- 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 5/12/12 at 8:53 am to EZE Tiger Fan
Posted on 5/12/12 at 8:53 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
A media darling didn't get its way because.....drum roll....it played a WEAK schedule. So, what did the media do to account for one of their darlings getting left out? Had the formula changed and "quality wins" removed from the formula. Now, in 2012, thanks to another media darling (Bama), "quality losses" is now part of the lexicon of CFB.
A team that lost their conference championship game by a large margin got in and now you're saying it was a good system. OU got blown out in the Big 12 title game.
quote:
Now, in 2012, thanks to another media darling (Bama), "quality losses" is now part of the lexicon of CFB.
You don't think people look and say, "Wow, I bet Bama would never lose to Iowa State?" Who you lose to does matter.
quote:
You stated it brought us to a playoff. I'm asking a question. What playoff? When does it start? Oh yeah. There isn't one.
Because they haven't voted on the final system yet. But there is one coming obviously.
quote:
Just wait. 2012 will be a clusterfrick of epic proportions now. I do blame LSU partially for this though. Had we beaten the darling last year, a lot of this worry of fricking up CFB until a playoff is implemented would have been removed. But LSU didn't, which honestly didn't surprise me. It's hard to beat a top 3 team twice, much less one from your same division. ESPN knew this, as did the rest of the media. They needed to be proven right, though, since they were proven wrong in November of 2011. "The Game of the Century" was supposed to be Bama's coronation. Didn't happen, but they sure showed the country in the end. ESPN got Bama their unprecedented Mulligan and the world was right again.
Instead of blaming ESPN you should blame Miles and Jefferson like everyone else.
BUt that wasn't the only rematch of 1/2 in history so it wasn't unprecedented either.
quote:
We are. Sort of. I'll never forget ESPN finally "coming clean" on the Bowl selection show when they showed your resume next to OSU's resume AFTER they got the Mulligan they wanted. It wasn't close. OSU had beaten 7 or 8 bowl teams, something like 7 in the top 30, won the conference, etc. All of the sudden, it was now about this new "quality loss" thing no one had heard of before 2011.
They played the same number of BCS top 25. Bama had a better quality win. Their loss was also better. Bama beat 6 bowl teams (7 after LSU). You're blaming ESPN but the BCS turned out to be right. Bama should have been in the game and they dominated. It is hard to say the polls were that wrong when the number 2 team dismantles number one and doesn't let them score a point. You can boohoo the system but it invited a team that out-classed the top team.
quote:
I LOLed. Good stuff, but more power to you. You got your Mulligan and dominated. You can also rest easy knowing LSU will NEVER be allowed to repay you for that either. But that's another thread for another time.
You LOL'd because you're arguing with passion instead of facts.
1
Posted on 5/12/12 at 8:54 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Wouldn't these be quality losses? LOLOLOL
A loss to Kentucky is a quality loss. Anyone care to chime in on this... Tennesseee maybe?
Edit: Kentucky lost 5 games that year which is better than Iowa State this year.
Arkansas also lost 5 games that year.
Alabama lost to a team that ended up with 1 loss. LSU lost to two teams that combined for 10 losses. Quality!!!!
quote:
And 1-3 trumps your 2011 team big time. But you knew this already.
If you say it enough, then it might come true I suppose.
This post was edited on 5/12/12 at 9:01 am
Posted on 5/12/12 at 10:24 am to TreyAnastasio
quote:
Message Posted by TreyAnastasio I want the 4 best teams in the country. I don't give a frick if they are all in the Mountain West.
Problem you will never know if those are in fact the 4 best teams. Just like Ohio state v Michigan near rematch year. Everyone thought those two teams were the best teams all year, and Florida waxed Ohio states arse.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 11:24 am to Colonel Flagg
This is utter frickin BS and you know it. LSU would have definitely without ANY doubt whatsoever been in the BCS title game last year if they would have lost 9-6 in OT on Nov 5th. LSU fans arguing otherwise are either being disingenuous or have completely lost their frickin minds.
