Started By
Message
re: Deregulation of conference championship games expected to pass
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:24 pm to GeauxToBed
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:24 pm to GeauxToBed
But what would happen, after deregulation, the SEC decided that the SEC championship game should have had UA vs LSU, then UA wins and LSU's only loss was to a team they had beaten in regular season, possibly setting up the scenario where UA and LSU played for the 3rd time in the National Title Game.
Would LSU fans feel like they deserved to be in the Championship game?
Would LSU fans feel like they deserved to be in the Championship game?
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 1:26 pm
1
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:25 pm to elit4ce05
Who cares about that hypothetical in today's environment since we have the playoff.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:29 pm to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
Deregulation of conference championship games expected to pass
Good. I know the SEC won't do anything, but I would like to see them do away with the divisions and go with 6 rotating conference games and 2 permanent opponents. That would even out the divisions, preserve most of the rivarlies and make it to where each team visits every other team in a reasonable timeframe.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:31 pm to WeeWee
This is a stupid rule, picking teams like this hints favoritism
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:32 pm to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
Pod A plays Pod B this year and Pod C plays Pod D. Thus, you can only have one undefeated team for the A vs B and c vs D.
You just going to gloss over the second scenario then?
"1 pod has an undefeated team and two others have 1 loss teams which both lost to the undefeated pod winner?"
Who gets the nod in this case? Again, if you're going to have 4 pods then you have a playoff for the conference championship.
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:33 pm to RB10
quote:
You just going to gloss over the second scenario then?
The Nebraska fan has selective reading talents that are out of this world.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:34 pm to RB10
quote:
Who gets the nod in this case? Again, if you're going to have 4 pods then you have a playoff for the conference championship.
I haven't gone through the scheduling stuff in detail, but others have written how to go about the scheduling. I will take a look after work to find some articles on it.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:36 pm to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
I haven't gone through the scheduling stuff in detail, but others have written how to go about the scheduling. I will take a look after work to find some articles on it.
I'm not asking about scheduling, I'm providing a scenario that would cause major controversy with a pod system that doesn't implement a playoff for the winners.
I have no problems with have 16 teams with 4 pods, but if they choose to do that the logical way to determine the conference champ is to have a playoff.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 1:49 pm to RB10
quote:
I'm not asking about scheduling, I'm providing a scenario that would cause major controversy with a pod system that doesn't implement a playoff for the winners.
Yes, I know, and I will find some articles tonight that goes over it.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:06 pm to nebraskafaninwi
If this was in place during 2011 season we would have had an LSU/Bama rematch in the SEC title game. If Bama wins that SEC title game, do the teams then re-rematch for the national title? Both would have had 1 loss and better resumes than Oklahoma State. That would've been a crazy scenario.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:11 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
The biggest difference to me, and one that I haven't seen much talked about, is why wouldn't current conferences get rid of teams now, and go back to 10 teams. The B1G could technically get rid of 4 teams, go to a rotating 10 team schedule (9 conference games), and then pick a champion in whatever way deemed necessary.
This opens up an entire can of worms
A lot of conferences could stand to get rid of some too. You never know where stuff like this will lead in the long run. Could be good or bad.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:17 pm to ipodking
quote:
This seems like an awful move
Yeah not sure what objective measures you would take in deciding to take the 2nd place division team over the cross division winner unless they had a better conference record.
I.E. Auburn finishes 7-1 and in 2nd place in the SECW while Mizzou wins the East at 6-2 therefore Auburn plays the SECW champ in the SECT game. I get that...
But how about if the SECE winner was also 7-1, does Auburn have a chance? Do they just vote? Do they default in taking the SEC Division winner so long as their record is the same or better than the 2nd place team in other division? Can we have a 4 team playoff for the SECT if 4 teams finish atop the conference with the same record?
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:21 pm to RB10
quote:
You just going to gloss over the second scenario then?
"1 pod has an undefeated team and two others have 1 loss teams which both lost to the undefeated pod winner?"
pods only make sense if they are used as pseudo-divisions. That is, if Pods A and B played each other and Pods C and D played each other the teams with teh best conference record or tiebreaker makes the conference championship game.
In your scenario the undefeated team would get a bid and the one loss team that won its paired pod division would get a bid.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:23 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
I.E. Auburn finishes 7-1 and in 2nd place in the SECW while Mizzou wins the East at 6-2 therefore Auburn plays the SECW champ in the SECT game. I get that...
I don't. Auburn and MU played different schedules. MU won their division so they should get the bid in your scenario.
You don't really know how good everyone is unless you had identical schedules - and that's impossible. So you need to follow a tournament style system which starts with winning your division.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:27 pm to molsusports
quote:
I don't. Auburn and MU played different schedules. MU won their division so they should get the bid in your scenario.
So if Mizzou also played a weaker schedule they should get in?
This is my point, there needs to be a lot of objective measures involved in this to determine different teams playing for the SECT.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 4:54 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
So if Mizzou also played a weaker schedule they should get in?
If they won their division then yes.
This happens all the time in bigger tournaments (think NCAA basketball). Sometimes there's more power in the East (the 90s), sometimes there's more power in the west (recent years).
You can't value the regular season properly IMO if you start fricking around with whether or not conference winners are good enough. That's not the purpose of the conference championship game. The conference championship game is to: make money and to declare a single conference champion (something you would have trouble doing even with a round robin with three way ties and such).
Sometimes you see an outcome like Arkansas going to the SEC CCG instead of LSU because LSU lost to Auburn and Florida... but you know what? They shouldn't have lost to Auburn and Florida. AND Florida shouldn't have to beat LSU twice unless LSU handled their own business and won their division like they set out to at the start of the season.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 5:01 pm to nebraskafaninwi
So there can be two west teams?
Posted on 5/11/15 at 5:34 pm to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
Under the current system the winners of the divisions play in the conference title game. Once the deregulation passes, conferences can decide on how to determine who plays in the conference title games.
This will help avoid boring games of a "divisional winner" that is a weaker team than the second place team because the second team had a harder schedule and thus missed out on wining the division because "the champ" had an easier schedule.
This wasn't done to allow the ten-team XII to hold a conference championship game?
Posted on 5/11/15 at 5:46 pm to AUCE05
quote:
I like on field results to determine winners and losers. Alabama did not deserve a title shot in '11. Regardless of their talent, they had their chance against #1 LSU. It was OSU's turn. Rules like this just allow the hot name multiple chances at winning a title.
I don't think I can ever get over 2011...but whether or not Gumps deserve a shot is irrelevant. What is relevant is that our boys got there and our boys didn't take care of business.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 5:55 pm to nebraskafaninwi
This just ensures that Ole Miss will finally win the west but finish 3rd in the SEC
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News