Started By
Message
re: Anyone else think the Playoff will be disastrous?
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:44 pm to TeLeFaWx
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:44 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
No it isn't. It's in part a reaction to having a system that allowed ONLY the SEC to be represented, but the SEC will always be represented. You're a fool to think otherwise.
SEC will probably always be represented, but not in the way it should be. The best football is being played in the SEC.
Look, I know you get soggy bottoms when thinking about having to play Bama again as a chauvinistic Auburn fan, but Bama is the number two/three team. Don't worry, big bad Bama won't come haunt you later.
1
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:45 pm to molsusports
quote:
Going to the top 8 teams after auto-qualifying the top five conference champs is actually shakier logic IMO. You'll end up with more subjectivity when it comes to who qualifies as an at large (that will inevitably favor name programs unless they use a computer ranking). You'll also eventually end up with a team winning it all that has four or five losses (making the devaluation of the regular season pretty near complete).
Well LSU won it with two losses and is the only team to do so, so they shouldn't complain too much about devaluing anything.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:45 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Well done
Thanks. But as far as Notre Dame is concerned, I say if they want to participate in the post season (which they did NOT for much of their history), then they should have to join a conference.
After all, they're post season record of 15-17 kind of sucks anyway.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:46 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Thanks. But as far as Notre Dame is concerned, I say if they want to participate in the post season (which they did NOT for much of their history), then they should have to join a conference.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:47 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
SEC will probably always be represented, but not in the way it should be.
So you're arguing the SEC needs two-three teams every year otherwise it isn't fair? shite why not make all four teams SEC teams. Play the championship in Atlanta? Are you really this stupid? The SEC only getting one team isn't unfair.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Thanks. But as far as Notre Dame is concerned, I say if they want to participate in the post season (which they did NOT for much of their history), then they should have to join a conference.
I don't really care, I'm not lobbying for Notre Dame. Let them do what they want, it hasn't been working for them.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:49 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
So you're arguing the SEC needs two-three teams every year otherwise it isn't fair? shite why not make all four teams SEC teams. Play the championship in Atlanta? Are you really this stupid? The SEC only getting one team isn't unfair.
I'm arguing 1 - 4 until someone discards it. Auburn would have a much easier time without Alabama, correct?
Check y or n.
Would you seriously say that MSU or Baylor would be harder than Alabama?
Check y or n.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:51 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
A 98-win Red Sox team beating a 101-win Yankees team in the playoffs is not a good example of the MLB regular season being devalued.
yes it is, if you won 3 more games over 162 that's more than enough to see who won more games fairly (at the very least when the two teams in question were in the same division and played highly similar schedules).
quote:
And that was a complete fluke and aberration. It's still the only time a team with fewer than 90 wins has won the World Series since the 2000 Yankees.
It is not just a fluke, it happens periodically because teh system is set up to allow it to happen.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:52 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I don't really care, I'm not lobbying for Notre Dame. Let them do what they want, it hasn't been working for them.
I understand you're talking about independents, but the same should apply to any school that wants to be independent, no post-season play.
I'd like to see major college reduced to 8 conferences of 12-16 teams each with conference championship games. Winners of those games advance to a tournament of champions. No at-large/wildcaard/bye bullshite. Straight up.
...OR just keep the BCS. It seems to be working just GREAT for my favorite conference.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:52 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Well LSU won it with two losses and is the only team to do so, so they shouldn't complain too much about devaluing anything.
2007 was a year that would have been improved in its legitimacy if the top four conference champs had been included in a playoff. adding more subjectivity by voting best teams etc would have just added to the nonsense of too many teams being upset
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:54 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'd like to see major college reduced to 8 conferences of 12-16 teams each with conference championship games. Winners of those games advance to a tournament of champions. No at-large/wildcaard/bye bullshite. Straight up.
I actually do something like that in games where you can change the conferences. I agree with this.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:54 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I'm arguing 1 - 4 until someone discards it. Auburn would have a much easier time without Alabama, correct?
I don't know. Say Alabama beats them, going 1-1 against them. Going 1-1 against a team doesn't mean you should be awarded anything other than a tie trophy.
quote:
Would you seriously say that MSU or Baylor would be harder than Alabama?
What's the point you're trying to make here? That performance on the field doesn't matter? 2010 Alabama would have been a tougher team than an undefeated 2010 TCU, but that doesn't mean a three loss Alabama should make it in the playoff. Are you really suggesting that only SEC teams need to make it?
How old are you?
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:56 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
What's the point you're trying to make here? That performance on the field doesn't matter?
Check y or n.
Is Alabama a better team than MSU and/or Baylor?
Simple question.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 4:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Alabama would have been a tougher team than an undefeated 2010 TCU, but that doesn't mean a three loss Alabama should make it in the playoff. Are you really suggesting that only SEC teams need to make it?
Is your farm running out of hay for that straw dragon you're constructing to slay?
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:01 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You don't know and it drives me crazy when people pretend they do... because they have to lie about what they knew in the past
Was Miami a better team than tOSU in 2002? Was USC a better team than Texas before they played in 2005? Was tOSU a better team than Florida before they played in 2006?
If you really KNEW the answers to those things with absolute certainly you made millions of dollars in betting. But you didn't. And even if you did you were making money because the overwhelming number of people who thought they knew DIDN'T know.
Was Miami a better team than tOSU in 2002? Was USC a better team than Texas before they played in 2005? Was tOSU a better team than Florida before they played in 2006?
If you really KNEW the answers to those things with absolute certainly you made millions of dollars in betting. But you didn't. And even if you did you were making money because the overwhelming number of people who thought they knew DIDN'T know.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:03 pm to molsusports
quote:
You don't know and it drives me crazy when people pretend they do... because they have to lie about what they knew in the past
So Alabama wouldn't be favorites against Baylor and Michigan State? I'm sorry, but I just think that an 11 - 1 Bama who lost in the final seconds to the eventual SEC champs (the conference that produced the last 7 championships) is in a better position than MSU and Baylor. I don't think there's much of an argument in that department.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:05 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
So Alabama wouldn't be favorites against Baylor and Michigan State?
key word, favorites. that's a word derived from consensus opinions or group think... things that we actually do know to be frequently incorrect.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:09 pm to molsusports
quote:
key word, favorites. that's a word derived from consensus opinions or group think... things that we actually do know to be frequently incorrect.
It's -all- subjective. How can you make an argument that -any- team should be selected ahead of any other team with a similar record?
If the PAC-12, Big 12, Big X, SEC and ACC all produce a -one loss team-, then how can we say any team is better than the other and more deserving of a shot at the Playoff?
This post was edited on 12/8/13 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:13 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
the best you could do IMO would be to take the top four conference champs ranked by computers instead of opinion polls.
although the computer polls are not perfect at least they are not driven by the human needs to prove their preseason rankings correct or to vote for the teams you cover more frequently.
although the computer polls are not perfect at least they are not driven by the human needs to prove their preseason rankings correct or to vote for the teams you cover more frequently.
Posted on 12/8/13 at 5:17 pm to molsusports
quote:
at least they are not driven by the human needs to prove their preseason rankings correct or to vote for the teams you cover more frequently.
...or worse, a poll of current coaches with an inherent bias yet very little knowledge of all the teams.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News