BCS Playoffs..UPDATE 6/5. Pac-12 Commish Larry Scott is fucking awesome

[FirstTimer]

I am getting it, who says im not?

Your posts.

Im merely debating whether or not Alabama's loss to LSU would have meaning if they were included in a playoff. According to what you just said, it wouldnt be meaningless.

You seriously can't be this dumb.

 

[JeremyHight]

This is why I prefer the top 6 argument. The top 4 conference champions in the top 6 get into the playoff. If there aren't 4 conference champs in the top 6, then they start taking at large teams. I love the Big Ten, but I don't think Wisconsin has a legit gripe to be in the playoff.

 

[FirstTimer]

This is why I prefer the top 6 argument. The top 4 conference champions in the top 6 get into the playoff. If there aren't 4 conference champs in the top 6, then they start taking at large teams. I love the Big Ten, but I don't think Wisconsin has a legit gripe to be in the playoff.

It's anecdotal and odd but If Oregon would have a legit gripe to be in a 4 team playoff and we are labeling them as a result "deserving" of being a NC if they win it all..then I think Wisconsin showed themselves to be pretty damn deserving by playing the game against Oregon that they did. Granted in one game anything can happen but based on the way Wisconsin played all season and all their losses coming to talented/or top ranked teams on Hail Mary's or final drives...I would say the Oregon result isn't some fluke or aberration of the team's overall ability.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

mg:

It also got them a competitive advantage...which no one else's losses got them. Same deal with Stanford(Had they made the playoff over Oregon). Holy shit. How are you STILL not getting this?

W2B implied that Alabama's loss to LSU would be meaningless if they made a playoff, as many also say. THAT is what i was discussing.

Yes, I KNOW that Alabama got an "advantage" by not playing in the SEC title game.

If we are discussing the top 4 teams in a playoff, we select them based on what they accomplished...you dont omit a team just because their loss gave them an "advantage".

 

[FirstTimer]

This is why I prefer the top 6 argument. The top 4 conference champions in the top 6 get into the playoff. If there aren't 4 conference champs in the top 6, then they start taking at large teams. I love the Big Ten, but I don't think Wisconsin has a legit gripe to be in the playoff.

The problem is that for all the conferences to agree to this they are going to want to have their share of the pie.

Looking at your situation from last year:
1. LSU
2. Okie St
3. Oregon

WC1: Bama
WC2: Stanford
WC3: Arkansas

That's three SEC teams while you you have Boise, Georgia(who actually played for the SEC Crown), Wisc, Va Tech, WVU, Clemson and the other pretty highly rated and pretty damn good conference champs(aside from Boise) left out for 3 SEC teams, two Pac 12 teams etc. There would be an absolute shit fit if three SEC teams ,made it in. Let alone two of them that didn't even appear in the conferences championship game. Whether we like it or not we have to view this from the prism of what would actually happen/be possible. I really doubt you're going to get the conferences to agree to a set up where one conference can put three teams into a BCS game and where a top 10 ranked conference champ is left out for two teams that didn't even win their own conferences division.

 

[FirstTimer]

W2B blah blah blah..

 

[Senser81]

Dont care. LSU coulda lost against UGA and still been in the NC.

How is LSU being able to lose in the SEC championship game and still being in the NC game somehow relevant to ALABAMA??

The question should be could a 1-loss Alabama team have lost to UGA and still have been in the NC game. I think not. So Alabama was basically able to lose to LSU and get a bye into the National Title game, while LSU had to play an extra game and risk injury and also having a later-in-the-season loss when compared to Alabama.

This isn't some make-believe scenario we are talking about. This just happened. Why is it so hard for you to follow?

 

[ZoneBlitz]

How is LSU being able to lose in the SEC championship game and still being in the NC game somehow relevant to ALABAMA??

The question should be could a 1-loss Alabama team have lost to UGA and still have been in the NC game. I think not. So Alabama was basically able to lose to LSU and get a bye into the National Title game, while LSU had to play an extra game and risk injury and also having a later-in-the-season loss when compared to Alabama.

This isn't some make-believe scenario we are talking about. This just happened. Why is it so hard for you to follow?

Why cant you follow what im saying? Trace my posts, i was responding to W2B, who was commentating on a potential playoff.

Read this:

W2B implied that Alabama's loss to LSU would be meaningless if they made a playoff, as many also say. THAT is what i was discussing.

Yes, I KNOW that Alabama got an "advantage" by not playing in the SEC title game.

If we are discussing the top 4 teams, we select them based on what they accomplished...you dont omit a team just because their loss gave them an "advantage".

 

[Senser81]

Why cant you follow what im saying? Trace my posts, i was responding to W2B, who was commentating on a potential playoff.

