- 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: illinois instead of georgia
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:05 am to VooDooSaintsFan48
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:05 am to VooDooSaintsFan48
quote:
TheEdge
I'm just curious. What type of system would you suggest we have for college baseball post-season. Fresno State went through a 64 team, 3 stage tournament, and you don't think they should be champion. Several teams had a chance to stop this 4-seed, and nobody could do it. I understand you said their record doesn't deserve it, but what would you suggest instead?
0
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:18 am to DBG
quote:
well, that may or not be true, i dont know all the fricking rules
It is. The fact that we didn't go to the Rose in 06 was because of the same reason.
The Rose bowl committee actually wanted us.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:19 am to pgaddxn
Big Ten / Pac Ten
Georgia will get Pac Ten soon
Georgia will get Pac Ten soon
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:24 am to lsutothetop
The only playoff I would support (would prefer none, as I don't think them to be any better at conferring a "legitimate" champion) would be a top 4.
I would rather a plus 1 system though....
But for the love of God don't kill the bowl system and then carry it's carcass all over the playoff system by giving the playoff games bowl names.
I would rather a plus 1 system though....
But for the love of God don't kill the bowl system and then carry it's carcass all over the playoff system by giving the playoff games bowl names.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:40 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
The overall bowl slate was so much better pre-bcs, and it's not even close.
The worst comment I have ever read on the rant. Along with the comments about a champion crowned thru a playoff not being a true champion. What do you people want?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:47 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
Along with the comments about a champion crowned thru a playoff not being a true champion.
This probably isn't directed at me, but to be honest...one could legitimately say that.
A playoff is not inherently better or more legit than the BCS. If people think the BCS cannot crown a "true" champ, than a playoff can't either.
A playoff is just better at "hiding" this inability.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 7:57 am to Volvagia
quote:
A playoff is not inherently better or more legit than the BCS. If people think the BCS cannot crown a "true" champ, than a playoff can't either.
Yeah, I was referring to the comments about the Giants and Fresno. To me, the reason for this happening is simple, parity. The parity in the NFL and college baseball exceeds every other sport I can think of. And the only solution to eliminating the possibility of a "mediocre" champion, record-wise, is to cut down on the playoff field. Maybe college baseball shouldn't have 64 teams. But college football? An 8 team playoff would be perfect. And the system in place now, as flawed as it is, is 500% better than the bowl system before. I could care less if some of the bowl match-up suck because of the BCS, as long as we get to see a championship game (even if we argue about who belongs in that game).
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:02 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Like I said earlier...I would go even tighter and say top 4. The drop off from the top 2 tends to be considerable anyway (if it is even top 2).
But if I had a choice, I would keep the current format, play the BCS games, and THEN decide who plays for the title.
But if I had a choice, I would keep the current format, play the BCS games, and THEN decide who plays for the title.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:06 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
The overall bowl slate was so much better pre-bcs, and it's not even close.
Not true.
If pre-BCS rules were in effect, this year's matchups in the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange:
Rose: USC vs. Ohio State (better than USC-Illinois)
Sugar: LSU vs. at-large (probably Kansas or Missouri-better than UGa-Hawaii Sugar Bowl, but not as good as LSU-OSU NC game)
Orange: Oklahoma vs. at-large (probably VT, UGa or WVU-not much difference here)
Fiesta: at-large vs. at-large (probably KU or Missouri vs. whichever of VT, UGa or WVU did not go to Orange--again, not much difference).
There would have been one less game, and Hawaii would not have been in the picture, and one of WVU, UGa, VT or Kansas would have likely been left out. You would probably have seen Oklahoma switch from Fiesta to Orange, probably to be replaced in the Fiesta by Kansas, Missouri or Georgia. With the sole exception of the Rose Bowl, the major bowl matchups would have been either about as good or worse under pre-BCS rules as they were last year.
And the national championship picture? A complete and utter mess. The BCS is flawed and should be scrapped in favor of a playoff, but it is infinitely better than the farce that we had in prior years.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:11 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
The BCS is flawed and should be scrapped in favor of a playoff
Hell. No.
The problem with a playoff is that it works off the premise that you are better than every team that the teams you beat, beat.
And that is proven to be a flawed assumption in CFB.
