- 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
0
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:46 am to Kcoyote
quote:
However, in 2011 I would have been VERY upset if the playoff was a 12-0 LSU vs. 11-2 Wisconsin (#10); 11-1 Ok. St vs. 11-1 Stanford.
You should've been VERY upset your team lost a home in the only game vs LSU they get each year. Mulligans are horseshite and prove teams can go 1-1 against each other. Bama didn't even win the West.
quote:
Conference winners will be chosen even with two losses over the best team in the country for that year.
How the frick do you get "best" team in the country when they lost at home, didn't win their conference, let alone DIVISION. Never mind their SOS was lower than Okie. They played 3 good teams in 2011 and lost to the best one.
Not one single Bammer I talked to BEFORE the "game of the century" thought a team should play for the NC if they can't even win their own conference. Hmm, I wonder what happened?
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 1:48 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 5:08 am to H-Town Tiger
I don't disagree with any of your logic. Solid posts!
Posted on 12/17/13 at 7:54 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:Exactly. In 2011, the BCS had LSU and Bama 1&2 and Okie State 3. LSU beat Bama, ON THE ROAD, played at top 10 team on a neutral site and was rewarded with playing Bama again. Common sense tells us that even though Bama was #2, they lost to LSU at home. IF every game is supposed to count then LSU should have played OSU.
I like the committee because it can be flexible
The current BCS system still has flaws when it comes to the personal opinions of the voters. Even though I like the computer rankings I still think they have some flaws as well. The committee has the ability to look at all of these things and make common sense adjustments.
This deal is not trying to screw the SEC from playing for the NC, just trying to prevent 2 teams from the same conference from playing without consideration of other conference champions.
I have no problem with a 2-loss conference champion getting a bid over a 1-loss SEC team that didn't win its division and didn't play an extra game.
The exception is the Big 12 because they don't have a championship game.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 8:41 am to dante
I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind can say Miami and/or USC were the best team in 2002. USC lost TWICE. OSU BEAT MIAMI. Just because that OSU team didn't look pretty? 17 of their 22 starters were drafted into in the NFL. Not many national champs during the BCS era can say that?
Hell if we're going by that Logic OSU should win in 2005. They lost early in the year to Texas where they outplayed them for much of the game switching back and forth between Zwick/Smith, and lost at a top 5 PSU team by a TD
Hell if we're going by that Logic OSU should win in 2005. They lost early in the year to Texas where they outplayed them for much of the game switching back and forth between Zwick/Smith, and lost at a top 5 PSU team by a TD
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 9:06 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 8:53 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
2002 would have a been great year for a playoff as well. I honestly thought USC was the best team in the country that year. They got really hot late in the season
So was Georgia. I still think that's one of the 2 or 3 best teams we've ever fielded. After the UF loss, we beat an Eli-led ole miss team by 2 touchdowns, beat a 10 win Auburn team on the road, beat tech by 44 points, won the SECCG by 30 points. Ended up doubling up FSU in the Sugar Bowl, but I would put that UGA team in a bowl game against anyone else in the country.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:01 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind can say Miami and/or USC were the best team in 2002. USC lost TWICE. OSU BEAT MIAMI. Just because that OSU team didn't look pretty? 17 of their 22 starters were drafted into in the NFL. Not many national champs during the BCS era can say that?
Hell if we're going by that Logic OSU should win in 2005. They lost early in the year to Texas where they outplayed them for much of the year switching back and forth between Zwick/Smith, and lost at a top 5 PSU team by a TD
I agree
the best team stuff is pure nonsense from people who don't enjoy reality as much as the imaginary games that are played in their head.
People who want the "best team" credential imposed or who can't describe what their system would entail have a problem with mistaking pure subjectivity with reason. To paraphrase Bill Parcells, your team is what it accomplishes on the field (in terms of wins and losses).
And just because a team gets hot at the end of the year like say 2002 USC or 2001 LSU that probably doesn't mean they deserve a shot at a NC when they either didn't win their conference and/or already had 3 plus losses. I hope whatever system results from the playoff its a system that honors the value of the regular season more than that.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:05 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind can say Miami and/or USC were the best team in 2002. USC lost TWICE. OSU BEAT MIAMI. Just because that OSU team didn't look pretty?
It's just people's opinion. Just b/c you beat Miami doesn't mean you were the only team that could have done it.
Yes, USC lost twice...both losses combined by 10 points total - on the road to Top 10 teams.
USC had loads of NFL talent on that team on D and the Heisman Trophy winner who caught fire at the end.
Playoff is about who is playing the best at the end...not who had the perfect resume throughout the entire season.
