.
i'm sure this would be the case. at first.
once a team or 2 is left out of the top 8 due to an OOC loss, teams would wise up and stop scheduling hard OOC games
it would be a snowball effect, because if some top teams stop scheduling hard OOC, then that lowers the possible pool of good teams in the OOC market. then add on the lack of logic in scheduling these games, and it would snow ball to almost nothing
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
That's not the same as being automatically excluded.
non-BCS teams weren't automatically excluded from the old BCS format. hell utah made the BCS under the old format
did that stop them from threatening a lawsuit and Congressional investigations? no
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no, and you can look at 2004 as to why
who went to the rose, UT or Cal?
why? mack got people to change votes. it's human nature
now think about UT (or Cal) v Utah: who gets in? UT
Had Cal not played sluggish against So Miss, they would have been in. Utah was already in a BCS bowl and they were ranked #4/5. Its possible UT goes instead, you could also eliminate that by having a committee pick the teams and not voters or require teams to win their conference to qualify or at least have a formula that gives added weight to winning a conference.
This post was edited on 7/19/08 at 2:47 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News