- 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 1/9/18 at 10:54 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
But the conferences aren't equal, so that's not as objective as you think.
Winning your conference is 100% objective. Saying the conferences are not equal is still subjective
and worse you give credit for the overall conference when the schedule in the conference is massively unequal. Everyone dogs Wisconsins schedule but Alabama’s 2 East Division opponents were Tennessee and Vanderbilt who were a combined 1-15 in the SEC (the 1 being Vandy over UT) and 8-15 overall.
Also the SEC and ACC only 8 conference games. The others play 9. The Big XII plays everyone at least.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:56 am to H-Town Tiger
Objective standards are a good thing in a sport like CFB
committees with arbitrary standards are a bad thing
imposing some objectivity like requiring a conference championship would be a net positive. You still aren't guaranteed to get in by virtue of your SOS and record as there are only four slots, but it provides a known criteria you must fulfill and could even open the door for G5 teams if their resume is impressive enough (although UCF would be left hanging this year even with such a rule)
I think my optimal playoffs would be the top 4 conference winners ranked by the old BCS. It's just about the most objective system I can think of.
committees with arbitrary standards are a bad thing
imposing some objectivity like requiring a conference championship would be a net positive. You still aren't guaranteed to get in by virtue of your SOS and record as there are only four slots, but it provides a known criteria you must fulfill and could even open the door for G5 teams if their resume is impressive enough (although UCF would be left hanging this year even with such a rule)
I think my optimal playoffs would be the top 4 conference winners ranked by the old BCS. It's just about the most objective system I can think of.
This post was edited on 1/9/18 at 10:57 am
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:57 am to kengel2
Your argument may have been worth a damn if Alabama didn't win last night.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:59 am to Ross
The committee is a good idea to seed the participants. But their flaw is not telling us or anyone what it takes for inclusion. Hocutt has jacked that up.
It needs to go to 16. The winners of the FBS conferences auto entry It will abide by NCAA Bylaws and they can still seed and it’s also win and in keeping regular season important. Teams aren’t going to blow a possible seed to rest players.
Let the conference decide its representatives how they like let the committee decide the at larges and go
It needs to go to 16. The winners of the FBS conferences auto entry It will abide by NCAA Bylaws and they can still seed and it’s also win and in keeping regular season important. Teams aren’t going to blow a possible seed to rest players.
Let the conference decide its representatives how they like let the committee decide the at larges and go
This post was edited on 1/9/18 at 11:01 am
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:59 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Do Wisconsin now
Their schedule was atrocious but they didn’t win their conference either so they didn’t belong
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:05 am to Ross
quote:
I think my optimal playoffs would be the top 4 conference winners ranked by the old BCS.
I proposed that very system on here a few years ago. I’ll also say i don’t mind the committee it’s been better than the old polls and as you said in another thread they don’t have a preseason poll
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:20 am to H-Town Tiger
Ok do Ohio St....
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:28 am to kengel2
quote:
For the playoff. 100% support only conference champions in the playoff. Call it the saban rule or bama rule or whatever. There has to be some sort of benefit for winning your conference or at least being in the conference championship.
LSU fans are on a 10 years melt. It's pathetic to watch.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:28 am to dukke v
B1G : 42-48 (Includes Wisconsin) 33-48 excluding B1G CG
Overall : 66-56 (54-55 -Wisky)
They also played OU and no FCS teams
Overall : 66-56 (54-55 -Wisky)
They also played OU and no FCS teams
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:30 am to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
LSU fans are on a 10 years melt. It's pathetic to watch
The rant is pure gold, but i get more lolz out of Bama fans that still have small penis syndrome because they know they got gifted a playoff spot
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:32 am to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
LSU fans are on a 10 years melt. It's pathetic to watch.
So how exactly are we supposed to feel? Excited that a team in our division that dominated in the past has become even more dominant with our old coach who is taking the best players in our state
And FTR I have felt the same since 2001 when Nebraska made the BCS CG that you should get to play for the NC if you don’t win your conference. I said it again in 2003.
This post was edited on 1/9/18 at 11:49 am
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:38 am to kengel2
The only way I would support a non-conference champion getting into a 4-team playoff is if they had the best record in the conference (2012 Oregon, 2016 Ohio State), beat the 1-loss conference champion during the season (2008 Texas), or if there were no more deserving teams (2011 Alabama). 2017 Alabama does not fit any of those cases. In hindsight, UCF was better than Wisconsin, but I would've seeded Wisconsin #4.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:01 pm to sms151t
2015 Ohio State was better than the 2015 Alabama team that beat the same Michigan State team tOSU lost to 38-0? Alabama and Clemson were clearly the two best teams at the end of the 2015 season after both winning their semi finals games in blowouts. Conversely, the playoff committee got it right when they jumped Ohio State up to #4 in the first college football playoff. tOSU proved they were the best team that year.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:14 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
Conversely, the playoff committee got it right when they jumped Ohio State up to #4 in the first college football playoff. tOSU proved they were the best team that year.
How did they prove they were the best team? Was TCU not deserving as well? How about Baylor? TCU dismantled Ole Miss 42-3 in the Peach Bowl.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:22 pm to slackster
I think the CFP should shift the burden of this mess to the conferences. Make it a 6 or 8 team field, give the P5 conference champions auto-bids, and let the conferences decide how they're going to send their representative. The other 1-3 teams should have a stipulation for G5 conference champs that are in the Top 10 of a computer ranking, and the rest of the field will be at-large bids.
I can live with an at-large team winning if every major conference is represented. I also think the regular season importance would be unchanged at worst, and perhaps even more important, considering conference champs would be an auto bid. Every game is still very important.
I can live with an at-large team winning if every major conference is represented. I also think the regular season importance would be unchanged at worst, and perhaps even more important, considering conference champs would be an auto bid. Every game is still very important.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:39 pm to kengel2
Auburn almost benefited being a team with multiple losses and making the playoffs, directly because of getting the extra game with the SECCG. Big Ten would have certainly got in if there were no CCG for Auburn.
That is the benefit of a CCG. Remember how OSU got in just a few years back over TCU?
That is the benefit of a CCG. Remember how OSU got in just a few years back over TCU?
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:44 pm to Montezuma
Well I think there should be a benefit for playing in the conference championship game.
It should not eliminate a team and allow another team from the same division to sneak in or be rewarded by not playing in the game.
All it will come to is teams refusing to play in conference championship games.
It should not eliminate a team and allow another team from the same division to sneak in or be rewarded by not playing in the game.
All it will come to is teams refusing to play in conference championship games.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:40 pm to sgallo3
quote:
If all of that means absolutely nothing compared to the eyeball test then the whole title is a sham
Then change the measure by which you choose a conference champion.
You can't keep the current format where some teams in the same conference don't even play each other or there is a MASSIVE disparity in talent between two divisions (see SEC east vs SEC west). You'd potentially have 4 loss teams claiming they deserve a spot in the playoff because they won a shitty division and had one good game against an Alabama or an Ohio State.
If every single team in a given conference doesn't play every other single team, then you cannot have an auto bid for conference champions, because you have no clue who is really better than whom.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:53 pm to Ross
quote:
Objective standards are a good thing in a sport like CFB
committees with arbitrary standards are a bad thing
Absolutely this.
As I was watching last night, it struck me that Auburn was rewarded for beating Bama by having to play UGA in an elimination game, while Bama was rewarded for losing to Auburn with an automatic bye to play Georgia for all the marbles after a month of rest.
That's just categorically unfair.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News