- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 10/9/13 at 7:51 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
I, for one, am enjoying this shite show. A few others here tried to warn everybody but noooooo.
Was saying this very thing to some buddies this weekend.
How long before the conferences do away with CGs because their plus one is costing them a spot in the playoff?
Posted on 10/9/13 at 7:53 am to elprez00
quote:
How long before the conferences do away with CGs because their plus one is costing them a spot in the playoff?
That was the argument against them in the first place. Hasn't really worked out to be true, except for Tennessee in 2001.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:07 am to ballscaster
quote:
Figure out a computer formula and let it play out. That eliminates bias.
Use the TUba 101.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:11 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
That was the argument against them in the first place. Hasn't really worked out to be true, except for Tennessee in 2001.
Lets have a hypothetical 2011 setup.
LSU plays UGA in the SEC CG, while Bama sits at #3 at home, having already lost to LSU.
Lets say LSU loses to UGA.
Bama easily is voted #1, despite getting to sit at home and not play another game against a top ten team. LSU probably drops to around #5, UGA jumps up to around #6.
Now the selection committee has a conundrum. The #1 team did not win their conference, and lost to the team representing their conference in the CG. UGA won the SEC, but by virtue of their ranking, doesnt have enough clout to make it to the top 4. LSU runs the table in the regular season only to slip up to another top ten team at a neutral site.
Congrats. The regular season now means dick.
This will make the BCS look like a godsend before its over and will contain more controversy than ever experienced under the BCS. The magic of college football, that "every game counts", will be gone.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:21 am to elprez00
quote:
This will make the BCS look like a godsend before its over and will contain more controversy than ever experienced under the BCS. The magic of college football, that "every game counts", will be gone.
You're preaching to the choir. But the hypothetical scenario isn't really related to the issue at hand. In your hypothetical, the SEC still has a team in the playoff. Even if it isn't the conference champion.
Your scenario is precisely why you can't take 4 teams from a 124 team league for a playoff.
In most years, the selection committee will take the conference champions from the SEC, Pac12, B1G, and BigXII, as long as they have two or fewer losses. But yeah, what that means a la your hypothetical, is that two of the three SEC Champ Georgia and 1 loss LSU and Bama get left out.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:30 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
Your scenario is precisely why you can't take 4 teams from a 124 team league for a playoff.
I think you can do it with four teams, but there has to be definable metrics (ala SOS, conference records) that are included in the decisions.
quote:
In most years, the selection committee will take the conference champions from the SEC, Pac12, B1G, and BigXII, as long as they have two or fewer losses.
I don't think they will every year. Most years, the SEC and PAC12 CG are going to feature matchups of top ten teams. The Big 10, not so much. Big 12 doesn't even have one.
Do you penalize the team from the SEC of PAC12 for losing to a top ten team in an extra game? Do you reward the lower ranked teams for defeating the higher ranked teams? Do you reward a team like Ohio St for cakewalking through their schedule (last year, Big 10 had 3 teams in the top 25. SEC had 5 in the Top 10.) but penalize another team for one loss against much higher level of competition?
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:37 am to elprez00
quote:
Do you penalize the team from the SEC of PAC12 for losing to a top ten team in an extra game? Do you reward the lower ranked teams for defeating the higher ranked teams? Do you reward a team like Ohio St for cakewalking through their schedule (last year, Big 10 had 3 teams in the top 25. SEC had 5 in the Top 10.) but penalize another team for one loss against much higher level of competition?
I'm not saying I would, but you better be ready for it, because it's going to happen. The name of the game is keeping the power players happy. And that means making sure the power conferences are represented in the playoff.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:38 am to tigerdrew23
quote:
There are very, very few people I have more respect for than her. I really think she will do a great job
They picked her because she's a huge football fan, not because of her other achievements.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:43 am to brgfather129
quote:
Figure out a computer formula and let it play out. That eliminates bias.
The top 4 in the final BCS polls heading into the bowls pretty much nailed the 4 best teams in CFB.
Why create a committee where there will be more bias, and a need to try and please universities/conferences?
I could see an instance where 2 teams from the SEC should be in the top 4, but this committee will go out of its way to include PAC12, BIG10, BIG12 and/or ACC champs over selecting a 2nd team from the SEC.
This post was edited on 10/9/13 at 8:44 am
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:51 am to Captain Ron
quote:
and a need to try and please universities/conferences?
