- 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: SEC and Big East tied for #1 in current bowl standings
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:07 pm to OWLFAN86
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:07 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:Never said it wasn't flawed.
no,, anytime you base a formula in part on participation and that participation is available for some and not others,,is a flawed formula
But your argument here is simply incorrect. Any school who receives a bowl invitation, regardless of conference affiliation, is allowed to participate in a bowl.
1
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:19 pm to xiv
quote:but,, MORE SEC teams get a bowl based in part on conference affiliation that excludes other teams regardless of record than compared to another conference with fewer automatic tie ins
But your argument here is simply incorrect. Any school who receives a bowl invitation, regardless of conference affiliation, is allowed to participate in a bowl.
a 6 win SEC team win could recieve a bowl bid even above and instead of a undefeated MAC ,C-USA etc based upon these pre existing contracts
which bowl game it is,,is not part of the problem,, its a domino effect,, less open spots in games mean fewer non big confernce teams get in regardless of record
but again this isnt abuot an unfair bowl system,,its about your formula which rewards participation
in your Formula the SEC has a built in advantage to WIN more bowl games because they play in more bowl games
they play in more bowl games in part, not based upon merit based upon that years team.
But upon preexisting contracts that exclude other teams provided a minimum number of wins by a SEC team. Which they often get 80%( 4 ooc games) of those 6 wins playing vastly inferior opponents.
and these bowl game award those contract based upon an assumption that a bigger school will bring more fans,, the more fans,, the more tourist dollars,,
its not about merit,,its about money
flawed
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:32 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:It is impossible that an unsanctioned undefeated team will be passed over by all 34 bowls.
a 6 win SEC team win could recieve a bowl bid even above and instead of a undefeated MAC ,C-USA etc based upon these pre existing contracts
When there are 68 bowl slots, your tie-in argument holds no water. It only holds two Sun Belt teams and a Catholic school in Indiana who took their ball and went home.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:37 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
( 4 ooc games) of those 6 wins playing vastly inferior opponents
correct me if I'm wrong. But those "vastly" inferior opponents that you are harpooning the SEC for playing are from the same conferences that you are championing to take the place of the SEC in a bowl game.
If a MAC team goes undefeated, it did so by playing those same opponents and more of them,
I'm not saying bowl aren't about money in the end. But I have hard time seeing the bowl eligible teams left out this year more deserving than the SEC teams.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:44 pm to Guster
quote:Somebody had to say it.
correct me if I'm wrong. But those "vastly" inferior opponents that you are harpooning the SEC for playing are from the same conferences that you are championing to take the place of the SEC in a bowl game.
quote:Or any recent year, frankly.
I'm not saying bowl aren't about money in the end. But I have hard time seeing the bowl eligible teams left out this year more deserving than the SEC teams.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:47 pm to xiv
quote:see,, that's NOT the point, the fact that any SEC ,,Big 12,, big 10,, PAC 10 ,acc or big east team has a advantage at the start of the season for a lower tier bowl game VS a WAC, MAC,C-USA, Mountain west team.
It is impossible that an unsanctioned undefeated team will be passed over by all 34 bowls.
that is by definition unfair
and thats OK,, life is unfair,, but your system allows that unfairness a greater role in your equation because you reward participation
if C-usa had 10 bowl eligible teams with the exact same records as 10 SEC teams,, the SEC would have more teams in bowl games, because of the pre existing agreements and there would be nothing anyone could to about it
that would tilt your formula to the SEC,, only because they had more teams in
so the _C-USA could go,, 4-1 and the SEC could go 6-4 and by your formula the SEX would rate higher
you re now arguing that the bowl system allowed deserving teams to play,,
that is not what Im arguing against
Im arguing that your formula in inherently flawed because you give too much weight to just being in the game,, and the big conference are always going to have more teams in due to the contracts which a NOT based only on that seasons results
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:52 pm to Guster
quote:youre arguing the merits of which team make the bowl
correct me if I'm wrong. But those "vastly" inferior opponents that you are harpooning the SEC for playing are from the same conferences that you are championing to take the place of the SEC in a bowl game.
