- 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: For or Opossed to BCS playoff?
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:16 am to Erin Go Bragh
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:16 am to Erin Go Bragh
Leave it like it is. Too much Politics any way. Look how little Nikki kissed arse to get in the NC game last season! 
0
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:21 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
The new twist that came out yesterday is that #1 and #2 will "host" a BCS semifinal game in their traditional bowl game. For example, if LSU finished #1, LSU would host #4 in the Sugar Bowl. If USC finishes #2, they would host #3 in the Rose Bowl.
That's great for LSU and USC, but I could see other schools having a problem with it.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:27 am to shinerfan
quote:
That's great for LSU and USC, but I could see other schools having a problem with it.
Not sure if you are being serious or not...If so:
Traditional Bowl Tie-Ins
Big10-Rose
Pac12-Rose
ACC-Orange
Big12-Fiesta
SEC-Sugar
If a team finished #1 or #2, they would host a BCS semifinal against #3 or #4 in their traditional bowl game.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:36 am to JPLSU1981
This is how I would do it.
4 team playoff. One team max per conf. Highest ranking teams for ANY conf. would go. 1 and 2 host semi finals. Rotate the location of the championship game.
So basically all season we worry about winning the SEC and don't have to worry about beating each other and eliminating the SEC.
Pretty much as it stands now SEC would send a team every year.
Over time the conf. with the best teams is going to win more crystals. If the pac-(insert number here) sucks then they will continue to get beat in the semi's most years.
4 team playoff. One team max per conf. Highest ranking teams for ANY conf. would go. 1 and 2 host semi finals. Rotate the location of the championship game.
So basically all season we worry about winning the SEC and don't have to worry about beating each other and eliminating the SEC.
Pretty much as it stands now SEC would send a team every year.
Over time the conf. with the best teams is going to win more crystals. If the pac-(insert number here) sucks then they will continue to get beat in the semi's most years.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:38 am to Tigah32
...need more details on qualifying .. but anything ( well, almost anything) better than current system. My feeling is - last years debacle of undeserving Alabama team getting pushed in for BS "rematch" - resulting in LSU's "this is bullshite" laydown precipitated , finally, this move towards playoff .. IMHO 
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:42 am to GeauxGus
I've got bad news for you....Ironically enough, under the new system, what happened last is year is going to happen MORE often.
Anytime you expand the field and fail to put in a rule requiring a team to win its conference, it inevitably will lead to more occurances of teams that didn't win their conference winning it all (it won't always happen, but it undoubtedly will happen more than it did in a two-team system).
VERY SCARY THOUGHT: If the currently proposed system was in place last year, you very well could have ended up with a national championship game of Bama vs Stanford, neither of which won their conference.
Anytime you expand the field and fail to put in a rule requiring a team to win its conference, it inevitably will lead to more occurances of teams that didn't win their conference winning it all (it won't always happen, but it undoubtedly will happen more than it did in a two-team system).
VERY SCARY THOUGHT: If the currently proposed system was in place last year, you very well could have ended up with a national championship game of Bama vs Stanford, neither of which won their conference.
This post was edited on 4/28/12 at 9:46 am
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:45 am to JPLSU1981
...thats why I said "need more details on qualifying" . I agree : must win Conference. Period.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:49 am to GeauxGus
The qualifying is pretty simple...They are not going to change much at all. They will still use the BCS rankings, albeit it appears they are going to tweak the BCS rankings with a heavier weight on strength of schedule.
From all reports, there will NOT be a rule requiring a team to win its conference. Thus, the same basic BCS system is going to be utilized...whoever ends up #1 will play #4 and whoever ends up #2 will play #3....Conference affiliations won't matter (other than what I posted above about #1 and #2 playing in their traditional bowl games), so it is theoretically possible that one conference could have all 4 teams in the playoff.
Most media outlets and fans are looking at this as some huge overall of the current system, and it is NOT. It's not much different that what we currently have...It's merely going from a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff. Same rankings. Same system, merely two additional teams in the championship mix.
From all reports, there will NOT be a rule requiring a team to win its conference. Thus, the same basic BCS system is going to be utilized...whoever ends up #1 will play #4 and whoever ends up #2 will play #3....Conference affiliations won't matter (other than what I posted above about #1 and #2 playing in their traditional bowl games), so it is theoretically possible that one conference could have all 4 teams in the playoff.
Most media outlets and fans are looking at this as some huge overall of the current system, and it is NOT. It's not much different that what we currently have...It's merely going from a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff. Same rankings. Same system, merely two additional teams in the championship mix.
This post was edited on 4/28/12 at 9:54 am
Posted on 4/28/12 at 9:56 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
The new twist that came out yesterday is that #1 and #2 will "host" a BCS semifinal game
That'd be great if they were restricted to conf champs to keep value in those conf races. jmho
Posted on 4/28/12 at 11:33 am to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
After nov. 5th Bama didn't play another team with a winning record and only beAt 3 teams with a winning record all year.
This isn't true at all. After LSU, Bama played Miss St(7-6), Georgia Southern(11-3), and Auburn(8-5). Also Bama played Penn State(9-4), Arkie(11-2), and UF(7-6).
Not LSU's resume, but hardly "3 teams with a winning record".
