- 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 4/30/12 at 9:39 am to themunch
Posted on 4/30/12 at 9:39 am to themunch
As to making a conf. championship a requirement for the playoffs, ideally I would like to see some bonus points for winning a major conference worked into the formula that would make non-conf. winners possible but unlikely. They could only qualify in a year like '11, when everyone else shits the bed,
This post was edited on 4/30/12 at 9:41 am
1
Posted on 4/30/12 at 10:48 am to Tigah32
Against it. Bowl games are crap. The real season ends in Atlanta. The season is the season, acting like the last game makes or breaks it all is just bullshite. ESPN wants it, but the SEC shouldn't. We already have the best football, if they want to see it they can buy a ticket. Regular season SEC games >>>> anything that could be played on Jan 10th.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 10:50 am to bluestem75
quote:
Bama played Miss St(7-6)
quote:
and UF(7-6)
quote:
Both were 6-6 in the reg season. They needed bowl wins over crappy teams to have a winning record. Besides, your schedule was so weak, you had to use the strength of ours as part of your argument to get in the game.
And? The post I responded to stated that Bama only played three teams with a winning record, and none after they played LSU. I only pointed out that Bama played six teams with a winning record, including all three after the LSU game. Besides, the UF game was before the LSU game.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 10:53 am to bluestem75
quote:
I think it should be conference champions only. This year, that would have put LSU (who beat Bama), Oregon (who beat Stanford), OK State, Boise or Wisconsin in the playoff.
I realize this might have been covered in the 7 pages since, but Boise State didn't win their conference this year
Posted on 4/30/12 at 11:22 am to Tigah32
I'm for a 16 team playoff. All conference champs plus at large teams. Play at the home of the higher seeded team until final round, which is rotated at current BCS bowls.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:26 pm to shinerfan
quote:
As to making a conf. championship a requirement for the playoffs, ideally I would like to see some bonus points for winning a major conference worked into the formula that would make non-conf. winners possible but unlikely
I agree with this. Everyone looks at 2011 and says its stupid to take only conference winners and based ONLY on 2011 it is. But lots of other years, that's not the case.
2010 the Top 4 were Auburn 13-0, Oregon 12-0, TCU 12-0, Stanford 11-1. #5 was Wisconin at 11-1. Wisky on the B1g (finsihed tied, but no CCG) SU obviously did not win Pac12. Why is Stanford 4 and Wisky 5? SOS? Better loss? Wisky lost later? What compeling reason is there? Would winning a CCG have pushed Wisky over SU? Who knows. Even 2011 taking SU over #5 Oregon is sending the message to avoid big OOC games like playing LSU in Dallas.
I do like the idea that if you care going to do just top 4, have a committee with some (hopefully)transparent criteria that we all know if advance.
This post was edited on 4/30/12 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 4/30/12 at 1:59 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
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.
I'm sure you wouldn't have found it a "very scary thought" if LSU was the team that lost 9-6 in OT at Alabama on Nov 5th and was left out of a playoff that included two 2 loss teams (Oregon and Wisconsin) one of which LSU already waxed earlier in the season.
That's the part that simply amazes me about some LSU fan's newfound concern for conference champions only. There was a ton of talk about LSU getting a rematch if they lost on Nov 5th going into that game given the brutal schedule they had conquered and would conquer going into that game. Now that the tables were turned and it was Alabama instead, a non conference winner winning it all is a "very scary thought". How convenient.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 3:31 pm to Govt Tide
I suspect you'd have shared the same opinion in 2009 if Florida got a second shot and beat Bama in the rematch
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:08 pm to molsusports
quote:
I suspect you'd have shared the same opinion in 2009 if Florida got a second shot and beat Bama in the rematch
No I wouldn't have because that was a totally different scenario from 2011. Bama rightfully didn't get a shot when that exact same scenario happened the year before when #1 Alabama lost to #2 Florida in the 2008 SEC championship game. In the 2009 SEC championship game, there was an undefeated BCS team from another major conference waiting for the SEC winner (Texas). In 2008, Florida played 1 loss Oklahoma and Alabama rightfully didn't get a rematch because we lost our last game and Oklahoma was sitting at #3 going into that final weekend.