Money. Everyone wants their slice of the pie. The best case scenario for the this new committee will be 4 of the 5 power conference champions being undefeated or one loss. As long as that's the case, controversy will be minimal.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:17 am to tigerdrew23
No matter who was picked, somebody was going to have a problem with the selection
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:18 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
The best case scenario for the this new committee will be 4 of the 5 power conference champions being undefeated or one loss. As long as that's the case, controversy will be minimal.
What happens when one of those is Notre Dame? I don't think anyone in their right mind really believes now that ND had any business in the NC game last year. But, take a look back at the press leading up to that game.
Does a selection committee have the balls to leave out a "storied college football program" because they have the obligation to do what the pollsters and ESPN often wont?
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:23 am to tigerdrew23
I respect Denzel Washington and he did a football movie, let's get him too
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:24 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
That was the argument against them in the first place. Hasn't really worked out to be true, except for Tennessee in 2001.
And Kansas State in 1998 and Missouri in 2007.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:29 am to elprez00
quote:
What happens when one of those is Notre Dame? I don't think anyone in their right mind really believes now that ND had any business in the NC game last year. But, take a look back at the press leading up to that game
I don't think anyone in their right mind would have left out the nation's only undefeated team which was also a unanimous #1 in the computers and nearly unanimous in the polls.
This post was edited on 10/9/13 at 9:43 am
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:29 am to elprez00
quote:
What happens when one of those is Notre Dame? I don't think anyone in their right mind really believes now that ND had any business in the NC game last year. But, take a look back at the press leading up to that game.
Does a selection committee have the balls to leave out a "storied college football program" because they have the obligation to do what the pollsters and ESPN often wont?
I really think we're on the same side of this argument. I don't think a selection committee is any better than the current system, and in some ways it may be worse.
Notre Dame will always get the benefit of being Notre Dame. What will a committee do in a scenario where ND, Bama, FSU, Oklahoma, OSU are all undefeated? I don't know. Make one of those teams one loss and I think ND is in no questions asked. Make one of those teams a non-traditional power like Ok. St., Baylor, Wisky, then again, I think ND is in, just with a bit more controversy.
The problem with this new system is it takes an already subjective system, rankings, and makes it even more subjective.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:31 am to tigerdrew23
quote:
She can't be possibly be worse than the BCS.
People wanted the old bowl system thrown out because it was too politically motivated. So we got the BCS which was supposed to eliminate media/pollster bias and largely did. Over time it got tweaked to allow more and more media influence back into the decision making (throwing out strength of schedule, weighting the polls higher than originally intended.) Now media and pollsters are still wanting more say and pushing to get it back by having this committee. Next they will say we need more and more people on the committee to eliminate a small group having all the power.
So now, we're back to bias and politics deciding our national champions. Wonderful.
I never understand the hate for the BCS, since it has largely gotten the national champion correct nearly every year. The only exception (coming from an LSU fan) would be allowing Bama to get a rematch instead of Oklahoma State. But i think that was reflective of the media bias/polls having more influence than intended originally.
ps: Back on topic, i agree with everything Pat Dye said.
This post was edited on 10/9/13 at 9:36 am
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:35 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
I really think we're on the same side of this argument. I don't think a selection committee is any better than the current system, and in some ways it may be worse.
No, Wayne, we are on the same side. I'm just generating conversation. Its easy to see the flaws in what we are going to, even more so than the system currently in place.
I've said all along, and still maintain this: Win your conference, your name goes on the hat for selection. Four teams are selected from the conference championship winners. (with consideration from polling, SOS, etc.)
There has to be a way to make the regular season count for something.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 9:41 am to Captain Ron
quote:
The top 4 in the final BCS polls heading into the bowls pretty much nailed the 4 best teams in CFB.
Why create a committee where there will be more bias, and a need to try and please universities/conferences?
I could see an instance where 2 teams from the SEC should be in the top 4, but this committee will go out of its way to include PAC12, BIG10, BIG12 and/or ACC champs over selecting a 2nd team from the SEC.
I agree with this. Would a selection have picked TCU in 2009 or 2010, or would the Hornfrogs have been bypassed for teams from AQ conferences. Even within the AQ conferences there are biases that favor traditional powers. In 2011, the oomputers had Oklahoma State as the #2 team, but the voters, who accounted for 2/3rds of the rankings, voted Alabama in. I doubt this would have happened if the voters were considering the Oklahoma team from Norman instead of Stillwater.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News