- 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: Big 10 Commish - 2011 Bama wouldn't make playoff
Posted on 5/13/12 at 8:43 pm to secfan123
Posted on 5/13/12 at 8:43 pm to secfan123
Can someone please explain to me why everyone keeps harping on Alabama's loss to LSU as an "elimination" loss while Okie State's loss somehow wasn't'? Of all the weird logic people used in their desperation to keep Alabama out of the BCS title game that was the most bizzare of all. Anti rematchers went so far as totally ignoring the fact that OSU even lost a game in the first place.
As for the lowest rated team to make the team, I clearly stated I was using a very possible what if scenario with Oregon/UCLA. If Oregon would have blown that game then either TCU or Clemson, or West Virginia would have gotten in under Delaney's proposal. Hence, my point about the #18 ranked team playing for it all.
As for the lowest rated team to make the team, I clearly stated I was using a very possible what if scenario with Oregon/UCLA. If Oregon would have blown that game then either TCU or Clemson, or West Virginia would have gotten in under Delaney's proposal. Hence, my point about the #18 ranked team playing for it all.
2
Posted on 5/13/12 at 9:52 pm to Govt Tide
It's interesting that you keep insisting about this so called 18th ranked champion while ignoring the fact that Delaney also calls for each team to be ranked in the top 6.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 11:04 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
Can someone please explain to me why everyone keeps harping on Alabama's loss to LSU as an "elimination" loss while Okie State's loss somehow wasn't'? Of all the weird logic people used in their desperation to keep Alabama out of the BCS title game that was the most bizzare of all
You connect the conferences by letting the champions play each other instead of subjectively saying that one conference is better and deserves both participants.
Why can't people understand that? Why is it that people do not understand that there are a shite ton of teams and arguing for the stupidity of last season just ignores basically the whole country?
Damn I know Bama fans want to defend their shite, but the stupidity of last season was so obvious. Just step back and look at the process of saying that one conference is necessarily head and shoulders above another every damn year.
I think the SEC is the best, but I understand I am bias and that it isn't fair to just dismiss every other team in the country not from the SEC.
A good example is what happened in 2006. Now yes AU was better than Iowa St., but I think the thing holds true that it made more sense to match up the two best conference champions. Now if Bama was the only major conference team with one loss in 2011 then that would have made more sense.
And no I would not feel differently if LSU was in the same situation. I knew LSU basically was out of it on 10/5 if they lost (I knew Bama wasn't going to completely fall apart late in the season).
This post was edited on 5/13/12 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 5/13/12 at 11:47 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
You connect the conferences by letting the champions play each other instead of subjectively saying that one conference is better and deserves both participants.
That's an admirable goal, but until all conferences are equal, there shouldn't be equal representation in the post season.
You're basing the ticket into the postseason on an uneven system. Some conferences are shite tier, some are really good, some have championship games some do not, and there is the small matter of independents to deal with. You don't have to be an SEC homer to know all this.
Delaney's plan isn't the worst idea I've heard, but I still think it's CFB welfare for teams that have no business playing for a title.
This post was edited on 5/13/12 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 5/14/12 at 12:02 am to attheua
quote:
Delaney's plan isn't the worst idea I've heard, but I still think it's CFB welfare for teams that have no business playing for a title.
1) Conference power is cyclical - no major conference commish is going to lock themselves into a new-era BCS 10 year deal based on today's perception - everyone needs to make money.
2) You still have to prove it on the field every year instead of letting perception be your voting friend - pollsters often go by last year and reputation.
3) It's a large country with a lot of football - there's no true playoff post-season if you shut out major conferences - otherwise why have a playoff or even a playoff game...just simply cast your subjective vote - the whole point of a playoff is to evolve away from that broken system.
This post was edited on 5/14/12 at 12:03 am
Posted on 5/14/12 at 12:12 am to Colonel Flagg
That's a fair statement Colonel but am I really being that unreasonable to point out the differences between 2011 Alabama and even 2006 Florida when compared to 2006 Michigan? 2006 Florida and 2011 Alabama had multiple games left following their lone loss while Michigan lost their very last game which knocked them out. The exact same thing happened to 2008 Alabama and 2009 Florida and I had absolutely zero problem missing the title game that year. People keep bringing up 2006 Michigan when that situation was very different from 2011 Alabama. 2006 Michigan was identical to 2008 Alabama and 2009 Florida when all those teams went into their very last game as the #1 team and lost. 2011 Alabama was more similar to 2008 Texas which was a couple of the right upsets away from a rematch with Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. 2011 was a strange anomaly where literally every viable contender for #2 had ugly losses very late in the season. Alabama was ranked #3 on Nov 6th and the #2, #4, #5, and #6 ranked teams all lost in following weeks making it almost impossible for voters NOT to vote Alabama #2.
As for those saying Alabama would be in a playoff under Delaney's proposal, the thread title itself says otherwise because of the weird division winner provision that basically makes the top 6 requirement for conference winners unnecessary. Simply removing this requirement would allow for a single wildcard team in years where only 3 of the top 4 conference winners are in the top 6 of the final poll. That seems like a nice compromise between those that insist on simply taking the top 4 of the BCS and those strictly wanting conference winners only. It would limit the 4 teams to the top 6 ranked teams too which just seems like common sense.