Ohio State's last 4 games in 2002:
Unranked Purdue: 10-6
Unranked Illinois: 23-16 (Overtime)
#12 Michigan: 14-9
#1 Miami: 31-24 (Double-Overtime, plus flag)
USC's last 4 games in 2002:
Unranked ASU: 34-13
#25 UCLA: 52-21
#7 Notre Dame: 44-13
#3 Iowa: 38-17
It's really not a stretch - when talking about a playoff to really like USC that year.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:08 am to Zamoro10
quote:
It's really not a stretch - when talking about a playoff to really like USC that year.
Except that USC prob doesn't get into the playoff that year anyway
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:14 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Read OP's post again.
I don't think you leave out a team who was undefeated in conference play for a team who lost twice.
Iowa was a conference champ too.
The OP is likely incorrect since Iowa was 3 in the polls going into bowl games
And that same WSU team that USC lost to OSU crushed
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:15 am to WG_Dawg
no doubt 2002 UGA was a national championship calibre team... they would've been deadly in a four team playoff.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 9:31 am to lowspark12
quote:
no doubt 2002 UGA was a national championship calibre team... they would've been deadly in a four team playoff.
I think that is the case most years. The #3 and #4 teams are playing with their hair on fire the last month building Mo up and hoping 1 or 2 slip up. 1&2 have all the pressure so games get tighter and players get nervous
Posted on 12/17/13 at 10:49 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I don't think you leave out a team who was undefeated in conference play for a team who lost twice.
Iowa was a conference champ too.
I did discuss that on page 1. Trying to apply a standard to the past when that standard was not in place poses some problems and this is one. However, I think its reasonable to assume that if in 2002 they had agreed on a playoff with conference winners only, they would not allow a conference to have 2 teams make the playoff because they finished tied and did not play each other. The conference would have to choose, just as they would have had to choose who goes to the Rose Bowl before the BCS. In this case I would assume they pick Ohio State. This would not be an issue in conferences with a CCG. The Big 12 has a round robin, the only trouble would be a 3 team time like they had in the South in 2008.
quote:
The OP is likely incorrect since Iowa was 3 in the polls going into bowl games
Iowa was #5 in the BCS standings which is what I was using. They were #3 in the AP going in, not sure about the coaches poll.
LINK
quote:
And that same WSU team that USC lost to OSU crushed
You are correct that going by conference winners only, using the standings in place at the time, WSU would be in over USC. That OSU beat them soundly in Columbus in Sept, doesn't mean USC wasn't better by Jan. I did stick up for OSU earlier in the thread.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:15 am to molsusports
quote:
my head is going to explode
Flexibility is for gymnasts. Standards and objective criteria are for things that matter.
You are in favor of moving the goalposts depending on subjective criteria from year to year? What a giant crock of camel dung.
The whole purpose of this thread is to show that taking just conference winners works just fine. In 16 years, the only 1 where objective people could have a real issue is 2011
Standards are great, but you can paint yourself in a corner. You do not have to stick with 100% black and white or "move the goal posts" on a whim. You can have criteria as they have laid out. Circumstances do change and you can not account for everything. So having some flexibility is not necessarily a bad thing. Your concerns are based on fear, for lack of a better word, of the unknown, you don't know what the committee will do. As I said before, we have reason to believe they will do something radically stupid.
Ultimately don't we all want the champion to be at least 1 of the best teams? The problem is, who's the best team is not always clear, so having some kind of playoff is the most fair way to do it. Taking just the top 4 conference winners is fine with me, but I don't think the committee will be bad either at least until we see what they do.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:18 am to H-Town Tiger
What about Notre Dame?
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:22 am to Sho Nuff
quote:
So you forget that LSU was less than a minute from winning? Or you forget that Georgia was as well? Or you forget that A&M beat them? Holy frick you Bama ball washers never cease to amaze. You think Bama "crushes" everybody because they beat Not Dam?
you need to learn context my friend. We are talking about the teams in the 4 team playoff. The field in a 4 team, conference winners playoff if 2012 would have been : ND( I discussed Indepents earlier, in the top 4, they are in) , Bama, KSU, Stanford. Yes, it is my opinion that Bama crushes that field. Had UGA or LSU beaten Bama or had A&M beaten Fla and been in, they all probably do the same on that field. Oregon could have given Bama problems because spread teams often do, but they didn't win their conference.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:24 am to Majin Buu
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:25 am to Majin Buu
quote:Currently I think they are guaranteed a BCS bowl if they are either 12th or better in the BCS. I am sure they would need to "ranked" around 6th to even be considered.
What about Notre Dame?
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:30 am to H-Town Tiger
So them being independent should get them in over a conference winner?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News