Do some of you not realize all that happened in the weeks following the first Bama/LSU that led to the rematch? Alabama was #4 after the loss. The #2, #3, #5, and #6 ranked teams all lost in the following weeks. Under those exact same circumstances, there is no way the LSU/Bama loser on Nov 5th wasn't going to end up in the BCS title game. That includes LSU if they would have lost in OT on Nov 5th. The fact that some of you are trying to argue otherwise borders on childishness.
Do some of you not realize all that happened in the weeks following the first Bama/LSU that led to the rematch? Alabama was #4 after the loss. The #2, #3, #5, and #6 ranked teams all lost in the following weeks. Under those exact same circumstances, there is no way the LSU/Bama loser on Nov 5th wasn't going to end up in the BCS title game. That includes LSU if they would have lost in OT on Nov 5th. The fact that some of you are trying to argue otherwise borders on childishness.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 11:42 am to Govt Tide
Your major problem is you are trying to design a system so that the 2011 Alabama team will win the title. Well, they already did, and regardless of the system going forward, nothing will change that. Trying to design a system to preserve a title that has already occurred is beyond ridiculous. You won the title, and no one is trying to change that.
But what we got was a title game that hardly anyone watched, that was a rematch of teams that had already played, won by a team that failed to win its own division who played a weak schedule, and left out in the cold viable title contenders. Alabama got in the title game over Okie St based on opinion polls, not any objective criteria, and people are questioning the legitimacy of the BCS. We’re not inventing the demand for a playoff system.
Also, let’s not pretend Bama’s title wasn’t incredibly radical. It’s the first national title won by a team that failed to win its conference since the 1950s. That’s half a century of football tradition that has been broken. Now, the BCS continually put teams that failed to win their conference in the title game, so it was only a matter of time before one won the national title, but Alabama finally breaking through was incredibly radical.
Conference titles used to be MORE valuable than the national title, even in my own lifetime. That is clearly not the case now. People arguing for a playoff are now trying to argue FOR tradition and a more meaningful regular season, not vice versa. Those clinging to the BCS or non-conference champs competing for the MNC are the radicals who have devalued the regular season. I want only conference champs because CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS MATTER. That is what the regular season is about – winning your conference. Now, because I’m a reasonable guy, I’m willing to swallow Delaney’s compromise proposal because it preserves the value of conference championships, but still gives an opportunity to all of those that went an “at large” team.
Seriously, win your friggin’ conference or shut up. And this is not a new opinion for me. You can check the archives and see I’ve argued for conference champions only for as long as this board has existed.
But what we got was a title game that hardly anyone watched, that was a rematch of teams that had already played, won by a team that failed to win its own division who played a weak schedule, and left out in the cold viable title contenders. Alabama got in the title game over Okie St based on opinion polls, not any objective criteria, and people are questioning the legitimacy of the BCS. We’re not inventing the demand for a playoff system.
Also, let’s not pretend Bama’s title wasn’t incredibly radical. It’s the first national title won by a team that failed to win its conference since the 1950s. That’s half a century of football tradition that has been broken. Now, the BCS continually put teams that failed to win their conference in the title game, so it was only a matter of time before one won the national title, but Alabama finally breaking through was incredibly radical.
Conference titles used to be MORE valuable than the national title, even in my own lifetime. That is clearly not the case now. People arguing for a playoff are now trying to argue FOR tradition and a more meaningful regular season, not vice versa. Those clinging to the BCS or non-conference champs competing for the MNC are the radicals who have devalued the regular season. I want only conference champs because CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS MATTER. That is what the regular season is about – winning your conference. Now, because I’m a reasonable guy, I’m willing to swallow Delaney’s compromise proposal because it preserves the value of conference championships, but still gives an opportunity to all of those that went an “at large” team.
Seriously, win your friggin’ conference or shut up. And this is not a new opinion for me. You can check the archives and see I’ve argued for conference champions only for as long as this board has existed.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 12:03 pm to Baloo
quote:
But what we got was a title game that hardly anyone watched, that was a rematch of teams that had already played, won by a team that failed to win its own division who played a weak schedule, and left out in the cold viable title contenders. Alabama got in the title game over Okie St based on opinion polls, not any objective criteria, and people are questioning the legitimacy of the BCS. We’re not inventing the demand for a playoff system.
