- 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 4:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 2/26/12 at 4:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I think SFP has called this they next team fallacy or something like that
yeah not a fallacy, but just the concept of the "next team"
0
Posted on 2/27/12 at 5:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That would have been completely justifiable. They got completely and utterly destroyed by K-State in their CCG. No way they should have represented their conference in the Sugar Bowl after that.
2003 would have been a cluster frick though b/c OU wouldn't have made it under the "conference champ" system
Posted on 2/27/12 at 7:07 am to loweralabamatrojan
I addressed that above, they would not have been #1 in the current BCS, leaving out #3 would not be as big a deal
Match ups using only conference winners would have been
1 USC v 7 FSU
2 LSU v 4 UM
Kinda sucks leaving the team that dominated all year and only lost 1 game out for 2 with 2 loses, but no one cares if LSU or USC wins.
Match ups using only conference winners would have been
1 USC v 7 FSU
2 LSU v 4 UM
Kinda sucks leaving the team that dominated all year and only lost 1 game out for 2 with 2 loses, but no one cares if LSU or USC wins.
Posted on 2/27/12 at 7:49 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
leaving out #3 would not be as big a deal
quote:
1 USC v 7 FSU
leaving out 3 and putting in #7 is a pretty big deal, imho
Posted on 2/27/12 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
leaving out 3 and putting in #7 is a pretty big deal, imho
Yep. Could be tweaked by drawing from the top 6 but giving conference champions preference over wild cards. So if you have to go all the way down to 7 to get the fourth team, you say forget it and take a wild card from the 3 spot.
That, of course, is assuming FSU would have been 7 under the current formula.
Posted on 2/27/12 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's not "always" right, but it's more correct than other playoff systems of major sports
Are you serious?
quote:
it's an evolving process, i hope they don't stop teaking it to reach as close to perfection as possible
Here's perfection a playoff.
Posted on 2/27/12 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
leaving out 3 and putting in #7 is a pretty big deal, imho
well, you are pretty much against a 4 team playoff. Its not like these rankings are mathmatical truths. FSU was probably 7 and not 4 or 5 because they lost later in the year than UM, tOSU and UT who were 4,5,6.
And like i said earlier, if everyone knows you have to win your conference to make it in the playoff, does OU look at the Big 12 CG differently? To me, this is the best argument against CCG, which I've always hated for reasons like Big12 03, SEC 01 etc. In a perfect world, we would either have conference champs like the Pac 10 the last few years or have CCG only if necessary (09 SEC 2 teams 8-0).
Posted on 2/27/12 at 11:02 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Yep. Could be tweaked by drawing from the top 6 but giving conference champions preference over wild cards. So if you have to go all the way down to 7 to get the fourth team, you say forget it and take a wild card from the 3 spot
I think in 2003 there were 5 teams with 2 loses. UM, tOSU, UT, FSU, Mia. 3 of those won their conference and there wasn't a real difference between them.
Lets be real here, if say #7 FSU won the NC,thats not on the level of Villanova or the 9-7 Giants.
ETA: I'm fine with just taking the top 4, but in 2011 that punished Oregon for scheduling a big OOC game.
This post was edited on 2/27/12 at 11:04 am
Posted on 2/27/12 at 12:14 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
all of the teams in the playoff should be conference champions.
frick that shite.
