- 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: Lincoln Riley, Saban say fans who want to expand CFB Playoff field will never be satisfied
Posted on 12/8/17 at 10:58 am to sms151t
Posted on 12/8/17 at 10:58 am to sms151t
quote:
They are trash?
Reading comprehension and context clues... Iowa’s OOC schedule is trash because of that 9 conference game schedule.
ISU
NIU
Directional flyover state school
Rinse and repeat.
1
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:05 am to shel311
quote:
The problem is if it's bad enough I assume you think it should be changed.
If it's going to changed, a new dynamic has to be added...people will bitch about that dynamic. So that's why the argument against any system being "people will bitch" doesn't really work because as you said there's no alternative where people won't bitch.
Going from 4 to 8 teams isn't adding a new dynamic, it's modifying the current one. Going from 4 to 6 teams would be adding a new dynamic.
All I want is a clear set of criteria and no more arbitrary "rankings". The BCS rankings should be re-introduced and you have a 8 team playoff with:
- 5 conference champs
- Highest ranked G5 team* (Must meet qualifier of finishing in the top 15 of final rankings)
- 2 highest ranked non-conference champions (3 if no G5 team qualifies)
It's simple and the criteria is clear and concise.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:07 am to RB10
quote:
Going from 4 to 8 teams isn't adding a new dynamic
quote:You added a new dynamic and people, like me, would absolutely bitch about that process, fwiw.
and you have a 8 team playoff with:
- 5 conference champs
- Highest ranked G5 team* (Must meet qualifier of finishing in the top 15 of final rankings)
- 2 highest ranked non-conference champions (3 if no G5 team qualifies)
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:07 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:08 am to MetArl15
quote:Yep.
Go to 6.
5 power conference champions get in plus one at large.
That way, the only bitching is about the at large spot. The path to the other 5 spots is clear and taken out of the hands of the committee.
If you bitch with that, you are a bitch. Your team had a clear defined way to make the playoffs, and they failed
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:08 am to shel311
quote:
You added a new dynamic and people, like me, would absolutely bitch about that process, fwiw
That's a lot better than having 3 teams one year, 4 the next, 2 the next, etc.
Like you suggested.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:10 am to lsupride87
quote:If you bitch with the current system, you are a bitch.
If you bitch with that, you are a bitch. Your team had a clear defined way to make the playoffs, and they failed
Also, doing it your way, what is the clear defined way for UCF to make the playoffs?
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:10 am to RB10
quote:1. I disagree.
That's a lot better than having 3 teams one year, 4 the next, 2 the next, etc.
Like you suggested.
2. Your main premise was that you can't add a new dynamic because people will bitch then you suggested a process that adds an entirely new dynamic that people will bitch about.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:12 am to MetArl15
I would be in favor of that. This keeps the regular season extremely important. As your chances of getting in the playoffs are extremely low without winning your conference. Plus it gives the top 2 a first round bye week.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:12 am to TheGasMan
quote:
ISU
Who beat Oklahoma
quote:
NIU
Who was not good
quote:
Directional flyover state school
Okay
So what does that Mississippi's or Mississippi States schedule then?
Again taking equal for equal, because some will want to use Alabama vs them But I will counter with Ohio States on that one.
Mississippi State played
Charleston Southern
La Tech
UMass
BYU
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:15 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:13 am to shel311
quote:The non-P5s are fricked. They should start their own division if they want to be in the playoffs
Also, doing it your way, what is the clear defined way for UCF to make the playoffs?
quote:Not really. You could go undefeated in a p5 conference and not make it with the way it is setup now......
If you bitch with the current system, you are a bitch.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:14 am to IIxxBREADxxII
quote:
4 isn't even a legit playoff
Couldn't disagree more.
Hate how obsessed some are with playoffs. I'd rather tweak the regular season with more conference games and the best two teams in each conference playing in the ccg as opposed to adding more teams to a bracket
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:22 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:14 am to mattz1122
quote:
They’re right.
No one complains about the FCS playoff size, no one complains about the NCAAB Tourney, no one complains about the NFL, MLB, NHL or NBA playoff. This is literally the only sport where it's an issue, and it's also the sport with by far the fewest playoff games. I'm not sure I agree with Riley/Saban
ETA: I meant FCS, obviously
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:36 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:15 am to lsupride87
quote:Yes really
Not really.
quote:So it's not clear and defined for every team is what you're saying.
The non-P5s are fricked. They should start their own division if they want to be in the playoffs
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:16 am to shel311
quote:
1. I disagree.
Disagreeing doesn't make your idea any better.
quote:
2. Your main premise was that you can't add a new dynamic because people will bitch then you suggested a process that adds an entirely new dynamic that people will bitch about.
Actually, my premise was giving a bye to one team, or multiple teams or no teams (we don't really know) is stupid. In fact, the entire idea of not having arbitrary of teams make the playoffs is utterly ridiculous. I don't think you could even make a rational argument for such a system (you haven't yet).
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:16 am to sms151t
quote:
Mississippi or Mississippi State’s
They already play as divisional rivals every year. 9 conference games wouldn’t affect that.
Next.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:16 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
No one complains about the FBS playoff size
This whole thread is a complaint about FBS playoff bracket size.
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:17 am to SCLSUMuddogs
Riley/Saban are completely wrong for this main reason.
People complain because as of now, there is absolutely no clear defined way for your team to make the playoff. Every other postseason I know of has at least one defined way every team can make their postseason. College football has none. Which is ridiculous
People complain because as of now, there is absolutely no clear defined way for your team to make the playoff. Every other postseason I know of has at least one defined way every team can make their postseason. College football has none. Which is ridiculous
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:18 am to TheGasMan
What are you talking about? So we are comparing in state schools or what?
I just used equals to Iowa in the SEC, but you want to go down that road.
So okay lets use Colorado and Colorado State fair enough? Or wait do you want to use both Power 5 schools? I need to know what you are exactly asking
How about Georgia Tech and UGA?
I mean Tech plays a 9 game conference schedule and plays UGA yearly
Or we can use Florida Florida St State plays a 9 game schedule, Miami would probably play UF yearly if UF did not chicken out
Wait lets use
I just used equals to Iowa in the SEC, but you want to go down that road.
So okay lets use Colorado and Colorado State fair enough? Or wait do you want to use both Power 5 schools? I need to know what you are exactly asking
How about Georgia Tech and UGA?
I mean Tech plays a 9 game conference schedule and plays UGA yearly
Or we can use Florida Florida St State plays a 9 game schedule, Miami would probably play UF yearly if UF did not chicken out
Wait lets use
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:20 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:18 am to RB10
quote:Because you like your way doesn't mean that it's "a lot better than having 3 teams one year, 4 the next, 2 the next, etc."
Disagreeing doesn't make your idea any better.
quote:So is auto bids for conf winners IMO. Hopefully you see my point now in regards to your original posts.
Actually, my premise was giving a bye to one team, or multiple teams or no teams (we don't really know) is stupid.
quote:The system you said we should use has arbitrary teams making the playoffs, you do realize that, right?
In fact, the entire idea of not having arbitrary of teams make the playoffs is utterly ridiculous.
quote:You haven't either. Any system created will be deemed as irrational by a large contingent, so...
I don't think you could even make a rational argument for such a system (you haven't yet).
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 12/8/17 at 11:19 am to shel311
quote:Yes. Every p5 team will be defined. I dont care about the non P5. Make their own division
So it's not clear and defined for every team is what you're saying.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News