- 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: I like Delany's proposal Re: Conference Champions
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:59 am to arobbi3
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:59 am to arobbi3
quote:
The first time Delany's plan makes a difference in the BCS era is in 2005 when you'd take USC, Texas, Penn State, and instead of Ohio State at the four spot or Oregon in the five spot, you jump 9-2 Notre Dame in to the playoff. Notre Dame, the team that, you know already lost to USC and didn't win any conference title at all. The outrage at Ohio State and Oregon would have been palpable.
not sure if this rule would help or hurt ND more overall, but this year is def. interesting.
0
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:01 pm to Colonel Flagg
My other amendment would be to ditch the BCS formula, which is beyond stupid, and replace it with a committee or some other ranking system that isn't nearly as stupid. But that's quibbling over details.
If you don't win your conference, you are not the best team in the country. Period. There is no logical way around this argument, just obfuscating that you are the second best team. So what? You don't deserve to be #1, the season proved that.
Win your friggin' conference.
If you don't win your conference, you are not the best team in the country. Period. There is no logical way around this argument, just obfuscating that you are the second best team. So what? You don't deserve to be #1, the season proved that.
Win your friggin' conference.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:02 pm to Colonel Flagg
Here's what it means: Using Week 14 BCS Poll from last yr:
#1 13-0 LSU - SEC Champs.
#2 11-1 Alabama
#3 11-1 Oklahoma State - Big12 Champs
#4 11-1 Stanford
#5 11-2 Oregon - Pac 10 Champs
#6 10-2 Arkansas
#7 11-1 Boise State - WAC Conf Champs
#10 11-2 Wisconsin - Big 10 Champs
#15 10-3 Clemson - ACC Champs
#23 9-3 West Virginia - Big East Champs
West Virginia, Clemson, Wisconsin and Boise State won their conf but would not qualify. They're not ranked in the Top 6.
So, under this plan, your playoff would have been:
#1 LSU vs #4 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Oklahoma State
3 Power Conference Champs and 1 At Large/ Wildcard
I actually like it.
#1 13-0 LSU - SEC Champs.
#2 11-1 Alabama
#3 11-1 Oklahoma State - Big12 Champs
#4 11-1 Stanford
#5 11-2 Oregon - Pac 10 Champs
#6 10-2 Arkansas
#7 11-1 Boise State - WAC Conf Champs
#10 11-2 Wisconsin - Big 10 Champs
#15 10-3 Clemson - ACC Champs
#23 9-3 West Virginia - Big East Champs
West Virginia, Clemson, Wisconsin and Boise State won their conf but would not qualify. They're not ranked in the Top 6.
So, under this plan, your playoff would have been:
#1 LSU vs #4 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Oklahoma State
3 Power Conference Champs and 1 At Large/ Wildcard
I actually like it.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:03 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
Or we have the BCS computers determine the top 4 conference champions and forget about stupid human polls. Whoever wins the 4 team playoff is automatically voted #1. The voters can vote the rest of the teams 2-25.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:05 pm to arobbi3
quote:
It really didn't cause much change, and when it did the results were stupid
There's nothing stupid about 2005 and 2006 at all
Funny we mentions in 2005 ND lost to USC, but fails to mention so did Oregon. OSU lost to Texas and Penn State.
2006: USC, like LSU had 2 loses, UL like UM had 1. What's "stupid" about taking an 11-1 confernce champ and a 10-2 conference champ over a 11-1 conference runner up and 10-2 team that finished 3rd in its division?
What's good about this idea is its objective. We treat the rankings like they are facts rather than arbitary opinions. Why was LSU 4 and USC 5 in 2006? SOS or that USC lost their last game?
What about 2004? Top 3: USC, OU, Auburn are in. Texas was BCS #4 over unbeaten Utah and Cal who has the same resume as Texas, 1 loss to top 2 team. Why was Texas 4? Because Brown lobbied to get in BCS? Because Cal had an "unipressive" win over So Miss in early Dec in a game that was postponed?
2010, why was Oregon #4 and Wisconsin #5?
I hate to say it, but I think Jim D has a great idea. It gives importance to winning a conference and gives and gives an objective standard to use when there are teams with similar records and resumes.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:06 pm to JPLSU1981
What if #1 and #2 are not conference champions, and #3/4/5/6 are all conference champions? Do we exclude #1 and #2?
Delaney's mind is in the right place, but it just isn't as good as taking the top four, period.
Delaney's mind is in the right place, but it just isn't as good as taking the top four, period.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:07 pm to wheelz007
quote:
#1 LSU vs #4 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Oklahoma State
Can you imagine the outcry from Oregon last year if Stanford would have gotten in over Oregon? (which is what would have happenned had there not been a rule similar to the OP in place)...Despite winning the Pac12 and beating Stanford and playing a tougher schedule, Stanford would have gone over Oregon merely for finishing #4, one spot ahead of Oregon.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:07 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
There's nothing stupid about 2005 and 2006 at all
Funny we mentions in 2005 ND lost to USC, but fails to mention so did Oregon. OSU lost to Texas and Penn State
+1
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:08 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
but it just isn't as good as taking the top four, period.
agreed
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:10 pm to rocket31
We can take Delaney's idea and amend it to automatically take #1 and #2 regardless of conference situation.
