Annual call for a playoff thread

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by islstl, Nov 24, 2008.

  1. GregLSU

    GregLSU LSUFANS.com

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    This could also work very well, probably the best format imo.
     
  2. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027

    Rose Bowl (Pac-10 Winner vs. Big 10 Winner)
    vs.
    Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 Winner vs. At Large)

    Sugar Bowl (SEC Winner vs. Big East Winner)
    vs.
    Orange Bowl (ACC Winner vs. At Large)

    Rules, if the winner of said conference is not ranked in the top 10, that conference winner will be replaced with an At Large.

    Winner of Rose vs. Fiesta to play Winner of Sugar vs. Orange.

    There is your national champ.

    all other bowls will be still be played.

    This year would be a free for all because the winners of the Big East, ACC, and Pac-10 (maybe) will not be in the top 10.

    So essentially all those teams that are in the top 10 now would basically get to play each other in a playoff.
     
  3. GregLSU

    GregLSU LSUFANS.com

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Only thing I hate about that is basically it gives USC a walk into every national title game.
     
  4. Hawker45

    Hawker45 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    440

    You mean despite the fact that the PAC 10 and Big Ten champs have met in the Rose Bowl 17 times in the past 20 years and the Big Ten leads 9-8.
    Or go back to when the SEC started it's "championship game" (wasn't it 1992?)... the Big Ten has played The Pac10 13 times in the Rose Bowl since then and it's 7-6 Big Ten.

    Yes, USC has done well in the 2000's, even against the SEC, I understand... you guys are funny....
     
  5. LSU Engineer

    LSU Engineer Unnamed Source

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    122

    If this is what it takes to get a playoff going then fine; however, why can't we just do the 16 team playoff like the NCAA does at every other level. I am glad I am not a UT fan at this point.
     
  6. P&G_wheelz007

    P&G_wheelz007 Football anyone?

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    650
    Ok, I'll play:

    Opening Round:

    #1 OU vs #8 Penn State
    #2 Florida vs #7 Texas Tech
    #3 Texas vs #6 Utah
    #4 Bama vs # #5 USC

    Who do you like in these match-ups?


    :crystal::geaux::crystal::geaux::crystal:
     
  7. RedElephants

    RedElephants Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    83
    Still dont understand you putting USC above Alabama in "your poll". The SEC was way down this year and still stronger than the PAC10.
     
  8. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    All you're doing is kicking the can.

    If you have a playoff, then the fight is over whether there needs to be uniformity in terms of conference champ games. And if that happens, then what if all the conference champs are 12-1? How come the #4 guy gets a shot, but #5 doesn't? More whining.

    Nothing short of a full-up playoff system creates any REAL change. I don't think anyone is seriously calling for that.

    IMO.
     
  9. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Spite. :grin:
     
  10. RedElephants

    RedElephants Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    83
    No. All I want is a logical explaination...

    Alabama just went toe to toe with the best team in college football...

    Just want to read up on his reasonings. He has been downplaying Alabama all year long.
     

Share This Page