As for those saying Alabama would be in a playoff under Delaney's proposal, the thread title itself says otherwise because of the weird division winner provision that basically makes the top 6 requirement for conference winners unnecessary. Simply removing this requirement would allow for a single wildcard team in years where only 3 of the top 4 conference winners are in the top 6 of the final poll. That seems like a nice compromise between those that insist on simply taking the top 4 of the BCS and those strictly wanting conference winners only. It would limit the 4 teams to the top 6 ranked teams too which just seems like common sense.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 2:53 am to attheua
quote:
That's an admirable goal, but until all conferences are equal, there shouldn't be equal representation in the post season.
As far as the SEC, Big 12, PAC 12, Big 10, and ACC I will easily respect their conference champion in the format and from outside perspective understand treating them equally. All the champions will play the same atleast 9 conferences games. So all the participants in the playoffs are required to play a minimum of 9 BCS conference opponents.
This post was edited on 5/14/12 at 2:59 am
Posted on 5/14/12 at 2:59 am to attheua
quote:
You connect the conferences by letting the champions play each other instead of subjectively saying that one conference is better and deserves both participants.
That's an admirable goal, but until all conferences are equal, there shouldn't be equal representation in the post season.
If anything all the objective metrics told us teh big 12 was teh best conference overall last year - and all the prognosticators have told us teams like miami and usc would never lose, or a powerhouse like tOSU would never lose to florida
You're supposed to play the game so you can see what Ok State would have done
Posted on 5/14/12 at 3:50 am to Govt Tide
quote:
People keep bringing up 2006 Michigan when that situation was very different from 2011 Alabama.
The only difference was timing(which has been ignored in the past when it didn't favor an SEC school). And of course Michigan lost on the road while Alabama lost at home.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 7:50 am to secfan123
quote:
Youre assuming upsets never happen. Was Kentucky better than LSU when they beat them in 07?
LOL. So, here you are, still insulting other posters, when YOU can't see the difference of a rematch in a CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME as opposed to a rematch in the BCSNCG?
Yes, in 2007, KY was obviously better than LSU. They beat LSU in 3OTs. As an LSU fan, I have to accept that.
I'm just still laughing at you and other Bama fans trying to justify an Divisional Rematch in a National Championship game. That's funny to me. And not just justifying the illogical, but doing so while insulting the rest of us who realize just how bogus it all was.
Again, more power to your entitled/media darling program. I hope you get to sit at home next December and watch the SECCG again while your coach is on Sportscenter all day getting fellated. All the while, ESPN is running segments on "if XXX team loses the SECCG today, do they have the right to rematch Bama, who wasn't even good enough to make it into this SECCG today? Coach Saban, what do you think of that"? Can you say "entitlement"?
That's all perfectly normal stuff in CFB today, right? These types of logic leaps are what CFB fans want to avoid in the future. It is an insult to every other program's fan's intelligence. It is literally CFB bizzaro world.
(See, this is what this thread is really about, but again, you won't see that because your team is one of the few that benefits from this type of stupidity).
This post was edited on 5/14/12 at 7:53 am
Posted on 5/14/12 at 9:11 am to Zamoro10
quote:
some of them are going to play Notre Dame - that's 11 difficult games
ORLY??? ND is a difficult game these days? The SEC is laughing hard at this
Posted on 5/14/12 at 9:47 am to Wishnitwas1998
Any playoff that would leave out the number 2 team in the polls is just begging for a split championship.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 9:48 am to Zamoro10
quote:I don't blame him. Why would any other conference sign off on two SEC teams every year in a four team playoff?
Non-division champs shouldn't make playoff
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:19 am to Stadium Rat
quote:
Any playoff that would leave out the number 2 team in the polls is just begging for a split championship.
After what we have dealt with for all these years I will be happy with any type of playoff but I think the only way to do it is by the BCS rankings.
If u do conference champs you would have to either make it a larger, say 8 team playoff, or u have to figure out which conference is let in and which isnt
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:19 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
trying to justify an Divisional Rematch in a National Championship game.
I really thought the voters would not let this happen. I mean you have a 1 loss conference champion, and you have a 1 loss division loser. I guess the rematch makes more sense.
If Okie St got in and waxed LSU, we would all look pretty stupid for considering a rematch, just like 2006. Problem: we will never know.
This post was edited on 5/14/12 at 10:21 am
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:21 am to alajones
quote:
I don't blame him. Why would any other conference sign off on two SEC teams every year in a four team playoff
:rimshot:
Using just the top 4. The SEC would have had 2 teams in 3 times : 06, 08, 11.
The B1G would have had 2 teams twice: 05, 06.
The Big XII would have had 2 teams 3 times : 01, 04, 08.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:24 am to H-Town Tiger
It's a recent trend.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:24 am to Stadium Rat
quote:
Any playoff that would leave out the number 2 team in the polls is just begging for a split championship.
Yeah, good thing that could never happen now
If the playoff becomes an offical NCAA title, which its not now, then it won't matter what the AP does. The AP can vote whoever they want #1 in basketball.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:26 am to alajones
quote:
It's a recent trend.
My bad, I didn't realize recent = indefinate.
Posted on 5/14/12 at 10:38 am to H-Town Tiger
Everyone is talking about the money, rightfully so because it pulls the strings, but for equality, why not split the money from the playoff among the conferences? That way in no one cycle [like the SEC's current run]. does a particular conference profit.
I realize this has issues too, like which conferences to include and independents, but I think splitting the revenue could be a better solution than weird rules to ensure revenue.
I realize this has issues too, like which conferences to include and independents, but I think splitting the revenue could be a better solution than weird rules to ensure revenue.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News