- 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: NCAA Playoffs Look Like A Reality in 2014
Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Quality of loss was talked about in 2003 among voters as a reason to vote for USC, but in a different context. USC lost by 3 in OT, LSU lost by 12 at home and OU got their arse kicked. That's different from saying Bama should go because OSU lost to Iowa State
yeah, i agree it was mentioned before...would have been better to say it was mentioned, but always overridden by best overall body of work.
the thing is, and SFP mentioned the AP...the AP, Coaches (coaches don't watch games, they readily admit this) and the Harris poll (which might as well include the Kardashians in their group)are influenced by ESPN and their arguments...i don't see how anyone can dismiss this. (and for the record, i'm not in the ESPN hates LSU camp)
And here's my biggest gripe about the eyeball test...even if OSU had gone undefeated, wouldn't the eyeball test have still said Bama was better? if you're going by eyeball test, why should records matter? but OSU certainly would have been in the title game. does it only come into play when the records are the same?
This post was edited on 2/26/12 at 2:38 pm
3
Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:46 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
Conference championships should mean something,
regular season champs? ok
quote:]
They should keep the system how it is now, but there shouldn't be two teams from the same conference playing in the title game.
if they're the best 2 teams, i have no issue with it (and that cost LSU a national title
) Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:49 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
I was gonna say this too, but you beat me to it. Especially Arky AT HOME when we had been given new life. Once our overall resume was looked at
LSU jumped to the top b/c of the "eyeball" test, namely our dominating win against VT
quote:
they had no choice but to vault us over VT and UGA.
and UGA? no
quote:
Hell, in 03 our loss wasn't good. But we got in because of our overall body of work.
there were multitudes of comparisons of UF and Cal
Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:54 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
are influenced by ESPN and their arguments
i think this is overblown somewhat
we can bring back another reference to 2007, where ESPN was pushing for non-LSU teams pretty hard, esp UGA
in 2006 the ESPN darlings at the end were OSU and UM, and UF got in, instead
i won't say that OU has a huge media advantage over UT (for 2008)
2009 was easy
2010 was easy
in 2012 bama was SOLIDLY #2 once OSU lost, before "the machine" took over. bama lost votes b/w weeks 14 and 15, also
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:04 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
And here's my biggest gripe about the eyeball test...even if OSU had gone undefeated, wouldn't the eyeball test have still said Bama was better? if you're going by eyeball test, why should records matter? but OSU certainly would have been in the title game. does it only come into play when the records are the same?
I made basically this same argument with Hanagriff and Risher on the post game show after the SEC CG. The result of the OSU-ISU game did not change my opinion of who was better out of OSU and Bama. But OSU had a better resume.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU jumped to the top b/c of the "eyeball" test, namely our dominating win against VT
the domination might have been eyeball test, but i think the decision was more about a head to head win. i think if we'd beaten them by a TD, we still would have gotten in.
quote:
and UGA? no
UGA had a comparable regular season to ours, were playing unquestionably better than we were at the end of the season and had the same regular season record. we won the conference champ game and thus had a better record...overall body of work > UGA's which is why the voters jumped us over them. It certainly wasn't because we were so convincing in that game. But if I was voting based on eyeball test, even after the SECCG, i'd have voted UGA.
quote:
there were multitudes of comparisons of UF and Cal
Well, I admitted losses were in the discussion, but they were always second to overall resume. Our wins got us there in 03 more than USC's loss kept them out.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:10 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
The other thing in LSU's favor over UGA in 2007 was that we won out conference.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:13 pm to rocket31
3 game playoff means 8 teams right? Still doesn't fix the problem
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:13 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Still not convinced the Big East Champ deserves that nod. Especially with realignment.
as well as the ACC, the ACC just got worse in football
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:15 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
3 game playoff means 8 teams right
No, the number of playoff games is always 1 less than the # of teams..
64 team playoff = 63 games.
quote:
Still doesn't fix the problem
Depends on what you think the problem is?
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:17 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
the domination might have been eyeball test, but i think the decision was more about a head to head win.
well that isn't a consistent judgment variable, either. look at 1 year later with UT-OU
quote:
But if I was voting based on eyeball test, even after the SECCG, i'd have voted UGA.
i think you're using a different definition of "eyeball" test than i am, b/c you're thinking of it in terms of only at the end
i am not
quote:
Our wins got us there in 03 more than USC's loss kept them out.
well honestly the argument in 2003 was really OU v. USC. LSU was pretty much in regardless
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:17 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
3 game playoff means 8 teams right? Still doesn't fix the problem
which problem, exactly?
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:18 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Depends on what you think the problem is?
College football is the only sport in the known universe where it is possible that you can win every game and not be the champion.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
which problem, exactly?
that someone can go undefeated and not win the title.
I think he's proposed some absurd 32 team playoff or something.
In all likely hood, 16 is the absolute max it could get and I doubt it would ever grow beyond 8 at most.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:21 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
College football is the only sport in the known universe where it is possible that you can win every game and not be the champion.
that is an impossible "problem" to solve without going full retard like CBB
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that is an impossible "problem" to solve without going full retard like CBB
you could split D1 that would solve it.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
that someone can go undefeated and not win the title.
trying to protect every freakish outlier scenario is pretty fricking stupid
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
you could split D1 that would solve it.
this is my solution to the "problem"
i was speaking in terms of the current framework
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that is an impossible "problem" to solve without going full retard like CBB
So impossible every other division of college football has been doing it for decades
Posted on 2/26/12 at 3:26 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
So impossible every other division of college football has been doing it for decades
1AA and D1A are not really comparable
like i said, you'd have to incorporate a safety valve of including every conference, which is going full retard like CBB
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News