- 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 1:23 pm to Colonel Flagg
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:23 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
I understand that, but I think 6 is an arbitrary and stupid ranking to select as the cut off.
you just say that because its not a standard type cut off like top 10 (who does a top 6 hit songs
) If we are only taking 4, taking 4 of the top 6 is better than taking 4 of the top 10, because the top 6 are likely to be better. Leaving out #2 for #6, is not going to be as contraversial as leaving them out for #10.
I think this idea is fantastic for the reasons Baloo stated on page 1. It puts importance on winning your conference and the whole season, despite claims to the contrary, but also leaves open the possibility that a great team, like 2011 Alabama or 2003 OU will not be left out. It cuts out more contraversies (like 2004 Texas, Cal, Utah, 2011 Stanford over Oregon) than it creates (2006 USC, UL over LSU/UM)
0
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:24 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:It proved that they were a shitload better than Penn State, Georgia Southern, North Texas, and Kent State. What's the problem?
only 3 or 4 are not in conferences and are you saying games against Penn State, Ga So, N Texas and Kent State tell us anything about Alabama last year
quote:Semantics, but you can win the Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA Finals, and Super Bowl without winning your division. But I was talking about college sports anyway. You don't have to win your conference to win any NCAA-sanctioned national championship, including FCS. I don't know that it's been required for any NCAA sport in the last few decades, so why place it on FBS football?
It can't happen in pro sports
Makes no sense. Your system has holes, and your argument for it is "Like that would EVER happen!" Well, yes, it EVER could. This system has huge flaws, and it's not going into place because it places an arbitrary value on conference affiliations that not all teams share. Just fill the holes, brother.
(By taking the top 4.)
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:28 pm to Colonel Flagg
FCS, D2, D3, and NAIA tournaments have never required, to my knowledge, that a team wins its conference (that would be stupid, of course, since all teams are not in conference), and each tournament was much smaller in the past.
Sorry guys, but no matter how you put it, requiring a team to win its conference doesn't work.
Sorry guys, but no matter how you put it, requiring a team to win its conference doesn't work.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:29 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
It was 30 minutes from happening in December.
The final was 42-10, it was not remotely close to happening,you are being overly dramatic because it was the last game. That's also the only time it was even remotely close to happening.
And I should add, its not even a given that it would have happened even if LSU had lost. The voters might have moved Ok State to #1 if LSU had lost. There is no way to know for sure. and not the fact OSU was behind Bama is not proof that it would have stayed LSU, Bama, OSU.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:29 pm to rocket31
quote:
this only works if all conferences are equal. they are not. therefore, its mildly ignorant to suggest winning the BigEast is worth just as much as winning the SEC. no offense.
Why is it fair for a team to get into a playoff over a team that won the conference? Why is it fair to make that conference champion beat the at large team again anyways?
Why should we just assume because a team is in a weaker conference they are not better than the at large team we already know isn't better than the conference champion who should already be making it in the playoff? Do not need two participants from one conference.
Also if you won a conference that is not perceived to be the best you still would need to be considered one of the four best conference champions.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:31 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:They were #2. They qualified.
Well Bama should have never been in the NCG anyways.
quote:This opinion is no less biased than the opinion that Alabama was better than Oklahoma State.
If it would have been a team not named Bama or USC in that position it wouldn't have even been a possibility.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:31 pm to rocket31
quote:
this only works if all conferences are equal. they are not. therefore, its mildly ignorant to suggest winning the BigEast is worth just as much as winning the SEC. no offense.
and no one is saying that it is, just that, if you win the Big East AND are ranked among either the overall top 6 or are 1 of the 4 highest ranked teams that did win a conference, that is better than coming in 2nd in the SEC.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Whens the last time...
does not matter. Before 2007, when was the last time there was a two loss champion? Before 2011, when was the last time two teams from the same conference played in the BCS championship?
The possibility that it can happen matters.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:30 minutes is definitely remotely close, but that's not the point anyway. The point is that it's possible, so it's a hole that needs to be covered.
The final was 42-10, it was not remotely close to happening
quote:But it was possible, right?
And I should add, its not even a given that it would have happened even if LSU had lost. The voters might have moved Ok State to #1 if LSU had lost. There is no way to know for sure. and not the fact OSU was behind Bama is not proof that it would have stayed LSU, Bama, OSU.
Cover the holes, brother. Too many of 'em in this system.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:35 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:Because they had a better record, tougher schedule, and maybe even a head-to-head win.
Why is it fair for a team to get into a playoff over a team that won the conference?
If you think "Big East Champion" matters more than all that, then
quote:And how would that be determined?
Also if you won a conference that is not perceived to be the best you still would need to be considered one of the four best conference champions.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:37 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
It proved that they were a shitload better than Penn State, Georgia Southern, North Texas, and Kent State. What's the problem?
Has nothing to do with comparing them to OSU.
quote:
This system has huge flaws, and it's not going into place because it places an arbitrary value on conference affiliations that not all teams share. Just fill the holes, brother.
