- 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: Coaches Poll history - blantant homerism, conference nepotism and odd voting
Posted on 8/17/12 at 1:42 pm to Baloo
Posted on 8/17/12 at 1:42 pm to Baloo
quote:
It is a way to devalue conference titles and it strikes at the core of college football.
College basketball used to make conference titles the end all and be all, allowing only one team per conference to make the post season tournament.
Here's what happened:
quote:
...several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974)
Just take the top 4 at large teams (based on RPI, BCS rating, whatever metric you want to use) and be done with it.
If the situation were reversed, I guarantee you a shitton of LSU fans would support a #2 LSU team that didn't win the conference making the post season playoff.
2
Posted on 8/17/12 at 1:51 pm to BrerTiger
I'm from Maryland. I'm familiar with the NC State-Maryland game in 1974. It's widely considered one of the greatest games ever played...
.. and you want me to say that's a bad thing? State won, and went on to the title. The Terps didn't deserve the title for one simple reason... STATE WAS BETTER.
People still talk about the 1974 State-Maryland game. That's a positive to the system. They played a meaningful game and the winner moved on to play for the title and the loser went home and said they were the second best team, which they may have been. That's not a bad thing... that's AWESOME. THAT'S a meaningful regular season (or in this case, ACC tournament). No Maryland fan argues they were robbed in 74 (well, I know a few who complained about the officiating in that game). They lost the game, and thus the title.
The system isn't designed to crown who is #2. Argue amongst yourselves.
.. and you want me to say that's a bad thing? State won, and went on to the title. The Terps didn't deserve the title for one simple reason... STATE WAS BETTER.
People still talk about the 1974 State-Maryland game. That's a positive to the system. They played a meaningful game and the winner moved on to play for the title and the loser went home and said they were the second best team, which they may have been. That's not a bad thing... that's AWESOME. THAT'S a meaningful regular season (or in this case, ACC tournament). No Maryland fan argues they were robbed in 74 (well, I know a few who complained about the officiating in that game). They lost the game, and thus the title.
The system isn't designed to crown who is #2. Argue amongst yourselves.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 1:58 pm to Baloo
quote:
That's not a bad thing... that's AWESOME. THAT'S a meaningful regular season (or in this case, ACC tournament). No Maryland fan argues they were robbed in 74 (well, I know a few who complained about the officiating in that game). They lost the game, and thus the title.
USC vs. UCLA (1967) - 2nd to last game of the year and the obligatory - "Game of the Century"
UCLA was #1, USC was #4
The Heisman Trophy was on the line between Beban and OJ; the Pac 10 Title, the Rose Bowl berth, and the potential National Title.
USC won by 1 point, would go on to the Rose Bowl, beat the Big 10 Champion and win the National Championship.
Regular season mattered. That LSU/Bama game should have had the same relevance.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:02 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Regular season mattered. That LSU/Bama game should have had the same relevance.
You people are mired in the past.
I guess we should go back to crowing national champs before the bowl games too.
We are going to a four game playoff whether you like it or not.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:03 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Regular season mattered. That LSU/Bama game should have had the same relevance.
Exactly. We devalued the regular season. Can you imagine a rematch of the 1971 OU-Nebraska game?
2011 exposes the "every game matters" slogan to be a lie. The most meaningful game of the season, hyped to no end, was meaningless. Actually, it was a disadvantage to win it (LSU had to play Georgia, adding a tough opponent).
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:03 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
College basketball used to make conference titles the end all and be all
The Big Ten did the same thing in football until 1976.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:06 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
You people are mired in the past.
You brought up the past. We are just pointing out that meaningful regular season games are AWESOME. People talk about those games for decades. I doubt people will talk about the LSU-Bama game for decades, they'll just mention it as prelude to Bama's title.
The whole point of the anti-playoff crowd was that college football needs to have meaningful regular season. My point is the BCS already gutted the meaning. A 4 team playoff is an improvement over the BCS, but it would be better if it only involved conference champs. Because the regular season would f'n matter.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:08 pm to Baloo
quote:
Can you imagine a rematch of the 1971 OU-Nebraska game?
Or a rematch of the 1959 LSU-Ole Miss game?
Or Florida/FSU in 96?
quote:
2011 exposes the "every game matters" slogan to be a lie.
No it doesn't. Okie State found out that one game mattered very, very much. And Iowa State fans are very giddy over it. It made their season worthwhile.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:12 pm to BrerTiger
Ummm... you know what "every" means, right? Showing that one game matters does not show that every game matters.
And the LSU-Bama game wasn't just meaningless, it was actually disadvantageous to win it. This is the most high profile game of the regular season... and the winner was penalized for winning.
And the LSU-Bama game wasn't just meaningless, it was actually disadvantageous to win it. This is the most high profile game of the regular season... and the winner was penalized for winning.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:13 pm to Baloo
quote:
Actually, it was a disadvantage to win it (LSU had to play Georgia, adding a tough opponent).
That was the most ridiculous thing about it.
Bama was rewarded for losing...easier road to the title game and didn't have the always difficult onus of having to beat a team twice.
The complete opposite of college basketball where they reward you for your stellar season...CFB punished (screwed) LSU's regular season.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:15 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Or a rematch of the 1959 LSU-Ole Miss game?
which was essentially meaningless, as LSU lost to Tennessee and fell out of title contention.
quote:
Or Florida/FSU in 96?
Which sucked. And pretty much killed the Bowl Alliance, the run up to the BCS.
Great examples. Two rematches that were widely ignored and/or loathed as a defense of rematches. That was convincing. I'm not against rematches out of hand, but they should only happen in extraordinary circumstances.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:16 pm to Baloo
quote:
I doubt people will talk about the LSU-Bama game for decades
People still talk about Billy Cannon's run. It gets replayed each and every year for the Ole Miss game.
