- 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
Preferred post-BCS system - playoffs?
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:16 am
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:16 am
Just wanna know what people think on this. When the BCS expires in 2011, should we just replace it with a same or similar system? Or should we start using play-offs?
I used to think the best way to do it would be to have a 16 team play-off like the lower divisions. But now I'm more of the thinking that 8 is an absolute maximum, and 4 would be the best.
Playoff brackets that are too large result in the best team NOT winning the title. Take last year's superbowl for instance. Sure, New England lost the Superbowl, but at 18-1 they were clearly the dominant power in the NFL.
A playoff bracket should be just large enough to ensure that the best team gets into the bracket. I think 4 is about right. Just take the Top 4 from a BCS kind of rankings - max 2 per conference.
Using past rankings, the first round would have been:
2007
Virginia Tech v LSU
Oklahoma v Ohio State
2006
LSU v Ohio St
Michigan v Florida
2005
Penn State v Texas
Ohio State v USC
2004
Auburn v Oklahoma
Texas v USC
2003
USC v LSU
Michigan v Oklahoma
2002
Georgia v Ohio State
USC v Miami
2001
Colorado v Nebraska
Oregon v Miami
2000
Miami v Florida State
Washington v Oklahoma
1999
Virginia Tech v Penn State
Tennessee v Florida State
1998
Kansas State v Florida State
Ohio State v Tennessee
The chief advantage of this system is Notre Dame wouldn't have gotten in.
I used to think the best way to do it would be to have a 16 team play-off like the lower divisions. But now I'm more of the thinking that 8 is an absolute maximum, and 4 would be the best.
Playoff brackets that are too large result in the best team NOT winning the title. Take last year's superbowl for instance. Sure, New England lost the Superbowl, but at 18-1 they were clearly the dominant power in the NFL.
A playoff bracket should be just large enough to ensure that the best team gets into the bracket. I think 4 is about right. Just take the Top 4 from a BCS kind of rankings - max 2 per conference.
Using past rankings, the first round would have been:
2007
Virginia Tech v LSU
Oklahoma v Ohio State
2006
LSU v Ohio St
Michigan v Florida
2005
Penn State v Texas
Ohio State v USC
2004
Auburn v Oklahoma
Texas v USC
2003
USC v LSU
Michigan v Oklahoma
2002
Georgia v Ohio State
USC v Miami
2001
Colorado v Nebraska
Oregon v Miami
2000
Miami v Florida State
Washington v Oklahoma
1999
Virginia Tech v Penn State
Tennessee v Florida State
1998
Kansas State v Florida State
Ohio State v Tennessee
The chief advantage of this system is Notre Dame wouldn't have gotten in.
This post was edited on 11/14/08 at 11:17 am
5
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:25 am to TheAntiGump
8 Team Playoff: 6 Conference Champions, 2 At-Large Teams
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:27 am to Roughneck
quote:
8 Team Playoff: 6 Conference Champions, 2 At-Large Teams
4 teams is all that is needed, more just waters down the season.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:30 am to Roughneck
quote:
8 Team Playoff: 6 Conference Champions, 2 At-Large Teams
I agree. This is the only thing that all the conferences will possibly agree on IMO.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:30 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:Not at all. Every winner of a Major Conference should get a shot and the 2 At-Large Bids just rounds it out.
4 teams is all that is needed, more just waters down the season.
This post was edited on 11/14/08 at 11:32 am
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:31 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
4 teams is all that is needed, more just waters down the season.
I agree.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:31 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
4 teams is all that is needed, more just waters down the season.
From a fan's perspective maybe. I just don't think a lot of higher ups would ever go for this. I mean if I was in charge of the Big East, I would say "frick a 4 team playoff".
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:33 am to TheAntiGump
use a similar system, add contingent plus-one if anything. No playoffs.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:33 am to Roughneck
quote:
Not at all. Every winner of a Major Conference should get a shot and the 2 At-Large Bids just rounds it out.
However, I do think every conference should be forced to have a Conference title game for this.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:34 am to Palm Beach Tiger
Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big East Champs with automatic Bid
4 at-large.
If Big 10 and Pac 10 want a automatic bid have a championship game
4 at-large.
