|
Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:17 PM
|
|
Up until now all people wanted was a playoff. Now the BCS is trying to win people over by giving them a +1 format. People against the playoff complain that it diminishes the regular season yet they believe the conference championship games should not factor into the playoff selection.
By using the top 4 conference champions you are not only making the regular season more important but also expanding the playoff to 8 teams in the process. Very few seasons would the top 4 conference champions not be in the top 10 and it is very likely the other teams in contention for a playoff spot would also be playing in conference championships. It is simple if you win you will make the playoff.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1053]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1741
Joined: 5/28/06
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:24 PM
|
|
What decides the top 4 conferences? I don't think this format solves the bias problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:27 PM
|
|
You would still use the rankings to pick the top 4 conference champions but until we get a 16 team playoff or 4 super conferences you will have a subjective influence in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1714]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2492
Joined: 10/14/11
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: Conference Champions in the playoff ] |
|
agreed. right now you have 6 automatic qualifiers. ACC, Big East, BIG (10), Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC. Based off of previous showings in bowls (BCS or otherwise) people could seriously contend that the ACC and Big East need to find their own way into the new tournament which you have proposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 145
Joined: 10/23/07
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:49 PM
|
|
I believe he is saying the top 4 teams in the standings that are conference champions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [50]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 202
Joined: 10/9/00
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 4:52 PM
|
|
The ACC could get left out of the BCS if an ACC team does NOT finish in the top 10, even if you win the Conference Championship Game. That is what has happened in the last 2 years.
We won the ACC last year and finished 15 in the BCS.
VA Tech won the ACC in 2010 and finished 11 in the BCS.
In the scenario currently being discussed with the "AQ" status going away, the ACC could get left out of the BCS if we don't have a team finish in the top 10 of the final BCS standings.
This worries me. I think this will certainly diminish the importance of the Championship Games, which I would think the conference DO NOT want to do.
Basically, if this ends up happening the ACC is gonna have to have some teams step up and finish in the Top 10 of the final BCS standings or we get left out.
Here is the article where I'm getting this from
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7863041/four-team-playoff-plan-link-national-semis-sites-conferences-bcs-bowls
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55423]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58428
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 6:58 PM
|
|
To get in, the ACC must play better FB!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [554]
TigerPulse: 40%
Posts: 1874
Joined: 10/29/00
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 1, 2012, 9:22 PM
|
|
Exactly. This really wouldnt change much except for avoiding rematches. This year the big ten champ would have got in over bama. ACC and Big East would have been left out. Play better football and they can just as easily get in but thats the position they are in anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
I'm not saying this for the acc or clemson
May 1, 2012, 11:44 PM
|
|
I am saying it should be this way to improve the quality of the playoff. Clemson in no way deserved a shot at the championship even through a playoff and for that matter the acc has not for some time, but neither did bama last season. They had thier shot at the title and lost at home.
If we get a playoff the bcs bowls will stay around and as long as a conference champion is in the top 15 they will get to play in one. Heck the acc got 2 last season, but if you want to crown a true champion make them earn it and the only teams who have earned anything at the end of the regular season are the conference champions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [135]
TigerPulse: 18%
Posts: 464
Joined: 2/2/11
|
Re: I'm not saying this for the acc or clemson
May 2, 2012, 11:44 AM
|
|
if Bama shouldn't have gotten another shot, why should Oregon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: I'm not saying this for the acc or clemson
May 2, 2012, 11:50 AM
|
|
They were the Pac-12 conference champion. Every teams goal is to win their conference and they did it. If we played in a league with no conferences then the LSU loss would mean a lot more, but we don't and they would have earned their spot.
Yes conference champions take away the importance of OOC games, but we only play 4 of those anyway and with conferences expanding we will play even less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [36]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 143
Joined: 4/27/12
|
Re: I'm not saying this for the acc or clemson
May 2, 2012, 9:11 AM
|
|
I don't completely agree with your statement do in fact that I don't know who you would have penciled in other than Alabama or Ok State. If you are going to make the argument that Alabama lost at home and they shouldn't have been in, you could make the same statement for Ok state. (assuming that's who you thought should have played) Bama lost and were jumped by the cowboys. But then the cowboys lost. So therefore when the rankings came back out, Alabama jumped back. It's not about if you lose in a year like last year, it's when you lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: I'm not saying this for the acc or clemson
May 2, 2012, 10:33 AM
|
|
The Alabama loss at home and the OKST loss at home are two totally different situations. At that time Bama and LSU all but knew the winner of that game would play for the national championship and the loser would most likely not get another shot. Everything was on the line and Bama lost.