Like, here's who qualifies:
1) BCS #1
2) BCS #2
3) conference champs in the top 6
4) highest ranked teams not yet qualified
Just go down those four steps until you get four teams (usually would be filled by step 3).
But even then, not all teams are in conferences, and there's no reason to require them to be in conferences or punish them for independence. The best idea still is taking the top four teams regardless of conference situation. A conference season is only a fraction of the season anyway--why should Florida/Vanderbilt count more than Florida/FSU?
Like, here's who qualifies:
1) BCS #1
2) BCS #2
3) conference champs in the top 6
4) highest ranked teams not yet qualified
Just go down those four steps until you get four teams (usually would be filled by step 3).
But even then, not all teams are in conferences, and there's no reason to require them to be in conferences or punish them for independence. The best idea still is taking the top four teams regardless of conference situation. A conference season is only a fraction of the season anyway--why should Florida/Vanderbilt count more than Florida/FSU?
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:10 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
The benefit is the conference champs get in if they are ranked 3,4,5 and 6. Then you would be leaving out the top two teams
theoretically possible, but, highly, highly unlikely. The only time in the BCS a team was ranked #1 that did not win its conference was 2003 OU and that was using the old formula that gave the computers much more weight. As far as i can see, no one that was #1 in the human polls hasn't been in a conferecne and not at least tied for first.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:11 pm to JPLSU1981
How does Notre Dame fit into this picture? They just have to be ranked in the top 6?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:12 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
What if #1 and #2 are not conference champions
That would be strange, but wouldn't it be their own fault for not winning their own little conference?
It's simple: win your conference and finish in the top4, and you're in...Period. Win your conference and finish in the Top6, and you're in as long as there aren't four conference champions ranked ahead of you. Don't win your conference, and you can still make it, but you're gonna need some help since you screwed up and didn't win your conference.
Bottom line: Winning your conference is huge and gives you a leg up, but it still allows great teams that don't win their conference to make it as well.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:12 pm to M Le Rip
That's why I said the conferences should be the ones who decide their champion. If they have their best team left out then it is their own fault.
Conference Champions is the most non bias objective way to decide a champion.
Why did he pick 6th in the rankings as the cut off? Why not 10th? After seein the manipulation last season and the stupidity of polls in previous seasons we should make it impossible for the human polls to frick the system over.
Just take the four best conference champions. Use the BCS computers or a committee to select and seed or something. It is the most fair and the most respectful to the regular season.
Conference Champions is the most non bias objective way to decide a champion.
Why did he pick 6th in the rankings as the cut off? Why not 10th? After seein the manipulation last season and the stupidity of polls in previous seasons we should make it impossible for the human polls to frick the system over.
Just take the four best conference champions. Use the BCS computers or a committee to select and seed or something. It is the most fair and the most respectful to the regular season.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:14 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
What if #1 and #2 are not conference champions, and #3/4/5/6 are all conference champions? Do we exclude #1 and #2?
yes, fell free to find an year where that happened? How likely do you think it is that the final #1 and #2 will be teams that lost their last game? Assuming the Big12 adds 2 team, which seems likely the top 5 conferences will all have a CCG.
ETA: in order for 1 and 2 to not have won their conference, they'd have to have at least 1 loss. If you lose, sorry.
quote:
Delaney's mind is in the right place, but it just isn't as good as taking the top four, period
Top 4 is just an opinion, there are plenty of years where 4,5,6 are all similar, like I said, why does 04 Texas go over Cal or Utah? 10 Stanford over Wisconsin? 11 Stanford over Oregon( hell that sends a message to avoid games like LSU-Oregon).
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:18 pm to JPLSU1981
If we are only going to have a four team playoff, then this is the way to go.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:19 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Why did he pick 6th in the rankings as the cut off? Why not 10th
because its close to top 4, there can be a big drop off from 6-10. Taking Wisconsin last year over Bama, Stanford and even Boise (who did not win WAC last year) cheapens it a little so does leaving out 03 OU who dominated all year for 2 loss FSU that won a weak ACC.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:20 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
What if #1 and #2 are not conference champions, and #3/4/5/6 are all conference champions? Do we exclude #1 and #2?
I wonder what the chances of this scenario actually happening are?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:24 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
because its close to top 4
IMO that is a dumb point. Who determines what is close? What if team 7 is a conference champion and the voters fricked them to make sure an at large team go in the playoffs?
They should just take the top 4 conference champions. The argument for at large teams is ridiculous. If you aren't #1 in your conference there shouldn't be a way to say you are #1 in the country.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 12:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
It's stupid because it makes the process complicated when it doesn't need to be. Take the top 4 teams. There's a reason they are 1-4. Are you going to tell me that Louisville was a better team than LSU or Michigan? You can make an argument for USC, but don't lose to a terrible UCLA team the last week of the season.
There's going to be disagreements no matter what system you use. Why should Michigan and LSU be punished for losing to the top 2 seeds? Much of this problem is alleviated now that most of the major BCS conferences use championship games. A four team playoff is about getting the top four teams a chance to compete for the national title not favoring conference champions over teams that play in the same conference.
There's going to be disagreements no matter what system you use. Why should Michigan and LSU be punished for losing to the top 2 seeds? Much of this problem is alleviated now that most of the major BCS conferences use championship games. A four team playoff is about getting the top four teams a chance to compete for the national title not favoring conference champions over teams that play in the same conference.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News