- 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 5/9/12 at 11:34 pm to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:34 pm to RLDSC FAN
Well that's certainly what Delaney is hinting at with his obvious distaste for the polls.
He's not signing the Big 10 up for a playoff system which doesn't adequately assure his conference champion will be given a shot for the title.
The idea of a playoff assumes some type of fair play - some think fair play means the best teams based on our polling system regardless of conference affiliation and some think polls are too subjective and biased and that winning something on the field entitles you to compete for the big prize. Too much money is involved for the commissioners to leave this up to sportswriters and coaches.
He's not signing the Big 10 up for a playoff system which doesn't adequately assure his conference champion will be given a shot for the title.
quote:
"The polls don't always measure strength of schedule. Some conferences are playing nine games, some are playing eight. The Pac-12 is playing nine and then to go out and play a round-robin game against us, that's 10 and some of them are going to play Notre Dame - that's 11 difficult games. If they're ranked fifth in the country and they won a conference championship, I think that's quite an accomplishment. Some teams don't even win their own division. They started off highly in the rankings, lose early, don't play a championship game and they might end up at four."
The idea of a playoff assumes some type of fair play - some think fair play means the best teams based on our polling system regardless of conference affiliation and some think polls are too subjective and biased and that winning something on the field entitles you to compete for the big prize. Too much money is involved for the commissioners to leave this up to sportswriters and coaches.
0
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:35 pm to ohiovol
quote:
Then LSU beats the hell out of anyone stupid enough to challenge them and the SEC still wins. It's getting annoying hearing Delany trying to act as if he's sticking it to the SEC
I think the idea that Delany (or any one else) wants to "stick it" to the SEC is all in the heads of SEC fans. What he wants to avoid is not the SEC winning every year necessarily, just no one having 2 teams in the playoff.
I don't have a problem with the top 4 conference winners or the idea of top 4 conference winners having to all be in the top 6 make the playoff.
For the record: if you go just by top 4 since the BCS started in 1998, the Big XII would have had 2 teams in 3 times : 2001, 2004 and 2008, ETA: screwed the pooch on this one: SEC also has 3, 2006, 2008 and 2011. Point still stands, limiting to conference winners is not a plot to screw the SEC, its designed to get more conferences in.
This post was edited on 5/10/12 at 8:55 am
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:41 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
I see no problem with a team being eliminated from contention as the best team in the country after they don't finish as their conference best team
I agree with that, as long as its only a 4 team playoff. Any more teams than that and limiting it to only conference winners would be a farce.
Going back to 98 when the BCS started, the lowest ranked teams to make it would have been 2001 #8 10-1 Ill. 2003 #7 10-2 FSU and 2011 #10 Wisconsin.
Illinois going over Nebraska in 2001 is no big deal. I'd argue the rankings difference were in part due to the names on the helmets. 2003 OU dominated all year and were clearly a better team than FSU. That's exhibit A why I hate CCG. Even after losing that game, OU had the best record in the Big 12. It would be much better, IMO if they did away with CCG.
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:46 pm to TreyAnastasio
If you can't win your conference then you shouldn't have a chance to win the national title.
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:54 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
I want the 4 best teams in the country. I don't give a frick if they are all in the Mountain West.
What, other than opinion can you use to determine who the 4 best teams are? Its not like poker where we can see who has the best hand or pro sports where we can just take the teams with the best records. Having some objective standard and relying on more than circular logic is not a bad idea.
Most years it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
Posted on 5/9/12 at 11:55 pm to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
If you can't win your conference then you shouldn't have a chance to win the national title.
My only problem has ever been - with most of the major conferences splitting into divisions - is that you shouldn't be allowed to evade that extra Conference championship game and still be allowed to play for the title. If you're ranked #1 in all the polls all year and lose your conference title game - say like OU did years ago - and only drop a few places in the rankings because all the other teams have one or two losses - so be it. But you should have to qualify and have to play that extra title game when everyone else has to - for good or bad.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 12:50 am to Zamoro10
I understand what you are saying but last year would not have mattered.
LSU and Alabama were that much better than anyone else and it really wasn't close. So all that would be different is LSU would have won.
He would still be mad because they are from the conference where as he stated the perception is the best conference.
My .02
LSU and Alabama were that much better than anyone else and it really wasn't close. So all that would be different is LSU would have won.
He would still be mad because they are from the conference where as he stated the perception is the best conference.
My .02
Posted on 5/10/12 at 12:52 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Zamoro10
Honest question. I know you still have to play the game too know but do you think anybody outside of LSU would have beat Alabama last year?
I ask because even though they were not SEC Champions that Alabama squad was one of the best teams This decade.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 12:57 am to LaBornNRaised
quote:
Honest question. I know you still have to play the game too know but do you think anybody outside of LSU would have beat Alabama last year?
No...I watched enough of Okie State and Stanford and USC...the potential contenders (I don't think Oregon matched up at all with them) - Andrew Luck would have had to have had an amazing game and controlled the ball with short passing...but Stanford's D against the run would have made it moot.
But I'm not a commissioner and money is involved and everyone wants a chance at the piece of the pie. Once you're locked in - they don't want to be at the mercy of the "eyeball test" or public perception.
