U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-28-2011, 08:21 AM
 
3,912 posts, read 4,851,641 times
Reputation: 1825

Advertisements

Oregon should be playing Stanford for the Pac12 Championship. LSU should be playing 'Bama for the SEC Championship. As long as Conf. Champs are tied to the BCS, this is how it should be.

 
Old 11-28-2011, 06:53 PM
 
4,749 posts, read 3,606,588 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middle School Mustache View Post
Oregon should be playing Stanford for the Pac12 Championship. LSU should be playing 'Bama for the SEC Championship. As long as Conf. Champs are tied to the BCS, this is how it should be.
In an ideal world, this is the way it would be. Eliminate divisions, have a round-robin scheduling system that pits different teams against each other in different years. Then, take the two highest ranked BCS teams in each conference and let them play each other for the conference title. LSU and Bama should play for the conference title, not the national title.

There's got to be a playoff somewhere down the line. It just makes no sense not to have one. Even financially, it doesn't make sense. There would be so much more to gain by integrating the bowl system into an 8-team playoff. Even a 4-team, 'plus one' system would be a vast improvement, but an 8-team playoff would be ideal. I could see in the older days when Bowl Games were a tradition and the evidence to break from it was questionable. But look at college basketball and the success they've had with that tournament. Imagine if, instead, they wanted to go to a format in which only the top two teams played each other and instead every other 'good team' played exhibition games or tournaments before the national title game. Or to think of it differently, think about how the wild card has blown baseball tradition out of the water and made the sport more interesting. There's just no reason not to do it. I think it was the idea of the Big 10 president to keep this silly system because it guaranteed that a Big 10 school like Ohio St and Michigan would always get to play in a major bowl and get huge revenue. But now that they keep getting beaten up in the big games, maybe they're rethinking that one. Maybe the SEC would be less dominant if they'd open it up to 8 teams instead of letting computer algorithms cut off eligibility to the top two.

Just think, week one of the playoffs would be the traditional big bowl games, matching up 8 BCS teams in the 4 major BCS venues. Week two could be played a week or two later. And week three could be held the week before the Super Bowl. Between the conference title games and the Super Bowl. The 'Super Bowl of College Football' could be held in either one of the BCS locations on a rotating basis as they do now, or they could even open it up to other neutral sites like the Super Bowl does and try to turn it into a super event.
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:25 PM
 
3,912 posts, read 4,851,641 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
In an ideal world, this is the way it would be. Eliminate divisions, have a round-robin scheduling system that pits different teams against each other in different years. Then, take the two highest ranked BCS teams in each conference and let them play each other for the conference title. LSU and Bama should play for the conference title, not the national title.

There's got to be a playoff somewhere down the line. It just makes no sense not to have one. Even financially, it doesn't make sense. There would be so much more to gain by integrating the bowl system into an 8-team playoff. Even a 4-team, 'plus one' system would be a vast improvement, but an 8-team playoff would be ideal. I could see in the older days when Bowl Games were a tradition and the evidence to break from it was questionable. But look at college basketball and the success they've had with that tournament. Imagine if, instead, they wanted to go to a format in which only the top two teams played each other and instead every other 'good team' played exhibition games or tournaments before the national title game. Or to think of it differently, think about how the wild card has blown baseball tradition out of the water and made the sport more interesting. There's just no reason not to do it. I think it was the idea of the Big 10 president to keep this silly system because it guaranteed that a Big 10 school like Ohio St and Michigan would always get to play in a major bowl and get huge revenue. But now that they keep getting beaten up in the big games, maybe they're rethinking that one. Maybe the SEC would be less dominant if they'd open it up to 8 teams instead of letting computer algorithms cut off eligibility to the top two.

Just think, week one of the playoffs would be the traditional big bowl games, matching up 8 BCS teams in the 4 major BCS venues. Week two could be played a week or two later. And week three could be held the week before the Super Bowl. Between the conference title games and the Super Bowl. The 'Super Bowl of College Football' could be held in either one of the BCS locations on a rotating basis as they do now, or they could even open it up to other neutral sites like the Super Bowl does and try to turn it into a super event.
I've defended the BCS in the past. At least it's a two team playoff. If there is a rematch, that's it for me. 'Bama does not deserve to play an undefeated LSU for the MNC. Plain and simple.
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Waco, TX
977 posts, read 1,629,032 times
Reputation: 683
Plain and simple, it would amount to a conference championship game, nothing more. I agree LSU and Alabama are probably the 2 best teams, but in order to win a national championship, you have to play someone outside your conference. A simple clause added to the BCS formula stating that if you don't win your conference, you are inelgible for the national championship game would fix that.
And yes, I am aware that would have disqualified Nebraska in 2001. It was painful having to root for LSU to beat someone so that Nebraska's SOS would move up enough to get them in to play Miami. That's stupid. The fact that Alabama now has the inside track to the title game because they lost to LSU and gets to skip the SEC championship is also stupid. It should be the other way around, and this clause would fix that as well. Hell, in order for Alabama to prove they are even SEC champs, they should have to beat LSU twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncopus99 View Post
A 6-6 team in the BCS Rose Bowl... haha. Though, that is a huge longshot...
They'd be the second-softest team in a BcS bowl behind the Big Least champion.

Last edited by Cyborg13; 11-28-2011 at 08:37 PM..
 
