- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:53 am to holdmuh keystonelite
I’m only counting 3, but still not bad for that conference.
ETA: Conversely, the ACC has 0.
ETA: Conversely, the ACC has 0.
This post was edited on 11/5/25 at 5:58 am
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:56 am to RLDSC FAN
How do ND and Miami’s rankings make sense?
Posted on 11/5/25 at 10:19 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
How do ND and Miami’s rankings make sense?
Probably looking at it like “we’re not going to hold a week 1 road game with a first-time starting QB against an experienced starter as the definitive end-all, be-all.” A Bama fan should be able to understand that easily.
ND has the better SOS, strength of record, advanced metrics and has been trending up since the end of September while Miami has been trending down. Head-to-head is a tiebreaker when teams are in the same tier. Despite the same record, the committee clearly views ND in a tier above.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 11:21 am to Buckeye Fan 19
Strength of schedule only matters if you beat those teams.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 11:37 am to ReauxlTide222
I agree. But who won the 1993 National Championship, and who finished 2nd despite beating the #1 team head to head?
Posted on 11/5/25 at 4:28 pm to RLDSC FAN
It’s time to go back to some sort of bcs formula and eliminate the committee
With 12 and likely going to 16 the old bcs formula would work just fine and when you get down to 15/16 compared to 17/18 you can live with those arguments
With 12 and likely going to 16 the old bcs formula would work just fine and when you get down to 15/16 compared to 17/18 you can live with those arguments
Posted on 11/5/25 at 4:41 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
It’s time to go back to some sort of bcs formula and eliminate the committee
With 12 and likely going to 16 the old bcs formula would work just fine and when you get down to 15/16 compared to 17/18 you can live with those arguments
Right now the BCS rankings would be the exact same twelve at the top with the only difference being that the BCS would have 7. Oregon, 8. BYU, 9. Texas Tech vs. the CFP rankings have 7. BYU, 8. Texas Tech, 9. Oregon. Otherwise, they are identical for the top 12.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 4:44 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
It’s time to go back to some sort of bcs formula and eliminate the committee
With 12 and likely going to 16 the old bcs formula would work just fine and when you get down to 15/16 compared to 17/18 you can live with those arguments
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 11/5/25 at 4:46 pm to RLDSC FAN
Does the loser of the Big 10 Title game get a Top 4 seed ?
They should if they are both undefeated when they play
They should if they are both undefeated when they play
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:01 pm to Silver Bullets
Bama should think about dropping another game. The first round bye is a death sentence.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:10 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
Bama should think about dropping another game. The first round bye is a death sentence.
How's that ?
It's one less game you have to play/win & risk injury
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:17 pm to Silver Bullets
quote:
How's that ?
It's one less game you have to play/win & risk injury
Doesn't matter, getting back on rhythm a week ahead gives you an advantage, as evidenced by the 4-0 result last year.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 5:28 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
Doesn't matter, getting back on rhythm a week ahead gives you an advantage, as evidenced by the 4-0 result last year.
The Top 4 seeds were 4-0 because they were better teams, not because they had a bye week.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:39 pm to Silver Bullets
quote:
The Top 4 seeds were 4-0 because they were better teams, not because they had a bye week.
The top four seeds went 0-4 moron.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:53 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
The top four seeds went 0-4 moron.
The playoffs were statistically odd. All the higher ranked teams won in the first round but then the lower ranked teams won every game after that in the final three rounds.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 10:02 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
quote:
The top four seeds went 0-4 moron.
The playoffs were statistically odd. All the higher ranked teams won in the first round but then the lower ranked teams won every game after that in the final three rounds.
It demonstrates the poor thinking in the first place behind having the top 4 seeds automatically be conference champions.
Why should, say, a 13th-ranked Arizona State who lost 2 games OOC but managed to back door their way into a Big XII title game get seeded above a 4th-ranked 11-2 Georgia who went 8 - 1 in the SEC regular season and lost a nailbiter in a conference title game?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News