How many people remember that we lost to Tennessee the following week?
Or that Ole Miss beat us 21-0 in the rematch in the Sugar Bowl? A game in which our team barely crossed the 50 yard line. Sound familiar?
9-6 will always be one hell of a battle royale.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:19 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
How many people remember that we lost to Tennessee the following week?
I do, as I mentioned it upthread. But that's also a Heisman moment, not a season in which LSU won a national title.
quote:
Or that Ole Miss beat us 21-0 in the rematch in the Sugar Bowl? A game in which our team barely crossed the 50 yard line. Sound familiar?
Yup. Mentioned upthread. And the game was meaningless, so who cares? Did Ole Miss win the national title in 1959? (HINT: no)
quote:
9-6 will always be one hell of a battle royale.
That was robbed of meaning by an Alabama team that was rewarded for not beating anybody.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:21 pm to Baloo
quote:
Ummm... you know what "every" means, right? Showing that one game matters does not show that every game matters.
And the LSU-Bama game wasn't just meaningless, it was actually disadvantageous to win it. This is the most high profile game of the regular season... and the winner was penalized for winning.
I'd love to hear what you'd be saying right now if Bama had beaten us 9-6 in the regular season and we got into the national championship game as #2. Because we had a very strong resume (one of the arguments against Bama) but we wouldn't have been conference champs or division champs. No sane person could have argued that Okie State had a better resume than us. The division/conference champ argument would have been the only thing they had going for them.
Would you be making the same arguments you are now if LSU had been the team to sneak in at #2 despite losing in overtime on the road to a top 2 team?
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:23 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Would you be making the same arguments you are now if LSU had been the team to sneak in at #2 despite losing in overtime on the road to a top 2 team?
Yes, because I've been making these same arguments on this board for a decade and people might've noticed such an obvious flip in my position. I certainly would've taken the national title, but I wouldn't have argued for it. Which is why my beef is not with Alabama, but the BCS itself.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:27 pm to Baloo
quote:
Yes, because I've been making these same arguments on this board for a decade and people might've noticed such an obvious flip in my position
I'm not sure whether to applaud you for a decade of entrenched consistency or shrug because you discount any and all arguments to the contrary.
I'll just agree to disagree. I don't agree that conference championships should be a requirement to play for the natty. If you've held that view for a decade, I'm not going to change your mind. And frankly, it doesn't matter because change is coming regardless.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:36 pm to BrerTiger
I know its coming. And within 20 years, we'll have a 16 team playoff. Wild cards breed playoff glut. That's what they do. To let the horse's nose in the tent is a mistake. Look at every sport. As soon as you let wild cards in, the field will expand with more wild cards. Even baseball.
But it basically comes down to this, which no advocate of wild cards can get around, the second best team in the conference is not the best team in the country. They have literally zero claim at the national title because another team won their conference. If the goal is to find the best team, the second best team in a conference is, at best, the second best team in the country. Which means it is perfectly acceptable to exclude them from a system designed to claim the best team.
I'd also like to point out that your question was a Catch 22. Had I answered one way, I'm a hypocrite. Answer another, I'm inflexible. That is not a valid argument. You stacked the deck.
But your arguments so far has been to point out bad rematches that people ignored or didn't like happened, so we should have more of it. And that the #2 and #3 teams were excluded from the hoops tournament in memorable games, and now the hoops tournament is an uncontrollable monster of playoff glut. I'm willing to be convinced by argument that a playoff is good for the sport, and I DO support a conference champion playoff, but your arguments were pretty terrible and thoroughly unconvincing. That is not my fault that your arguments were terrible.
And when we used to bandy about our dream playoffs, I'd usually concede wild cards in a 16 team field as a necessary compromise. I don't like it, but I can accept it.
But it basically comes down to this, which no advocate of wild cards can get around, the second best team in the conference is not the best team in the country. They have literally zero claim at the national title because another team won their conference. If the goal is to find the best team, the second best team in a conference is, at best, the second best team in the country. Which means it is perfectly acceptable to exclude them from a system designed to claim the best team.
I'd also like to point out that your question was a Catch 22. Had I answered one way, I'm a hypocrite. Answer another, I'm inflexible. That is not a valid argument. You stacked the deck.
But your arguments so far has been to point out bad rematches that people ignored or didn't like happened, so we should have more of it. And that the #2 and #3 teams were excluded from the hoops tournament in memorable games, and now the hoops tournament is an uncontrollable monster of playoff glut. I'm willing to be convinced by argument that a playoff is good for the sport, and I DO support a conference champion playoff, but your arguments were pretty terrible and thoroughly unconvincing. That is not my fault that your arguments were terrible.
And when we used to bandy about our dream playoffs, I'd usually concede wild cards in a 16 team field as a necessary compromise. I don't like it, but I can accept it.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:47 pm to Baloo
quote:
And within 20 years, we'll have a 16 team playoff
If that happens, I may join your side.
quote:
Wild cards breed playoff glut
I disagree. I think it's all the conference champs that breed playoff glut.
Too lazy to search, but do you know of a sport that completely disregards conference champs and just goes with the top 4 by some metric (RPI, BCS rating, etc)?
The problem with the NCAA basketball tournament is that they have to take 31 conference champs. Even if you got rid of all the "wild cards", you'd still have 31 conference AQs.
How many conference champs get to play for all the marbles? 2 of them? 4 of them? All of them? You gotta draw the line somewhere.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 2:48 pm to Baloo
quote:
And that the #2 and #3 teams were excluded from the hoops tournament in memorable games, and now the hoops tournament is an uncontrollable monster of playoff glut.
I would argue that has far more to their stubbornness at insisting that every single conference in the universe get a berth in the tournament.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News