Old 12-02-2011, 07:41 AM
 
4,749 posts, read 3,606,588 times
Reputation: 3225
The more I think about this, the more opposed to a rematch I am, especially if LSU goes out and wins the SEC outright over Georgia. If LSU loses to Georgia, I might actually still be opposed to a rematch, but if anything, that would just open the door for questions about LSU as opposed to making an argument for Alabama.

To me, it just seems wrong on at least two levels.

1. For the good of the college football game as a whole, assuming there's another one-loss conference champion, LSU should play a non-conference opponent that represents a different region in the country. If the SEC had already played Big 12, that would be one thing, but there's really no way to know how those teams stack up unless they compete. We can imagine the outcomes all we want. Heck, a lot of people imagined that LSU would get worn down by Oregon's offense and lose that first game of the season, so it goes to show that the outcome is different than what people expect. I personally think LSU would roll all over OU or OSU, but until they play, there's really no way to know.

2. In college football, teams shouldn't have to prove their strength by beating the same team twice. I'm okay if this happens in a playoff system, in which teams earn their way back to a rematch, and I'm okay with this in a conference title format in which you have two teams that earned their way to a rematch according to rules of conference play. But just selecting teams because computers and pollsters imagine that these two teams are better seems wrong.

Also, if anyone is getting lucky here, it's Alabama. They played all of their meaningful games before the LSU game. They haven't played a serious opponent since then. Meanwhile, LSU goes out and plays an improved Arkansas team and a much-improved Georgia team in the conference title game. Oklahoma St. has to go out and play its bitter rival OU in the Bedlam game. How, exactly, has Alabama 'earned' the right to play in the biggest game of the year when they've played cupcakes for the past month and aren't even playing in the biggest weekend of college football before the bowl season begins?
 
Old 12-02-2011, 08:08 AM
 
Location: GIlbert, AZ
3,022 posts, read 4,523,233 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
The more I think about this, the more opposed to a rematch I am, especially if LSU goes out and wins the SEC outright over Georgia. If LSU loses to Georgia, I might actually still be opposed to a rematch, but if anything, that would just open the door for questions about LSU as opposed to making an argument for Alabama.

To me, it just seems wrong on at least two levels.

1. For the good of the college football game as a whole, assuming there's another one-loss conference champion, LSU should play a non-conference opponent that represents a different region in the country. If the SEC had already played Big 12, that would be one thing, but there's really no way to know how those teams stack up unless they compete. We can imagine the outcomes all we want. Heck, a lot of people imagined that LSU would get worn down by Oregon's offense and lose that first game of the season, so it goes to show that the outcome is different than what people expect. I personally think LSU would roll all over OU or OSU, but until they play, there's really no way to know.

2. In college football, teams shouldn't have to prove their strength by beating the same team twice. I'm okay if this happens in a playoff system, in which teams earn their way back to a rematch, and I'm okay with this in a conference title format in which you have two teams that earned their way to a rematch according to rules of conference play. But just selecting teams because computers and pollsters imagine that these two teams are better seems wrong.

Also, if anyone is getting lucky here, it's Alabama. They played all of their meaningful games before the LSU game. They haven't played a serious opponent since then. Meanwhile, LSU goes out and plays an improved Arkansas team and a much-improved Georgia team in the conference title game. Oklahoma St. has to go out and play its bitter rival OU in the Bedlam game. How, exactly, has Alabama 'earned' the right to play in the biggest game of the year when they've played cupcakes for the past month and aren't even playing in the biggest weekend of college football before the bowl season begins?
If ever a team deserves to be the champ, its LSU, I don't even think they should have to play in the Natty...just crown the Tigers right now. They beat up every top 10 (and top 5) contender on the schedule. The only team I feel can give them a run..might be USC (SoCal).
 
Old 12-02-2011, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,745,723 times
Reputation: 8803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foreverking View Post
If ever a team deserves to be the champ, its LSU, I don't even think they should have to play in the Natty...just crown the Tigers right now. They beat up every top 10 (and top 5) contender on the schedule. The only team I feel can give them a run..might be USC (SoCal).
You think USC can beat LSU?
 
Old 12-02-2011, 09:26 AM
 
1,359 posts, read 4,377,491 times
Reputation: 771
I don't think they would, they appear better than they are due to the weakness of that particular division this year.

With all the coaching changes though, I think the Pac-12 is going to be really interesting to watch over the next few years.


To me the good of the game would be having the two teams that finished the best play, no matter where they're from. Having some kind of rule that only conference champs can play would have been a disaster this year if LSU lost to Georgia, for example.
It is about wins and losses, and I just can't go for anything that would allow a couple of 10-2 teams to leapfrog teams with far better records.
 
Old 12-02-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: GIlbert, AZ
3,022 posts, read 4,523,233 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
You think USC can beat LSU?
7 out of 10 times LSU wins, but USC has a better chance than anybody else in the country...awesome Defense and high octane offense. Beat Oregon in Eugene...Nobody has done that in YEARS.
Nope...LSU is the best in the nation this year..indisputable best, no doubt in this Duck fans mind.
 
Old 12-02-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,091 posts, read 3,016,838 times
Reputation: 864
There is ZERO chance in HE- double hockey sticks that SC would beat LSU- zilch!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top