If a MAC team goes undefeated, it did so by playing those same opponents and more of them,
I'm not saying bowl aren't about money in the end. But I have hard time seeing the bowl eligible teams left out this year more deserving than the SEC teams.
his thread is about some formula which rewards participation in a bowl
participation which in part is predetermined before the season begins
apples and oranges,,
shite,, are yall really that stupid
IM NOT arguing that the bowl system is unfair,, of course it is
im arguing that HIS,, formula gives to much weight to bowl participation,, and which conference win an IMAGINARY bowl season award
its a flawed mathematical equation when conference A,, automatically receives more bowl bids than conference B
it should be win percentage numbers, more than pure participation numbers
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:53 pm to Guster
quote:ive said time and time again,, Im NOT arguing against the bowl system
I'm not saying bowl aren't about money in the end. But I have hard time seeing the bowl eligible teams left out this year more deserving than the SEC teams.
Im arguing against his formula
jeesh
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:58 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
My point here is that it is generally better to go 4-4 in bowls than 3-0.
his own words
thats what Im arguing against
please stay on topic
if a conference ONLY gets 3 teams in because of pre existing contracts
and another conference get 8 teams in based uopn same contracts
his formula has the 4-4 conference ranked ahead of the 3-0 conference
that's what IM arguing against
can you guarantee that the 4 seed team from the 3-0 conference that did NOT play in a bowl game because of these pre existing contracts might not have won the game the 8th seed 4-4 team conference played?
AND even if they did lose I would argue,, 3-1 is better than 4-3
THATS what this thread is about
not the bowl system
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 12/27/09 at 6:59 pm to OWLFAN86
this is an epic battle
carry on
carry on
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:03 pm to philabuck
quote:he keeps arguing a point Ive already conceded and has nothing to do with his original post
this is an epic battle
carry on
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:04 pm to OWLFAN86
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:09 pm to philabuck
is it me???
they keep arguing this team in a bowl vs that team not in a bowl
and I keep talking about his formula giving too much credit for simply showing up
I like xiv,, but his system is shite
they keep arguing this team in a bowl vs that team not in a bowl
and I keep talking about his formula giving too much credit for simply showing up
I like xiv,, but his system is shite
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:15 pm to xiv
Your system lacks logic, but otherwise it's perfect.
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:20 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
if C-usa had 10 bowl eligible teams with the exact same records as 10 SEC teams,, the SEC would have more teams in bowl games, because of the pre existing agreements and there would be nothing anyone could to about it
Here's the thing though. If the CUSA had 10 bowl eligible teams they did so by beating teams from other FBS conferences. Now obviously those conferences that they beat are going to most likely have a lack of bowl eligible teams to fill their tie-ins. Who gets those spots? The majority of the CUSA will get them.
I have no problem with bowl tie-ins. Esp. When there's this many bowls.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:22 pm to philabuck
One other thing regarding the Pac 10 - since they play one less OOC game, the conference is guaranteed 5 additional losses compared to other conferences. This guarantees less bow-eligible teams.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:23 pm to philabuck
quote:because so many bowls are played in that part of the country and for lower tier games they're more likely to have fans from closer in proximity schools show up
I agree with you. The SEC and ACC are both guaranteed 9 bowls.
and thats OK,, so many of these bowls don't matter in the greater scheme of things
BUT
if were going to create some Bowl Season award,, simply being in a game should not have a influence in the outcome of the said fake award
esp if before the season begins one conference has more spots available to it compared to another
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:24 pm to Guster
quote:neither do I,, but thats NOT what this thread is about
I have no problem with bowl tie-ins. Esp. When there's this many bowls.
tell me what it right about his system
Posted on 12/27/09 at 7:25 pm to tigers
True, and the Alamo Bowl is dropping the Big Ten next year and giving it to the Pac 10.
Which boggles my mind because the Alamo always had a good game.
Which boggles my mind because the Alamo always had a good game.
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 7:26 pm
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News