2011 was vastly different from 2009 as Florida lost their very last game in an ugly rout 32-13. Alabama lost an OT game that could have easily gone either way. They also had 3 full games against 3 teams with winning records that they won handily while 1 team ranked ahead of them and 3 teams ranked directly behind them all lost AFTER Alabama's only loss. There was no way on earth that a rematch wasn't going to happen once LSU and Alabama won out given how EVERY SINGLE TEAM around them sh## the bed going down the stretch. That would have also been the case had LSU lost 9-6 on November 5th.
This post was edited on 4/30/12 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:26 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
That would have also been the case had LSU lost 9-6 on November 5th.
I doubt we would have gotten a rematch. After the 11/5 game many analysts discussed how Alabama "outplayed" LSU. Had Bama won 9-6, the narrative would have been that the score was closer than it should have been. don't kid yourself into thinking that media discussions don't have an impact or that all teams are treated equally.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:32 pm to Govt Tide
those are great rationalizations but IMO would have had nothing to do with the way bama fans would have reacted if say Texas had lost and Bama ended up playing Florida again
and if that had happened Bama fans would have had a reason to be pissed - after all they just played Florida and with only two teams in a championship game you really shouldn't do an in conference "do-over" game - even when the best two teams are from the same conference
I think it's fine if you have something like a six or more team playoff - then some rematches will happen. But doing it with only two teams playing for all the marbles devalues the regular season too much.
and if that had happened Bama fans would have had a reason to be pissed - after all they just played Florida and with only two teams in a championship game you really shouldn't do an in conference "do-over" game - even when the best two teams are from the same conference
I think it's fine if you have something like a six or more team playoff - then some rematches will happen. But doing it with only two teams playing for all the marbles devalues the regular season too much.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:42 pm to bluestem75
quote:
football is not really designed to be a tournament sport
every other level of football besides FBS has a tournament
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:43 pm to VerlanderBEAST
Opposed I like bowl system actually.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 4:47 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
every other level of football besides FBS has a tournament
no other "level" of football has the talent disparity between good and bad teams like FBS does, either.
in reality, for a true tournament (16+ teams) in FBS, we would need to drastically shrink the current number of teams and consolidate conferences.
you reply with essentially that same answer in every one of these playoff threads - but you can never answer my response. kindly give a reasonable rebuttal or GTFO with that weak arse answer.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 11:32 pm to bluestem75
quote:There is no regular season "Conference" championship in the NFL. The "Conference Championship" occurs during the playoffs, so teams that have already failed to win their division -- and by this logic, are incapable of being the best in their conference -- are already in the running for the championship despite not being the best team in their conference (or division).
In the NFL and the NBA, you have to win the conference championship, not your division
quote:If that is true, then there is no "proof" that either LSU or the Pokes (or Oregon or Wisconsin) were better than Clemson or West Virginia, or Arkansas State (Sun Belt Champions) for that matter. So excluding the Mountaineers and Clemson and the Red Wolves is no more valid than excluding Bama.
Given that Bama did not play one team with the vertical passing capability of OK State last year, you have no proof that Bama (or LSU) was better than the Pokes
quote:That's not entirely true, as several teams have won National Championships in that span without being in a conference (thus not winning their conference championship). The extensive history of independent National Champions (Miami, FSU, Penn State, etc.) suggests rather strongly that college football has never considered conference championships a prerequisite for a National Championship.
Before Bama this year, the last school to win a Natl title w/o winning their conference was in 1936
quote:I am not, I am simply pointing out the fallacy in someone else's reasoning in support of a conference championship requirement. The same criteria that would select LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Wisconsin above the other conference champions would have selected Bama ahead of all of them except LSU. Which means the requirement is simply an arbitrary application of factors to one set of teams that are deemed moot with regard to another set of teams. If the factors are significant enough to pick the best 4 teams out of the conference champions (which is the suggestion I'm discussing here), then the factors are significant enough to pick the best 4 teams overall.
You are following the ESPN logic that Bama was better because they have been a historically better program
quote:By the criteria being used to pick LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Wisconsin as the 4 conference champions that get into the playoff (which is the hypthetical suggestion I'm debating here), we do know that Bama was better than Oklahoma State. If those factors can tell us which 4 conference champions are better than all the rest, then they can tell us which 4 teams overall are better than all the rest.
OK State's resume begs to differ. And, no, you don't know that. See above.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 11:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:And it also happens to be the most popular team sport in the country. I don't believe that is a coincidence.
In fact, FBS football is the only team sport I can think of without some playoff.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News