- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: "Plus one" playoff systems
Posted on 12/5/11 at 3:50 pm to TigerMyth36
Posted on 12/5/11 at 3:50 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
It is abundantly clear the top two teams can come from the same conference.
You don't know (for a fact) that LSU and Alabama are the top two teams in the country. But we do know that LSU>Alabama. Why should Alabama get a chance to win the national title when they couldn't win their conference title?
1
Posted on 12/5/11 at 3:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
when you get conferences and money involved, it is hard
They just let an all sec championship game happen. It will not be hard to create 2 additional games. These games will sell out no matter who is in them because they will actually matter. The money they generate will be good for every conference.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 3:58 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
They just let an all sec championship game happen
the money affect was negligible, b/c both were getting into BCS bowls regardless, with 1 being in the title game. the SEC got a slight bump for Bama being the 2nd team in the title game (compared to another BCS bowl)
quote:
The money they generate will be good for every conference.
the SEC keeps their share of the BCS money
assuming LSU, Bama, Oregon, and OSU went in this scenarios....there are 4 teams in the playoffs and 2 are from the SEC, then the SEC gets HALF the revenue/tv deals from the playoffs. the big12 would get 25%. the pac12 would get 25%
the ACC, Big East, Big10, and non-BCS conferences get $0 from the playoffs
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:03 pm to rollthatback
quote:
Why should Alabama get a chance to win the national title when they couldn't win their conference title?
once again. if you had to bet your life on it, would you bet OK State OVER Bama?
Winning your conference doesn't mean jack if the conference is weak.
Hell, I don't want the Gumps to win. It will be impossible to visit the rant in the off season, but all this whining about deserving it is too much.
Bama is the better team thus they do deserve to be in. On a neutral field, I would bet anything the odds makers would have Bama favored.
After everything LSU has done Vegas still only has them -1 on a home field.
I think both teams had good arguments for the #2 spot. I don't see this year being remotely as controversial as some of the past years, I just think some LSU fans are dreading playing Bama again.
For all the media teeth gnashing about the choice, the MEDIA still voted Bama 2nd. This is what I find hilarious. Everyone is crying about the system being broken while at the same time voting Bama ahead of Ok State.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:04 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
So a 7-5 conference champion could make it before Alabama? How many times were you dropped on your head as an infant?
In my scenario when in the hell would that ever happen? I just posted the what-ifs since 2004 and very few 2 loss teams even made it in?
EDIT: Just realized you were talking to the OP, yeah thats why I dont like the requirement of being a conference champ.
This post was edited on 12/5/11 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the ACC, Big East, Big10, and non-BCS conferences get $0 from the playoffs
If there was a 4 team playoff they would keep the current system and add 2 games. Also, you are going on just this year. Last year the Big 10 and MWC would have had teams in the playoffs. In 09 the Big East would have had a team in.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:10 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
once again. if you had to bet your life on it, would you bet OK State OVER Bama?
If Ok State had beaten Iowa State, OSU would be in, would you say that is an outrage?
I would have bet Florida over Texas in 2009 also.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:11 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
If there was a 4 team playoff they would keep the current system and add 2 games. Also, you are going on just this year. Last year the Big 10 and MWC would have had teams in the playoffs. In 09 the Big East would have had a team in
In my proposal you wouldn't actually add any games but you would still have 2 or 3 BCS bowls that weren't included in the playoffs.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:14 pm to dgtiger3
quote:I wasn't using a year, but under your scenario in a down year, it is possible that could happen.
In my scenario when in the hell would that ever happen? I just posted the what-ifs since 2004 and very few 2 loss teams even made it in?
The big east was dreadful this year and if UCLA had pulled an upset, they would have been in the rose bowl at 7-6.
Not saying it is probably but it is possible.
I just don't buy the idea that one conference can't have the two best teams.
AND
NOBODY will answer my question.
If you had to bet your life, would it be on a Bama victory over OK State or OK State over Bama.
You guys are making making out this season to be more controversial than it really is. And probably 100% of the people who are acting so outraged are people who hate the BCS and want it replaced with a playoff.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:16 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
If there was a 4 team playoff they would keep the current system and add 2 games.
i don't see how that is possible, plus playoff money will be a lot more than BCS money
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:20 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
NOBODY will answer my question.
If you had to bet your life, would it be on a Bama victory over OK State or OK State over Bama.
You guys are making making out this season to be more controversial than it really is. And probably 100% of the people who are acting so outraged are people who hate the BCS and want it replaced with a playoff.
There are plenty of other threads on the boards to argue those points, we are discussing plus one playoff systems, not who I would bet my life on.
I assuming you believe strongly in the "eyeball" system.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
don't see how that is possible
Why wouldn't it be possible?
quote:
plus playoff money will be a lot more than BCS money
So conferences would benefit even more.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:23 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
Why wouldn't it be possible?
the BCS bowls wouldn't pay that kind of money for being 2nd tier, and that whole system would implode
quote:
So conferences would benefit even more.
only those who get teams in every year (esp multiple teams)
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he BCS bowls wouldn't pay that kind of money for being 2nd tier, and that whole system would implode
I thimk you have to keep the same basic payment stucture as you have now 4 BCS Bowls + 1 BCS NCG
2 of the BCS Bowls would simply not host one of the semi-final games.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the BCS bowls wouldn't pay that kind of money for being 2nd tier, and that whole system would implode
BCS bowl are already 2nd tier compred to the nc game. But if that was really an issue then instead of adding 2 games just make 2 of the current bcs bowls the 1st round. Maybe even elevate the cotton to a bcs bowl too.
quote:
only those who get teams in every year (esp multiple teams)
Which changes year to year.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:49 pm to rollthatback
quote:Only if necessary. For example, last year it was clear that Auburn and Oregon were the top two teams, no need for it. But in 2004 when Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC all went undefeated, there should have been an extra game to determine the top two. I know that will never fly, but you could pacify the purists who hate a playoff system, but still give a legitimate contender a chance to earn their way to the NC, instead of leaving it to the subjection of a person's opinion.
If this is instituted in the future, how would you like to see it done?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 4:53 pm to Lou
quote:
But in 2004 when Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC all went undefeated, there should have been an extra game to determine the top two.
damn we've hit all 3 definitions of "plus one" in this thread
1. 4-team playoff
2. play the bowls, THEN do the title game (per baloo)
3. the "if necessary" plus one
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Bump for the night crew.
I would really like someone to poke holes in my "setup" I posted on the bottom of page 2 with results.
I would really like someone to poke holes in my "setup" I posted on the bottom of page 2 with results.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:23 pm to Lou
quote:
Only if necessary. For example, last year it was clear that Auburn and Oregon were the top two teams, no need for it. But in 2004 when Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC all went undefeated, there should have been an extra game to determine the top two
Are you forgetting that TCU was in the same position last year as Auburn was in 2004?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:24 pm to rollthatback
won't happen in the next decade.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News