- 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 2:48 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:48 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Its possible voters move UT ahead (that would invite a lawsuit)
where was the lawsuit in 2007 when LSU jumped over a number of teams?
and it is more likely that UT/Cal would never have been ranked below Utah anyway
quote:
you could also eliminate that by having a committee pick the teams
this would be a joke like march madness
this would invite TONS of bitching
quote:
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.
once you get outside of 2 teams, this requirement is stupid and favors shitty conferences with 1 good team
1
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
non-BCS teams weren't automatically excluded from the old BCS format. hell utah made the BCS under the old format
true, but 6 of 8 spots were guaranteed to the BCS. Non-BCS teams have 0 shot at the BCS CG now, are they threatening to sue over that? With a 4 team playoff, they'd have a better shot than they do now, plus you'd still have BCS or major bowls, give them 1 slot in there and they still get their money.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 2:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Non-BCS teams have 0 shot at the BCS CG now, are they threatening to sue over that?
no because they get paid by their essential lock to get a BCS slot right now
4 teams getting the big bucks in 3 massive games will limit the $ a great deal to all other bowls
Posted on 7/19/08 at 3:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
where was the lawsuit in 2007 when LSU jumped over a number of teams?
no, after thinking about it dropped that comment. But they threatened legal action to get into BCS bowls, not necessarily the BCS CG. I don't think the non BCS conferences are threatening to sue now since they have a very easy shot at getting into a BCS bowl. That would change with a 4 team playoff.
quote:
his would be a joke like march madness
how is the selection process of MM a joke? There has never been a truly deserving team left out of the tourney, with 65 teams in, that's just not possible.
quote:
this would invite TONS of bitching
So, there is tons of bitching now, unless you have a season like 2002 or 2005. some one will bitch.
quote:
once you get outside of 2 teams, this requirement is stupid and favors shitty conferences with 1 good team
The same could be said for the BCS (see 98, 99, 00, 06 and 07 the losers of all those BCS CG were the 1 good team in shitty conferences).
I really don't like it as an automatic DQ, but as a factor or tie breaker I'm ok with it.
Going back to 2004, I personally would favor Utah being in, in part because UT and Cal had shots at teams in front of them. If not them I'd favor Cal, but I don't think it would be outrageous if it was UT. It would just be lame, especially if UT had won it.
This post was edited on 7/19/08 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 7/19/08 at 3:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
4 teams getting the big bucks in 3 massive games will limit the $ a great deal to all other bowls
I doubt that.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 8:57 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
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.
That's the thing...in my opinion, the job of the BCS is not to identify the best team, but to identify the best TWO teams and let them settle it on the field.
There is a strong argument that the BCS has succeeded because in most cases the best team has ended up winning. But to me, any time you don't have the best two teams in the game, it's inviting a fluke. In the ten year history, how many times were the two teams involved, clear cut 1 AND 2?
UT-USC
OSU-Miami
FSU-VT
Every other year, it was at least arguable.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 9:38 pm to DVtiger
quote:
1.) Dec. 22, 2008 - Sugar Bowl - #1 vs. #8.
2.) Dec. 22, 2008 - Rose Bowl - #2 vs. #7.
3.) Dec. 23, 2008 - Fiesta Bowl - #3 vs. #6.
4.) Dec. 23, 2008 - Orange Bowl - #4 vs. #5.
5.) Dec. 29, 2008 - Sugar Bowl - Winners of games 1 & 4.
6.) Dec. 30, 2008 - Fiesta Bowl - Winners of games 2 & 3.
7.) Jan. 7, 2009 - BCS National Championship Game (Pasadena)- Winners of games 5 & 6.
So you're basically saying all of the cold weather teams would have to play road games throughout the playoffs. I'm sure a #1 ranked tOSU would love getting to travel to play #8 ranked LSU at the Sugar Bowl, then if they happen to win that they get to come back and play #4 Florida in New Orleans the very next week then get to go out to Pasadena to play #2 USC.
Posted on 7/20/08 at 12:50 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
he job of the BCS is not to identify the best team, but to identify the best TWO teams and let them settle it on the field.
I agree.
quote:
how many times were the two teams involved, clear cut 1 AND 2?
Twice.
2005 UT-USC, 2002 tOSU-Miami
VT in 99 is the flaw, play a garbage schedule, finish unbeaten, have a shot at the NC. Nebraska in 99 was better that VT, they played a much better schedule, but lost 1 game at Texas. VT played 1 ranked team, #19 Miami.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News