Also, let’s not pretend Bama’s title wasn’t incredibly radical. It’s the first national title won by a team that failed to win its conference since the 1950s. That’s half a century of football tradition that has been broken.
This needs to be stickied and read before all BCS discussions - and memorized by all Bama fans so they get their heads out of their asses and stop arguing against good progressive change from this new playoff idea simply because they benefited last year from the status quo and have tiny mouse brains and can't see past that toward the future.
And Bama fan is coming across as quite frightful of ever being good enough to win the SEC outright and get invited to the BCS playoff...funny how all powerful Bama is clamoring for "extra wild card teams" like litte bitch Boise. Need help from your friends in the polls eh?
ETA:
(And in the history of CFB - only two teams who were members of a conference and failed to win that conference won the MNC.)
1936 Minnesota Gophers
2011 Alabama
1936 was the first year the AP poll declared a champion...subjective opinion polls started out dodgy and apparently will end just as dodgy with Bama...time to dump 'em folks!
This post was edited on 5/12/12 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 5/12/12 at 12:23 pm to Zamoro10
Just FYI, myself and other Bama fans aren't arguing against changes and progress. We just think there needs to be a "wildcard" mechanism with no conference winner/division winner requirement to account for teams like 2011 Alabama, 2009 Florida, 2008 Texas, 2007 Georgia, and 2006 Michigan. Any playoff system that allows a non top 10 team in a playoff over ANY one of these teams is a joke.
In short, if Delaney would simply drop the "must be a division winner" requirement and require that conference champs have to be in the top 6 in the final poll (his compromised proposal) then I think that's a compromise everyone will gladly accept. In other words, if Wisconsin would have had 1 regular season loss and finished #5 in the final poll they would have gone ahead of Alabama I could live with a reasonable set up like that.
In short, if Delaney would simply drop the "must be a division winner" requirement and require that conference champs have to be in the top 6 in the final poll (his compromised proposal) then I think that's a compromise everyone will gladly accept. In other words, if Wisconsin would have had 1 regular season loss and finished #5 in the final poll they would have gone ahead of Alabama I could live with a reasonable set up like that.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 12:24 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
You left out losing to two unranked teams at the end of the season.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 12:47 pm to Baloo
quote:
Also, let’s not pretend Bama’s title wasn’t incredibly radical. It’s the first national title won by a team that failed to win its conference since the 1950s. That’s half a century of football tradition that has been broken. Now, the BCS continually put teams that failed to win their conference in the title game, so it was only a matter of time before one won the national title, but Alabama finally breaking through was incredibly radical.
Well that is a little disingenuous. Teams that have competed for the title would be a better measure. Oklahoma could have won it in 2003 as a non conference champ, but it worked out. Just like it worked out in the 1992 SEC championship rematch. Face it LSU wins last year and your stat doesn't matter.
I agree with most everything else you said though. But the fact that the non conference winner is rare, doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened more. The system took care of itself by the conference champ winning.
This post was edited on 5/12/12 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 5/12/12 at 12:51 pm to Govt Tide
You don't think SOME MINIMUM threshold requirement of on-field performance as a measurement is required?
If Conference winners is too drastic because of the large conferences...why is division winners too burdersome??? Seriously, you're not better than 5 other teams but you want to be national champ...and you escape the burden of having to play an extra quality opponent?
At least division winner forces more whittling of the fat...narrowing it down by forcing participation in the Conference Title game...now lets say Bama or USC were 11-0 before their conference title game and lost? Obviously that would be factored into still letting them into the playoff as an 11-1 at large...but at least they won something on the field to differentiate them from EVERYONE ELSE! Their damn division.
If Conference winners is too drastic because of the large conferences...why is division winners too burdersome??? Seriously, you're not better than 5 other teams but you want to be national champ...and you escape the burden of having to play an extra quality opponent?