lsu and alabama were clearly the 2 best teams last year
Set aside your personal feelings about lsu and bama this year. As long as the top four teams in question aren't in a conference that didn't allow a heads up matchup this proposal is great for college football. Because it makes winning your conference a priority and decreases repeat matchups in which the bowl game importance diminishes the regular season result (mich/osu 2006, fla/bama 08/09, lsu/bama 11)
I'm not 100% it should be conference champs - but I do think having only one team representing each conference is the best solution in a four team playoff
Posted on 2/27/12 at 12:21 pm to molsusports
It would be really bad if you have 2 teams play in the CCG and then meet again in the next game, like UF/Bama 08/09
Posted on 2/27/12 at 12:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
It would be really bad if you have 2 teams play in the CCG and then meet again in the next game, like UF/Bama 08/09
Bottom line I think rematches are bad on most occasions, it was bad this year to make the regular season lsu/bama game meaningless and would have been horrible in 2006 if mich/osu had played again for the BCS NCG
College football doesn't have a extended playoff and unless they go to a giant playoff involving a lot of teams they should do everything possible to avoid having teams from the same conference play rematches in the postseason (would be a logistical nightmare and devalue the regular season which is what I value most about CFB)
Could I live with a compromise that technically allowed two teams from the same conference in a four team playoff? I'm against it but if they put a couple strings on there I guess I could see the rationale
String #1: second team to qualify from the same conference MUST be ranked in the top two of the BCS
String #2: second qualifier from the same conference must play as the road team in the opening round of the playoff (and should not be matched up against their conference opponent)
Posted on 2/27/12 at 1:32 pm to molsusports
I think also this is kind of paving the way for 4 or 5 mega conferences of 12-16 teams, playing CCG and 4 of those winners playing for the NC.
This post was edited on 2/27/12 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 2/27/12 at 2:18 pm to H-Town Tiger
It should be the top 4 teams in college football regardless of conference. If we had the top 4 conference champions in this year, it would have been #1 LSU vs. #10 Wisconsin and #3 Oklahoma State vs. #5 Oregon. I'm not in favor of any playoff situation that leaves out the number 2 and 4 teams for no damn reason.
Besides, if it just comes down to conference champions, then that means teams have absolutely no incentive to book OCC match-ups or even really care about them. Why play your starters in big OCC match-ups that have no bearing on your playoff chances? As long as you win your conference, you are set for a playoff.
We've already seen how voters and the computers will terribly overrank programs who play weak schedules like they do with TCU and Boise State in the past, so what's stopping some BCS program that is really getting nowhere fast like a Mississippi State or an Iowa or a Oregon State from jumping from their current conference over to a far easier one where they can go 11-1/12-0 every year and make the playoffs as the 4th seed in the playoffs?
Besides, if it just comes down to conference champions, then that means teams have absolutely no incentive to book OCC match-ups or even really care about them. Why play your starters in big OCC match-ups that have no bearing on your playoff chances? As long as you win your conference, you are set for a playoff.
We've already seen how voters and the computers will terribly overrank programs who play weak schedules like they do with TCU and Boise State in the past, so what's stopping some BCS program that is really getting nowhere fast like a Mississippi State or an Iowa or a Oregon State from jumping from their current conference over to a far easier one where they can go 11-1/12-0 every year and make the playoffs as the 4th seed in the playoffs?
Posted on 2/27/12 at 5:56 pm to Dwight K Schrute
quote:
I'm not in favor of any playoff situation that leaves out the number 2 and 4 teams for no damn reason
the reason would be they didn't win their conference. Go lock on page 1 of this thread i broke out the rankings of the top 4 conference winners for the BCS era. This year was the lowest, most years the top 3 were all conference winners.
quote:
Besides, if it just comes down to conference champions, then that means teams have absolutely no incentive to book OCC match-ups or even really care about them
I think you have it backwards. This year Stanford was #4 at 11-1, #5 was 11-2 Oregon. OU beat SU head to head. Their other loss was to LSU. If they play Wyoming instread, Oregon might have been in the BCS CG, but certainly would have been ranked ahead of Stanford.
quote:
Why play your starters in big OCC match-ups that have no bearing on your playoff chances? As long as you win your conference, you are set for a playoff.
Its only the top 4 conference winners, all but 3 years of the BCS that's top 5 or 6. You aint getting in the top 6 with 3 loses.
quote:
We've already seen how voters and the computers will terribly overrank programs who play weak schedules like they do with TCU and Boise State in the past, so what's stopping some BCS program that is really getting nowhere fast like a Mississippi State or an Iowa or a Oregon State from jumping from their current conference over to a far easier one where they can go 11-1/12-0 every year and make the playoffs as the 4th seed in the playoffs?
LOL. Wut? The biggest reason is $$$$$$. What would stop them from doing it anyway genius, as you mention Boise and TCU have already been in the top 4.
This post was edited on 2/27/12 at 6:01 pm
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News