Started By
Message
re: If the "playoff" had existed during the BCS, who wins?
Posted on 7/3/14 at 8:42 pm to socraticsilence
Posted on 7/3/14 at 8:42 pm to socraticsilence
This is probably the best off season thread this year
0
Posted on 7/3/14 at 10:30 pm to Korin
bullshite
Posted on 7/3/14 at 10:41 pm to Korin
quote:
So much talent on both sides of the ball and on the sidelines.
Agreed. I'm not saying lsu would have beaten Florida, but it would have been a hell of a game and round 2.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 2:58 am to MenloDawg
quote:
That's not really the issue at hand. We won the division and beat you head to head. It's not our fault that we drew a shitty AU team and average OM team from the West. The question I'm more asking is would the playoff committee even take that into consideration since we won the division and the head to head. I ask because there is undoubtedly going to be some pissed off fan base in the future and I really don't know how it would have been handled in this case.
Also, it's a rather large crock we wouldn't have been there in 2007, but not nearly as much BS as 2012.
We had a much tougher schedule and a close loss, whereas y'all were blown out by South Carolina.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 4:00 am to Korin
I'm more interested in who the #5 teams were in each of those years.
I'm hoping that some quality teams from the power conferences (that could 'win it all') land in that 5 slot so that the discussion of the 8-team playoff can begin in earnest.
Three SEC teams in the playoff could also get the ball rolling for eight teams.
I'm hoping that some quality teams from the power conferences (that could 'win it all') land in that 5 slot so that the discussion of the 8-team playoff can begin in earnest.
Three SEC teams in the playoff could also get the ball rolling for eight teams.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 4:06 am to Korin
98 - tenn
99 - fsu
00 - ou
01 - miami
02 - uga or usc
03 - lsu
04 - auburn over usc
05 - texas
06 - lsu (if they made the field)
07 - lsu
08 - florida
09 - alabama
10 - auburn probably
11 - alabama (if they made the field)
12 - why is florida listed there?
13 - fsu
99 - fsu
00 - ou
01 - miami
02 - uga or usc
03 - lsu
04 - auburn over usc
05 - texas
06 - lsu (if they made the field)
07 - lsu
08 - florida
09 - alabama
10 - auburn probably
11 - alabama (if they made the field)
12 - why is florida listed there?
13 - fsu
Posted on 7/4/14 at 4:21 am to MenloDawg
quote:
I could support that. Bama being national champions that year when they split with LSU and didn't win their division is a load of manure. All UGA heard from Herby as we dropped from 2nd to 6th in the polls in '07 (after a win, nonetheless) was "if you don't win your division/conference, then you can't play for the national title." This was the year after he lobbied hard for a Mich/OSU rematch.
kige
even the good media folks completely fall apart if you are expecting consistency RE: their criteria for their voting. The logic changes from year to year based on what logic is required to give a preferred name program the justification they need.
My suspicion is the committee's logic will be similarly inconsistent - but generally favor conference champions. Will they be consistent? No. A name program that is a conference champ and has won a recent NC (or is named ND) will get an opportunity. But a lesser name program with identical or lesser qualifications may be passed over.
I personally don't think teams like 06 LSU belong in the field anyway - even if my bias is they might win the NC if they were allowed. Letting them into a field of only four teams heavily devalues the regular season's results. That's the only thing that's really different and special about college football compared to just about any other sport.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 4:27 am to molsusports
quote:
12 - why is florida listed there?
#3 and the best resume.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 7:36 am to Korin
The only real change I would have Miami in '02. I think Texas would still win, but it would be really interesting to see Ohio State get another shot at Texas during the '05 season, then have Texas have to play USC. Texas in '08 was on fire after the Tech game, but I think Florida had way too strong of a offense for their defense, and McCoy's vagina couldn't take hits from Dunlap or Spikes.
This post was edited on 7/4/14 at 7:37 am
Posted on 7/4/14 at 8:10 am to Korin
Eastern divison champion and a head to head win looks way better on a resume.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:15 am to David Cornwell
quote:
The only real change I would have Miami in '02. I think Texas would still win, but it would be really interesting to see Ohio State get another shot at Texas during the '05 season, then have Texas have to play USC. Texas in '08 was on fire after the Tech game, but I think Florida had way too strong of a offense for their defense, and McCoy's vagina couldn't take hits from Dunlap or Spikes.
Oregon would have won at least one because of the difficulty in prepping for their offense in a one week period. I think the playoffs will change the style of the offenses more in the future than anything in the history of the game. That is why I think the SEC will be effected by the four team playoff the most. In an eight team playoff, it would probably equal out and the defenses would be able to shine.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 11:34 am to molsusports
quote:
even the good media folks completely fall apart if you are expecting consistency RE: their criteria for their voting. The logic changes from year to year based on what logic is required to give a preferred name program the justification they need.
My suspicion is the committee's logic will be similarly inconsistent - but generally favor conference champions. Will they be consistent? No. A name program that is a conference champ and has won a recent NC (or is named ND) will get an opportunity. But a lesser name program with identical or lesser qualifications may be passed over.
I personally don't think teams like 06 LSU belong in the field anyway - even if my bias is they might win the NC if they were allowed. Letting them into a field of only four teams heavily devalues the regular season's results. That's the only thing that's really different and special about college football compared to just about any other sport.
Are you suggesting that voter bias based on preferred match ups plays a factor in winning national titles? It isn't just about who is the best team?
Posted on 7/4/14 at 11:39 am to ugastudent
quote:
Eastern divison champion and a head to head win looks way better on a resume.
1. We also won the East.
2. Overall schedule > hth.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 11:50 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
98: Kansas State
99: Florida State
00, 01: Miami
02: ohio
03, 04, 05: USC
06: Michigan
07: ohio
08: texas
09: Alabama
10: Stanford
11, 12, 13: Alabama
LSU beat Ohio St. and Virginia Tech, 2 of the other 3 playoff teams, by a combined score of 86-31. Just sayin.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:00 pm to Korin
Well if LSU doesn't win in 2003, then the entire landscape of College Football is different. Saban probably doesn't get the Miami job when he does, which means he doesn't get the Bama job either.
LSU probably has a different coach than Les Miles as well.
Would have been a different past 7-9 years.
LSU probably has a different coach than Les Miles as well.
Would have been a different past 7-9 years.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:11 pm to Wolfpacleader
LSU would've been more successful in that case. 
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:26 pm to SECond2none™
quote:
11, 12, 13: Alabama
Oregon and Ok St would have exposed Bama Secondary both those years. Bama had the perfect match-up those years with LSU and ND. All three used the same gameplan. AU exposed Bama's defense last year and OU used that plan to win the SB.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:31 pm to Irons Puppet
Their defense wasn't the same as in 12 (and certainly a step down from 11).
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:36 pm to Korin
quote:
Their defense wasn't the same as in 12 (and certainly a step down from 11).
UGA showed the country what a passing attack could do to that Defense in 12. In 11, they did not play any great passing team.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 12:36 pm to Irons Puppet
Ok st would have been absolutely smoked in 2011. Oregon would have been a good matchup in 12. I like our chances in 13.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News