At least division winner forces more whittling of the fat...narrowing it down by forcing participation in the Conference Title game...now lets say Bama or USC were 11-0 before their conference title game and lost? Obviously that would be factored into still letting them into the playoff as an 11-1 at large...but at least they won something on the field to differentiate them from EVERYONE ELSE! Their damn division.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:05 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
You don't think SOME MINIMUM threshold requirement of on-field performance as a measurement is required?
Had it been conference champs last year oregon would have gotten a rematch over alabama despite the fact that LSU fricking waxed them. Face it, winning the PAC 10 dont mean shite.
quote:
If Conference winners is too drastic because of the large conferences...why is division winners too burdersome???
because sometimes the two best teams are in the same division. or does a shite heap like wisconsin get a chance last year because they won a shite heap conference?
quote:
Seriously, you're not better than 5 other teams but you want to be national champ...and you escape the burden of having to play an extra quality opponent?
A conference winner might mean you're not better than 10 or so teams, like wisconsin last year. If other conferences were as good as the SEC, you might have an argument.
quote:
At least division winner forces more whittling of the fat...narrowing it down by forcing participation in the Conference Title game...now lets say Bama or USC were 11-0 before their conference title game and lost? Obviously that would be factored into still letting them into the playoff as an 11-1 at large...but at least they won something on the field to differentiate them from EVERYONE ELSE! Their damn division
the SEC west had as many top five finishers last year as the PAC 10 has had the last THREE seasons.
This post was edited on 5/12/12 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:12 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Well that is a little disingenuous. Teams that have competed for the title would be a better measure. Oklahoma could have won it in 2003 as a non conference champ, but it worked out. Just like it worked out in the 1992 SEC championship rematch. Face it LSU wins last year and your stat doesn't matter.
If you'll note the part you quoted, I mentioned this fact. The BCS has repeatedly given title shots to non-conference champs, and it was only a matter of time one won the title. This was not a bug, but a feature. And that is the #1 problem with the BCS.
If the BCS kept putting teams which failed to win their conference in the title game, one was going to win eventually.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:14 pm to Baloo
quote:
Your major problem is you are trying to design a system so that the 2011 Alabama team will win the title
2011 is clearly skewing peoples view and in fairness its not just Bama fans. Using the "eyeball" test, LSU and Alabama certainly looked like the 2 best teams. Even if everyone agrees, though the more objective computer formulas ranked OSU over Bama, people need to realize, not every year is like 2011. 2011 was the outlier.
Lets look at 2008 instead: Florida, OU, UT, Bama and USC all finished with 1 loss and 11 or 12 wins. Utah was #6 at 12-0. WITHOUT factoring in bowl results, who were the 4 best teams? How do you determine which 4 those were? We've not playing cards, where an Ace>King>Queen. What criteria do you use to pick 4 from that group of 6 that's remotely objective? More years are going to look like that than 2011.
quote:
Conference titles used to be MORE valuable than the national title, even in my own lifetime. That is clearly not the case now. People arguing for a playoff are now trying to argue FOR tradition and a more meaningful regular season, not vice versa.
This is the saddest thing about our current sports culture, the win the championship or you're a failure mentality. The reason I've defended the BCS in the past is because I want the regular season to matter more. In most sports its just about seeding. That's a shame to me. Winning your conference should matter. Its really a shame to see SEC fans boast so much about you great the SEC is to now belittle winning it.
quote:
I want only conference champs because CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS MATTER. That is what the regular season is about – winning your conference
At the risk of sounding like we have a mutual admiration society going in this thread, I 100% agree with this post. The one good thing about the old, pre BCS systems is that winning your conference was the main goal.
quote:
eriously, win your friggin’ conference or shut up. And this is not a new opinion for me.
Ill vouch for him, he has always said that. I've long said my favorite playoff system was the old MLB format. 4 divisions of 6-7 teams win it and make the LCS, don't and too bad. The 93 Giants won 102 games, the 1980 O's won 100 and neither made the playoffs. Some how the world keep spinning. You should win something other than an opinion poll to play for the ultimate title.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:15 pm to secfan123
quote:
because sometimes the two best teams are in the same division. or does a shite heap like wisconsin get a chance last year because they won a shite heap conference?