(By taking the top 4.)
That's fine, but tell me why Stanford should go over Oregon in 2011? Why should Texas go over Cal and Utah in 2004? These are real world, not hypothetical examples.
The Delany plan is the best of both worlds, you can't give any argument against it, except for a scenario that has never happened and is extremely unlikely to happen.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:37 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
requiring a team to win its conference doesn't work.
only way it works if you had four 16 team conferences spread equally across the country.
what incentive would a BigEast school ever have to schedule a difficult OOC game?
win a crap conference, go 12-0, be ranked in the top 6, profit.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:37 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:So the rankings aren't good enough for us when they say that #2 Alabama shouldn't get in the playoffs over #5 Oregon, but they're good enough to determine who's better between Oregon and Wisconsin?
and no one is saying that it is, just that, if you win the Big East AND are ranked among either the overall top 6 or are 1 of the 4 highest ranked teams that did win a conference, that is better than coming in 2nd in the SEC.
Are the rankings good enough to determine who the best teams or aren't they?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:41 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
So the rankings aren't good enough for us when they say that #2 Alabama shouldn't get in the playoffs over #5 Oregon, but they're good enough to determine who's better between Oregon and Wisconsin? Are the rankings good enough to determine who the best teams or aren't they?
It would be better to look at it like the tournament started at the beginning of the season and that their really aren't rankings. Bama would have been eliminated in the SEC tournament after LSU defeated Arkansas.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:45 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Sure it does. Those four games contributed to Alabama's 11-1 season, which was compared to Oklahoma State's 11-1 season. You're wrong, brother.
Has nothing to do with comparing them to OSU.
quote:I'm not so sure that they should. Stanford's schedule was incredibly weak, and I think some of the computers actually had Oregon higher than Stanford. I'm pretty sure you're hinting at Oregon's head-to-head win over Stanford, but head-to-head is a tie-breaker, and it would be fine to use it to break a tie in the standings, but in this instance, they weren't tied. I can say that if we had a computer ranking or series of computer rankings, and the formulas were made public, I'd have no problem with either one going in ahead of the other.
That's fine, but tell me why Stanford should go over Oregon in 2011?
quote:But one of those worlds sucks and needs to be bombed.
The Delany plan is the best of both worlds
quote:So you know that your plan has holes in it. You're just fine with those holes.
you can't give any argument against it, except for a scenario that has never happened and is extremely unlikely to happen.
We've spent over a decade in a system that has holes. It's not good enough, and neither is Delaney's idea.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:46 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
30 minutes is definitely remotely close, but that's not the point anyway. The point is that it's possible, so it's a hole that needs to be covered.
42-10 is not remotely close and I'm sorry, you can't cover every single remote possibilty. If you used that standard, we could literally never do anything. its just not possible to deseign anything that covers every remote contingency. There's a 1 in 6 billion chance you can die from a vaccine, that's a hole.
quote:
But it was possible, right?
Cover the holes, brother.
Its possible 5 or 6 teams go undefeated. Its also possible they could all have the same SOS, or lets say 5 go 13-0, 3 have better SOS, but the other 2 have identical SOS. What do you do then? Not possible to cover every hole brother. Using that as a standard to not do something is foolish. Especially when its something that's never happened before .
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:47 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:So you count Bama's 3-point loss to LSU more than you count Oregon's 13-point loss to LSU?
It would be better to look at it like the tournament started at the beginning of the season and that their really aren't rankings. Bama would have been eliminated in the SEC tournament after LSU defeated Arkansas.
Wow. Come on, man.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:48 pm to rocket31
quote:
win a crap conference, go 12-0, be ranked in the top 6, profit.
You don't think a 12-0 Big East champ would be top 4 with a shite OOC?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:51 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
So the rankings aren't good enough for us when they say that #2 Alabama shouldn't get in the playoffs over #5 Oregon, but they're good enough to determine who's better between Oregon and Wisconsin?
Are the rankings good enough to determine who the best teams or aren't they?
I'd rather a committee with transparent criteria decide, but in the case of Oregon over Wisky, SOS is the key decider, Oregon also had better wins than Wisky.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 1:53 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
Semantics, but you can win the Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA Finals, and Super Bowl without winning your division
Yes, and to do so, let's see what you have to overcome:
NFL: 3 games just to make the title game, ALL of them on the road.
NBA: Win 3 7-game series to make the title series, possible but unlikely to have home court advantage in all three.
NHL: Win 3 7-game series to make the final series, and only possible for the top non-division winner to have home ice. Playoffs reseed every round to ensure non-division winners always face the toughest matchup possible of remaining teams.
MLB: Win two 7-game series, both on the road to make the final series.
College football now: get placed in title game.
Under new system: Play one game to make title, at a neutral site.
Gee, those are EXACTLY the same. There is absolutely no penalty to not winning your division in the other sports you mentioned.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News