If Big 10 and Pac 10 want a automatic bid have a championship game
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:35 am to Palm Beach Tiger
I'd agree just so that we don't have any teams that split a title bitching about how they didn't get their shot.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:36 am to H-Town Tiger
If all conferences were to play a conference title game, I would say 4. Until then, I say 8.
I know that the Conf Title thing is a choice (money grabber) of conferences, blah blah, but looking at this year, if Bama or Florida lose in the SECC game, it is highly unlikely either would be in a position to play for the title using top 4. Meanwhile, USC would skate in (this year that is an appropriate term) without that extra game to win. Not a Slack-10 bias there, just a good example.
I also say top 8 from BCS type projections, not a guaranteed spot for conf champions. The Big East and ACC will probably end up with a conference champion that isnt in the top 10, which in my mind, should eliminate them from said tourney.
I know that the Conf Title thing is a choice (money grabber) of conferences, blah blah, but looking at this year, if Bama or Florida lose in the SECC game, it is highly unlikely either would be in a position to play for the title using top 4. Meanwhile, USC would skate in (this year that is an appropriate term) without that extra game to win. Not a Slack-10 bias there, just a good example.
I also say top 8 from BCS type projections, not a guaranteed spot for conf champions. The Big East and ACC will probably end up with a conference champion that isnt in the top 10, which in my mind, should eliminate them from said tourney.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:37 am to Lithium
quote:You do realize the Big East doesn't have a Conference Championship Game either, right?
Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big East Champs with automatic Bid
4 at-large.
If Big 10 and Pac 10 want a automatic bid have a championship game
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:48 am to TheAntiGump
Pac-10 doesn’t need a title game since they play a round robin. That’s even better: every team plays every team one time. I’m a huge playoff guy and would like to see only conference champs, but am willing to concede 6 BCS conference champs, 1 non-BCS conference champ and an at-large.
I think the BCS is killing cross-regional regular season matchups between top tier teams. The cost of a loss is too great. Imagine a system in which only conference champions went. That means, essentially, your OOC record would be irrelevant. It would encourage teams to play high profile OOC games to toughen up before hitting the conference slate. We’d see a return of high profile OOC games, which have almost died in the BCS era.
I think the BCS is killing cross-regional regular season matchups between top tier teams. The cost of a loss is too great. Imagine a system in which only conference champions went. That means, essentially, your OOC record would be irrelevant. It would encourage teams to play high profile OOC games to toughen up before hitting the conference slate. We’d see a return of high profile OOC games, which have almost died in the BCS era.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:51 am to Roughneck
quote:
Every winner of a Major Conference should get a shot
no they shouldn't
i think there have been 2, 5-loss BCS conference champs in the BCS era
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:52 am to Baloo
quote:
but am willing to concede 6 BCS conference champs, 1 non-BCS conference champ and an at-large.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:53 am to Baloo
quote:
The cost of a loss is too great. Imagine a system in which only conference champions went. That means, essentially, your OOC record would be irrelevant. It would encourage teams to play high profile OOC games to toughen up before hitting the conference slate.
naw
they'd still be eyeing that 1 at-large
playoffs = even crappier OOC scheduling
since it wouldn't matter, they'd all play 1-AA taems and shite 1A teams to guarantee victories
Posted on 11/14/08 at 11:55 am to Baloo
quote:
but am willing to concede 6 BCS conference champs, 1 non-BCS conference champ and an at-large.
Take the 6 highest ranked conference champs period, and 2 at-large. If this season that means that Utah and Boise State bump out the ACC and Big East champs, so be it.
Posted on 11/14/08 at 12:50 pm to Roughneck
quote:
Every winner of a Major Conference should get a shot
The winner of the ACC and Big East do not deserve at shot at the NC this year. If Oregon State wins out, neither do they. Under that system, only 4 of the following would make the playoff if OSU wins the Pac-10: Texas, TT, OU, Florida, Bama, USC. For the sake of arguement lets say UT and UF win the Big 12 and SEC. Lets say TT, OU and Bama all only have 1 loss, along with USC, who gets left out?
Posted on 11/14/08 at 12:52 pm to Roughneck
quote:
You do realize the Big East doesn't have a Conference Championship Game either, right?
Then throw the Big East in with the Pac 10 and Big 10
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News