And we know this how?
And yes, the BIg 10 champ should get a shot, just like everyone else in the big conferences...they WON something ON THE FIELD...they are a part of college football's elite major conferences.
Playoffs have no use for subjective "eyeball test" pandering.
You want in - WIN!
And we need to stop caring about crowning the "subjective best team" - doesn't happen in the playoffs...we are trying to find the playoff teams...if you are part of conference and can't win your division then go independent if you want to DANCE. But dammit, only winning something on the field is a fair way to separate the 4-6 participants in a playoff from everyone else.
///
This post was edited on 5/12/12 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:16 pm to secfan123
quote:
Had it been conference champs last year oregon would have gotten a rematch over alabama despite the fact that LSU fricking waxed them. Face it, winning the PAC 10 dont mean shite.
So instead you'd reward Stanford for playing an easy schedule. That is how the BCS works -- there are too many disincentives to a tough schedule. The cross-regional OOC game is on life support.
quote:
because sometimes the two best teams are in the same division. or does a shite heap like wisconsin get a chance last year because they won a shite heap conference?
Bama had a shot and lost. AT HOME. Tough noogies. Win your conference. And since when does the Big Ten suck? If the Big Ten sucks, essentially you are arguing there is only one good conference. So why have a MNC game and just declare the SEC winner the champion?
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:24 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
2011 Alabama, 2009 Florida, 2008 Texas, 2007 Georgia, and 2006 Michigan.
2009 UF and 2007 UGA were not even in the top 4 in those years. Those 2 have no case. Of the rest only 2008 Texas imo has a mild case given the way they didn't "win their conference. I s leaving out 11-1 06 UM for 11-1 Louisville that bad?
quote:
Any playoff system that allows a non top 10 team in a playoff over ANY one of these teams is a joke.
In the 14 years of the BCS, the lowest ranked team that would have made it as a conference winner would have been 2011 Wisconsin at #10 and they were 11-2, and lets face part of the reason they were #10 is that they lost 2 in a row. If their loses were spread out like Oregon, they probably would have been a couple of spots higher. The next lowest would have been #8 Illinois in 2001 and they were 10-1 and #7 10-2 FSU.
quote:
if Delaney would simply drop the "must be a division winner" requirement and require that conference champs have to be in the top 6 in the final poll (his compromised proposal) then I think that's a compromise everyone will gladly accept
The division winner thing is stupid. Either stick with conference winners or don't. Silly to say LSU and Bama can't both be in, but Florida after losing to Bama in the SEC CG can still be in.
I do like the top 6 idea, it preserves the value of winning your conference, but still leaves an opening for great teams that don't.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:28 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
2011 is clearly skewing peoples view and in fairness its not just Bama fans. Using the "eyeball" test, LSU and Alabama certainly looked like the 2 best teams. Even if everyone agrees, though the more objective computer formulas ranked OSU over Bama, people need to realize, not every year is like 2011. 2011 was the outlier.
To say computer polls are more objective is laughable. The only thing a computer does is measure its programmers subjective criteria. Plus, without margin of victory, the computer polls give one team the same credit for beating a shitty school by a point as another team for waxing said shitty school. They are most certainly not "objective"- they merely pretend to be. they have the same biases as the person who selected their criteria.
quote:
Lets look at 2008 instead: Florida, OU, UT, Bama and USC all finished with 1 loss and 11 or 12 wins. Utah was #6 at 12-0. WITHOUT factoring in bowl results, who were the 4 best teams? How do you determine which 4 those were? We've not playing cards, where an Ace>King>Queen. What criteria do you use to pick 4 from that group of 6 that's remotely objective? More years are going to look like that than 2011.
And?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference titles used to be MORE valuable than the national title, even in my own lifetime. That is clearly not the case now. People arguing for a playoff are now trying to argue FOR tradition and a more meaningful regular season, not vice versa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, unless you are a michigan fan, this has never been the case.
quote:
This is the saddest thing about our current sports culture, the win the championship or you're a failure mentality. The reason I've defended the BCS in the past is because I want the regular season to matter more. In most sports its just about seeding. That's a shame to me. Winning your conference should matter. Its really a shame to see SEC fans boast so much about you great the SEC is to now belittle winning it.