Posted on 4/29/12 at 2:30 am to northshorebamaman
I just don't see how someone can say that college football has the best regular season in all of sports, when some teams play NOBODY all year. It is too uneven and no way to tell who is the best unless you play each other. Eventually need something like European soccer! Based on the previous year's record, you play in the A league or the B league. Everyone is never going to be happy. I think it is ridiculous to not have a playoff. Many of you think the regular season is far too important to actually solve things on the field. Any system that requires people to vote on who is the best team sucks.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 2:32 am to Tigah32
4 team playoff yes. Use the BCS standings to determine who goes, 1-4. 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4. Winners play for the national championship.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:18 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
4 team playoff yes. Use the BCS standings to determine who goes, 1-4. 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4. Winners play for the national championship.
I agree. Start with a 4 team playoff--that should solve most situations for end of year fighting over who deserves to be in BCS 'ship. I like the idea of winning or losing it on the field--not in the hands of voters.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:28 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:Half? Try 9.99 times out of 10. No way was Bama going to finish below 4th this season, even with that loss. So unless we end up expanding to a playoff of only 3 teams, a team in Bama's situation will essentially always come back from a loss like that. A 4 team playoff means that pretty much all the truly elite teams get a mulligan every year. An 8 team playoff means pretty much every team that starts in the top 5/top 10 gets a mulligan every year. Anything beyond 8 teams means everyone gets a mulligan every year (when was the last time a 1 loss team finished outside the top 16?).
Under a playoff, maybe half the time.
Another problem with playoffs is how they will increase the significance of preseason polls. As much as they are a factor now for the handful of undefeated teams and the highest of elite 1 loss teams (like Bama last year), with an 8 team field the preseason polls will be critical to a much larger number of teams as the 1 loss crowd joins the shoe-in ranks if they were among the top 5/top 10 to start with.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:31 am to Terry the Tiger
quote:Yes. That was the revolutionary aspect of the SEC Championship Game when it was first introduced in '92. It was the first playoff in Division 1A (now FBS) college football. Also as the MLB playoffs were for the first several decades, on series of two teams. Also called "The World Series".
How do you have a 2 team playoff? Isn't that called a championship game?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:46 am to mwade91383
quote:Because I think it is more of a feat to be championship caliber 13 out of 14 weeks than 4 out of 14 weeks.
I don't understand why people believe EVERY ORGANIZED SPORT IN THE WORLD is doing it wrong and college football is the exception,
The '07 New York Giants did nothing that 45 other teams in the Super Bowl era haven't done as well or better. The '07 New England Patriots did something that surpassed all but one team in the entire history of the NFL. I'm sure the Giants love their trophy but I would be far more proud of accomplishing what that Patriots team did. And I'm a Steelers fan, so I hate the Patriots. But excellence sustained is far, far superior to excellence stumbled upon.
quote:So? The playoffs won't ruin the regular season by bringing boring matchups. They will ruin the regular season by making the matchups meaningless, no matter how good they are. Who cares if Oregon is playing Ohio State, or LSU is playing Oklahoma, when they're all getting in the playoffs anyway whether they win that game or not? In a playoff scenario, neither LSU nor Oregon were going to have their championship fates affected by that opening day game last season. So how exciting would it really have been when in the end it makes no difference?
And to counter the "ruins the regular season" BS argument have SOS count for much more then it does now. That'll encourage teams to limit how often they schedule the cupcakes and take on some actual challenges.
Cupcakes are not the problem. The problem is the proliferation of games like Nov. 5th that don't matter but worse, but in a playoff scenario everyone knows going in that the game doesn't matter. Think about it. The way things played out, LSU and Bama are home teams for the first two rounds, and meet for the Championship at a neutral site. If you completely reversed the outcome of Nov. 5th, and Bama wins, what is the result? LSU and Bama are both home teams for the first two rounds and meet for the Championship at a neutral site. Under the current system, that has happened once in 15 years. Under a playoff scenario, that would be the expected result anytime the top 2 teams in the country meet. And rendering every regular season 1-2 matchup moot would be a very, very bad thing.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:49 am to Tigah32
I think it sucks if it's any less than 6 teams. With a 4 team p/o we will dogfight every year to put 1 SEC team in the runnings while other conferences get to cakewalk into the big game.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:50 am to duboisd
quote:Except then you have the problem of where #2 Boise State will host their game (for example).
However, I think you can merge that idea with the "neutral site" idea by playing in bigger stadiums closer to the higher ranked team.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:55 am to Rickdaddy4188
quote:Which means no polls. They are the antithesis of a legitimate post-season. It constantly amazes me how often we hear people shrieking about how, "EVERY OTHER SPORT USES A PLAYOFF!!", but how much support they retain for using polls WHICH NO OTHER SPORT USES!
What we need is for there to be a set selection basis
Personally, I hate the idea of a playoff. But if they would go to a selection process that did not involve a single human vote, recommendation or selection anywhere along the way, I'd take a 64 team playoff like that over any system that relies upon (or even includes) human polls. They are the stupidest factor to ever have been included in any championship selection. Gymnastics and figure skating championships are more legitimate, because at least those polls are done by people who just watched all the performances.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 4:57 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Use the AP poll
quote:No one in the coaches poll voted Oklahoma ahead of LSU after we beat them in the National Championship Game . . . no true of the AP.
the coaches poll needs to die...immediately
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News