This post was edited on 5/10/12 at 12:59 am
Posted on 5/10/12 at 8:23 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
I see no problem with a team being eliminated from contention as the best team in the country after they don't finish as their conference best team.
Agree, and that's effectivly always how it's been. Alabama's different though.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 8:29 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
What, other than opinion can you use to determine who the 4 best teams are? Its not like poker where we can see who has the best hand or pro sports where we can just take the teams with the best records. Having some objective standard and relying on more than circular logic is not a bad idea.
Precisely. The Big 10 proposal is clearly the best on the table, and it effectively balances the conference champ issues while still providing an "at large" avenue that I don't find too objectionable. It's a good compromise plan.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:05 am to Zamoro10
the more i think about this idea really benefits an independent team like notre dame, which will likely qualify automatically with a top 6 ranking. the only way they don’t qualify is if four conference champs are ranked ahead of them (which will likely never will happen)
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:17 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Delany
Im not a fan but in this case he's right
if it's a four team deal, only conference champs should be in, last year was fraudulent and a media fricking circus
champs only ends that bullshitte, which I support 100%
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:35 am to Baloo
quote:
Precisely. The Big 10 proposal is clearly the best on the table, and it effectively balances the conference champ issues while still providing an "at large" avenue that I don't find too objectionable. It's a good compromise plan.
The problem is that Alabama would not be in under the caveat Delany added about having to win your division. I'm not sure why people are missing that subtle change. If he was advocating that higher ranked at large teams that didn't win their conference go ahead of conference winners not ranked in the Top 6 then I agree that's a very fair compromise. The problem is that he just tried to sneak the "win your division" argument in there which would have excluded both Alabama and Stanford in favor of Wisconsin because they'd be the next highest conference winner because nobody else ranked in the Top 6 either won their conference or even won their division (see Alabama and Stanford). Boise State may have been eligible for the 4th spot even though they didn't win their conference due to semantics of them not being in a division within their conference.
The having to win your conference and be in the Top 6 is actually a pretty good setup. The have to win your division basically cancels out that very caveat because in almost every case this situation will involve a 1 loss team in the same division as one of the BCS playoff participants. It won't ever involve teams from separate divisions because those teams would always end up playing each other in a conference championship game. Incredibly sneaky move by Delany and he's a moron if he thinks Slive and others are stupid enough to fall for that rule. He basically offers a compromise then adds a caveat that would totally cancel out the compromise he just proposed.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:36 am to rocket31
quote:
the only way they don’t qualify is if four conference champs are ranked ahead of them (which will likely never will happen)
Since 98 when the BCS started, the top 4 in the BCS were all conference winners, or conference co champs at least, 5 times: 99, 00, 02, 07, 09.
3 other times its 4 of the top 5: 98, 04, 10.
The highest Notre Dame has finished since then #6, ONCE in 2005
Though they would have gotten in that year, thanks to UGA(/Katrina/Rita) beating LSU in the SEC CG. How often has a loss helped a team in the rankings like the UCS loss did for ND? Playoff game would have been a rematch of the "Bush Push" game.
I think being Indy is neutral in this system, it won't be a benefit though, could be a negative. You and the rest of the domers can cling to the past, but overall you'd be better off in a conference.
This post was edited on 5/10/12 at 9:38 am
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:36 am to stapuffmarshy
quote:
Im not a fan but in this case he's right
if it's a four team deal, only conference champs should be in, last year was fraudulent and a media fricking circus
champs only ends that bullshitete, which I support 100%
Except that LSU fans would be raising absolute hell last year if they lost 9-6 in OT at Bama and were left out of Delaney's playoff in favor of Oregon and Wisconsin.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:41 am to Govt Tide
quote:
The problem is that Alabama would not be in under the caveat Delany added about having to win your division
That's only a problem to Alabama fans
quote:
I'm not sure why people are missing that subtle change
I'm not and I agree its uneccesary. The original proposal of top 4 conference winners in the top 6 is the best. Could be he's offering this new caveat to have something to negotiate out?
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:45 am to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
If you can't win your conference then you shouldn't have a chance to win the national title.
If you can't finish in the top 6 then you should have no shot at a national title.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:48 am to Govt Tide
quote:
Except that LSU fans would be raising absolute hell last year if they lost 9-6 in OT at Bama and were left out of Delaney's playoff in favor of Oregon and Wisconsin.
Yeah, so? Since when is the potential reaction of LSU fans a justification for rejecting something involving CFB at large? If LSU lost that game and Bama played OSU, they would have griped. At then end of the day, if you lose, you run the risk of not controling your own destiny. Under the top 6 plan, LSU would have been out in 2006 and yes, some LSU fans would have bithced, at which point, you could mention to them we should have scored more than 3 at Auburn.
If you just go top 4, Wisconsin fans can gripe about being left out in favor of Stanford in 2010. No matter what size playoff you use in CFB, some one is going to get left out, whether its #5, #9, #17, someone will whine about how they were better than someone else that got in. The reason the top 6 plan or just top 4 conference winners is a good one is it gives us at some objective standard to use, not just an opinion poll.
This post was edited on 5/10/12 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 5/10/12 at 9:52 am to H-Town Tiger
I actually don't have a problem with the stipulation that you must win your conference, but I just think it's funny that everyone was bitching about Bama getting in when they were clearly the only team who was remotely on LSU's level.
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News