Read this:

The bottom part where you quote yourself has nothing to do with the upper part, and the quote of yourself from me was about LSU losing to UGA. I asked why you mentioned that LSU could have lost to UGA in the SEC title game and still made the national championship...I still don't see the answer in your latest post. Use your Magic 8 Ball and "Try asking again later".

 

[ZoneBlitz]

The bottom part where you quote yourself has nothing to do with the upper part, and the quote of yourself from me was about LSU losing to UGA. I asked why you mentioned that LSU could have lost to UGA in the SEC title game and still made the national championship...I still don't see the answer in your latest post. Use your Magic 8 Ball and "Try asking again later".

OK, this is where you begin trolling and derail the conversation to irrelevant shit.

Sorry, me saying "LSU coulda lost and still been in the NC" wasnt really relevant to my point. Happy?

Now, i believe i made my point perfectly clear in my previous post, so perhaps we can discuss that.

 

[JeremyHight]

The problem is that for all the conferences to agree to this they are going to want to have their share of the pie.

Looking at your situation from last year:
1. LSU
2. Okie St
3. Oregon

WC1: Bama
WC2: Stanford
WC3: Arkansas

That's three SEC teams while you you have Boise, Georgia(who actually played for the SEC Crown), Wisc, Va Tech, WVU, Clemson and the other pretty highly rated and pretty damn good conference champs(aside from Boise) left out for 3 SEC teams, two Pac 12 teams etc. There would be an absolute shit fit if three SEC teams ,made it in. Let alone two of them that didn't even appear in the conferences championship game. Whether we like it or not we have to view this from the prism of what would actually happen/be possible. I really doubt you're going to get the conferences to agree to a set up where one conference can put three teams into a BCS game and where a top 10 ranked conference champ is left out for two teams that didn't even win their own conferences division.

I think you missed the point of the top 6 argument. It is still a four team playoff, but the conference champions have to be in the top 6 of the final BCS ranking. So last year, it would have been...

1. LSU
2. Okie State
3. Oregon

Since there are no other conference champions in the top 6, then it would go to the first at large team, which is Alabama.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think you missed the point of the top 6 argument. It is still a four team playoff, but the conference champions have to be in the top 6 of the final BCS ranking. So last year, it would have been...

1. LSU
2. Okie State
3. Oregon

Since there are no other conference champions in the top 6, then it would go to the first at large team, which is Alabama.

My bad. I thought you were saying a 6 teamer.

 

[packersfan4eva]

Wow...you actually have a stance on this issue? I thought you just posted the possible scenarios, then trolled anyone who put forth an opinion on the topic.

I don't think having "at-large" teams should be a requirement. If anything, the need for "at-large" teams in the first place is already a sign that the system doesn't really work. But that is just my opinion.

So you think March Madness doesn't work?

 

[Senser81]

If you need at large teams in a four team playoff then that is a problem.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Yeah, the problem is the large talent gap between conferences.

 

[JeremyHight]

So you think March Madness doesn't work?

March Madness is fine, but it does make about 99% of college basketball games into meaningless exhibitions. Except for the occasional game played on an aircraft carrier, most games are forgettable, even in the conference playoffs, since all they do is just seed for the tournament. I think it works fine for basketball, but I wouldn't want the same for football.

 

[JeremyHight]

If you need at large teams in a four team playoff then that is a problem.

I think at large teams being needed (at times) just points to the system in general not being entirely equal. In college football, there are haves and have nots, unlike in the pro sports leagues. Yes, I would like it to be completely objective, but you have to rank teams somehow with all different schedules. I think that the best you can do is to make the BCS ranking system the best it can be by making the changes I have mentioned previously, then making the selection process reward a good season as best you can. I personally think the Top 6 method of selecting the 4 team playoff is best (preferably with on campus semi-finals), but that isn't for me to decide.

 

[NAHSTE]

Real talk tho, SEC is still gonna win every year so you corncobs might as well just give us the trophy and let us handle how we distribute it amongst ourselves.

:kobe:

 

[JeremyHight]

Real talk tho, SEC is still gonna win every year so you corncobs might as well just give us the trophy and let us handle how we distribute it amongst ourselves.

:kobe:

Its cyclical, traditional powers outside the SEC like Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Miami, Florida State, and many more have either had to rebuild or go through probation. When those teams return to power (in USC's case, they are going to be stacked this year), I could see plenty of other teams battling the SEC far better than in the last few years.

 

[SHOGUN]

If it came to picking the Top 4 overall and the Top 4 conference champions, I'd would rather see them go with Top 4 conference champs, but I'm riding with JH on the idea of having the Top 4 conference champs in the Top 6, then filling in the vacant spot(s) with an at-large.

I don't like the idea of having a selection committee. They should just tweak the computer formula.