This is kinda dumb. A four team playoff will not affect the regular season, nor will it diminish the conference champion. The fact is, conferences arent built the same. The BCS has definitely taught us that. To value winnign a sub par conference over finishing second in a much stronger conference is ludicrous, and has only been put forward by the big 10 because they have failed so miserably in championships scenarios where they only have to face one SEC team. Having to face two will make it even harder for them to win a title.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want only conference champs because CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS MATTER. That is what the regular season is about – winning your conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
At the risk of sounding like we have a mutual admiration society going in this thread, I 100% agree with this post. The one good thing about the old, pre BCS systems is that winning your conference was the main goal.
Winning your conference was the main goal? Only for teams who didnt think they could win a national title. winning your conference will still matter. IT just might not matter enough to get you in a playoff because your conference may blow.
quote:
quote:
Ill vouch for him, he has always said that. I've long said my favorite playoff system was the old MLB format. 4 divisions of 6-7 teams win it and make the LCS, don't and too bad. The 93 Giants won 102 games, the 1980 O's won 100 and neither made the playoffs. Some how the world keep spinning. You should win something other than an opinion poll to play for the ultimate title.
win the title game or shut up. Thinking winning an inferior conference should be enough to get you in a playoff is asanine.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:34 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
And we know this how?
because ok state needed a field goal to beat an ok stanford team. it aint rocket science.
quote:
And yes, the BIg 10 champ should get a shot,
Why? the big 10 blew last year.
quote:
just like everyone else in the big conferences...they WON something ON THE FIELD...they are a part of college football's elite major conferences.
Bama won 11 games on the field, which is damn sure more than any team in the big 10 could claim.
quote:
Playoffs have no use for subjective "eyeball test" pandering.
They have no use for idiots who think all conferences are the same either.
quote:
You want in - WIN!
We did. We won enough to get second place. We didnt get waxed by LSU or oregon, nor did we loses to a shitty iowa state team.
quote:
And we need to stop caring about crowning the "subjective best team" - doesn't happen in the playoffs...
Care to tell me if laast years superbowl champion won thier division? did the winner of the world series win theirs?
quote:
we are trying to find the playoff teams...if you are part of conference and can't win your division then go independent if you want to DANCE.
Or, quit bitchin that you deserve a chance because you win a subpar conference.
quote:
But dammit, only winning something on the field is a fair way to separate the 4-6 participants in a playoff from everyone else.
What field does winning on count? winning on the easy fields of the pac 10?
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:36 pm to arwicklu
quote:
A team that lost their conference championship game by a large margin got in and now you're saying it was a good system. OU got blown out in the Big 12 title game.
No, that system sucked as well, but that system actually took into account your schedule and accomplishments. Up until OU's loss to KSU, the media in 2003 was declaring them one of the greatest teams in history.
quote:
Instead of blaming ESPN you should blame Miles and Jefferson like everyone else.
Blame them for what, splitting the season 1-1 with your entitled program? You know, that dumbass Miles and sorry arse Jefferson did beat you in your backyard.
It wasn't Miles and Jefferson that needed a Mulligan to make up for that loss. That was your team.
Posted on 5/12/12 at 1:37 pm to Baloo
quote:
So instead you'd reward Stanford for playing an easy schedule. That is how the BCS works -- there are too many disincentives to a tough schedule. The cross-regional OOC game is on life support.
you think a playoff for conference only champ is going to give an incentive to play a tough schedule? REALLY?
quote:
Bama had a shot and lost. AT HOME. Tough noogies. Win your conference. And since when does the Big Ten suck? If the Big Ten sucks, essentially you are arguing there is only one good conference. So why have a MNC game and just declare the SEC winner the champion?
florida had a shot at us at home and lost in 99. We didnt bitch about playing them again, we just went out and pimp-slapped them.
btw, the bold, its whats been done the last six years.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News