The BCS is flawed, but I can argue that it is more likely to pick the best overall team of the year because it uses the overall data of the season. I don't care how hot UGA was getting at the end of the season, they should have beaten USC and UT.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:12 am to Volvagia
quote:
Like I said earlier...I would go even tighter and say top 4.
I would agree with this.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:20 am to Volvagia
quote:
But if I had a choice, I would keep the current format, play the BCS games, and THEN decide who plays for the title.
So, who would have played for it last year under that system? LSU and Georgia? USC? Kansas? Missouri?
And what do you do about years like 2002? After Ohio State edged Miami in OT in the Fiesta Bowl, who, other than Miami, would you put at #2 to face Ohio State for the NC? It was pretty clear (except to Georgia fans) that Miami would have been the best team out there for the #2 slot, so would you have had a rematch?
Or in 2005, when Texas and USC were clearly the two best teams, played each other and resolved everything, why and against whom should Texas have had to play another game to prove what was already obvious?
I'll grant that a plus-one, which is basically what you are suggesting, would have been helpful in 2003 and 2004, but I don't think it would have been necessary in 1998-2002, 2005 or 2006, nor would it have really settled anything in 2007.
The BCS insures there won't be another 1994 or 1997, where the clear top two teams don't play each other and the NC is randomly awarded to one or both of them based on reasoning that is usually flimsy at best. Whenever there is a fairly clear top two, the BCS insures that they will always play each other and resolve the issue. Though a drastic improvement over the old system, the BCS is still pretty screwed up and should be replaced by a playoff because there's not always a clear top two. The plus-one format, with NCG participants decided after the bowls, would not help much, IMO, because we usually wouldn't need it, and even when we did, it would not be certain to accomplish the purpose intended.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 8:21 am
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:24 am to pgaddxn
I think that question was asked about 7 months ago. The past is for cowards-Mike Ditka
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:28 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
So, who would have played for it last year under that system? LSU and Georgia? USC? Kansas? Missouri?
LSU (because Hawaii would have been a push over), and the winner between OSU and USC.
Or maybe Hawaii doesn't get the bid in this new system, and UGA and LSU fight over it in the Sugar Bowl.
So UGA/LSU versus USC/OSU
Sounds just like a playoff, doesen't it? And in the mean time you also pretty much have all of the serious contenders participate.
And best of all, you did so without changing the bowl system structure at all.
You can easily realign the bowl games at-larges (keeping conference agreement) to reflect the goal of weeding out teams.
quote:
And what do you do about years like 2002? After Ohio State edged Miami in OT in the Fiesta Bowl, who, other than Miami, would you put at #2 to face Ohio State for the NC?
Why are you playing the national champ game twice?
OSU would have gone to the Rose, and Miami the Orange.
quote:
Or in 2005, when Texas and USC were clearly the two best teams, played each other and resolved everything, why and against whom should Texas have had to play another game to prove what was already obvious?
Same here.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 8:35 am
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:31 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
So, who would have played for it last year under that system? LSU and Georgia? USC? Kansas? Missouri?
I think he means, when using the +1, you revert back to the old bowl allegiances. So LSU wouldn't have played Ohio State. Likely LSU would have played the USC-Ohio State winner.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:09 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Not trying to hijack this thread by any means, but I've had a question that no one seems to agree on the answer, so I'm interested in your respective perspectives:
IF that glorious Pitt team had not upset WV, would we have finally seen LSU v. USC in the Rose?
IF that glorious Pitt team had not upset WV, would we have finally seen LSU v. USC in the Rose?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:11 am to BMG
quote:
IF that glorious Pitt team had not upset WV, would we have finally seen LSU v. USC in the Rose?
Oh I believe so. Definitely. But thank God that didn't happen.
Geaux Panthers!!!
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:14 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
I've never liked the whole "man-crush" thing, but I sure as hell love me some Dave Wannsted(sp?) and some Pitt Panthers! I may be a fan for life...
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:18 am to BMG
quote:
I've never liked the whole "man-crush" thing, but I sure as hell love me some Dave Wannsted(sp?) and some Pitt Panthers! I may be a fan for life...
I hear ya. You know, it wouldn't surprise me to see some LSU fans wearing Pitt gear for the Appy game.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:29 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
If they ever played us in BR I'm pretty sure they'd get a standing O when they came out, at least from me. I might have to get me a Pitt jersey, just to wear on those occasions where hope seems lost and we're asking for someone to miracle our asses to the promised land. 
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News