OKST was playing a home game against a inferior opponent that in that moment had little to no bearing on the Big 12 or the national championship race. It is a little easier to get up when you are playing for everything as opposed to just another game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11435]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14500
Joined: 1/2/11
|
it was at Iowa st***
May 3, 2012, 9:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11435]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14500
Joined: 1/2/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [36]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 143
Joined: 4/27/12
|
And just to be
May 2, 2012, 9:17 AM
|
|
With the conversation, the conference winners to playoffs would be terrible. Example, you have situation like last year where the best teams won't get in. Arkansas, LSU, Bama, ok state, S.Car, Stan, Oregon, just to name a few top teams a season ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1620]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11/23/10
|
???
May 2, 2012, 10:29 AM
|
|
Did you just really put the Coots in the mix with Bama, LSU, Arkansas and Oregon. Name one they would have beat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24596
Joined: 5/14/02
|
SCAR wasn't even close last year. They were 5th in the SEC***
May 2, 2012, 2:20 PM
[ in reply to And just to be ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16259]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12786
Joined: 11/14/09
|
If they only could've beaten Auburn at home they would have
May 3, 2012, 7:51 PM
|
|
been in the SECCG again. Poor cooties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [36]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 143
Joined: 4/27/12
|
Re: ???
May 2, 2012, 12:02 PM
|
|
Out of 119 teams in the country, the Gamecocks were the 9th best team. Most people would agree that makes you pretty good. And a loss is a loss. The polls don't care if you "didn't feel like getting up". It's about how far you drop when you lose, and who loses in front of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: ???
May 2, 2012, 12:26 PM
|
|
That is the problem with the current system, the champion is determined by the polls. The whole point of adding a playoff is to make it more clear who the champion really is, not who is most liked by the pollsters. Every other major sport the champion is determined on the field and that is why college football needs a playoff. Currently the BCS is only going to give us 4 teams, so to make sure the teams that advance deserve to be there you use the teams that earned it in the regular season. Sure you have to use the polls to pick the top 4 but it is the least subjective means of determining a champion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [282]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 720
Joined: 11/17/00
|
Re: ???
May 2, 2012, 1:49 PM
|
|
i really hate the "on the field" argument because the excessively large playoffs utilized by every other major sport loves to ignore what happens "on the field"
the giants had 4 more losses than any other nfc division champ during the regular season, but apparently those losses don't matter. why not? did they not occur "on the field"? were those games played "on the moon".
the uconn huskies were crowned the best team in college basketball. shouldn't the best team in basketball do better than .500 in conference? i guess not. apparently conference play is little more than a series of exhibition games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: ???
May 2, 2012, 2:13 PM
|
|
Well then you would love this playoff because not only do you have to win your conference but also defeat the top 3 other champions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22431
Joined: 9/1/99
|
Ironically, 'Bama would have been eliminated from
May 2, 2012, 1:55 PM
|
|
NC consideration under your scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [36]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 143
Joined: 4/27/12
|
Re: Conference Champions in the playoff
May 3, 2012, 7:27 PM
|
|
Thats the thing that differs between the BCS and a playoff system. A playoff system will always have a clear cut champion. But the overall best team in the country may not win. Whoever gets hot at the right time. Example, Ok state loss. The BCS try's to determine the best two teams in the country, but in most instances, you get a second chance even if you lose. Depending on when you lose that is. Pros and cons to both I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16259]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12786
Joined: 11/14/09
|
The best format I heard was based on the top 6 teams, with
May 3, 2012, 7:50 PM
|
|
preference given to a conference champion that's in the top 6 teams in the BCS standings over a team ranked higher that didn't win their conference. Seems like a very fair approach.
Last Year's BCS Rankings:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
By virtue of winning its conference title, Oregon would have moved ahead of Stanford and into the 4th spot. Had Va. Tech not lost to us in the ACCCG, they would have been there as well and knocked non-conference winning Alabama out of the picture as well.
It's as sound as a 4-team lineup gets I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16507]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11655
Joined: 9/1/01
|
I agree. If you don't win your conference, you just need to
May 3, 2012, 10:43 PM
|
|
shut it and recruit and play better. This crap that an SEC team that does not win it's conference should play for the title is just that: crap. They can't have it both ways. If you claim that your conference is great all season, then you can't whine about your conference being tough as the reason you should be in a playoff. You were: REGULAR SEASON. You did not win it. Get confortable on the couch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [907]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 984
Joined: 10/10/11
|
Re: I agree. If you don't win your conference, you just need to
May 4, 2012, 9:02 AM
|
|
I think the 4 team play-off is just the baby step to a 16 team playoff. Eventually, I think it should go like this. In order to make the regular season mean something, the conference division winners in the ACC, SEC, BIG12(after they expand to 12 or more teams), BIG 10 And Pac 12 should be in the playoff. Thats 10 teams. The Big East gets only its conference winner, and then 5 other teams from any conference or independent that is decided upon by the polls. 16 teams. The first round of the playoffs will match up the division winners and will essentially be the confeerence championship game for the conferences with a championship game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
