Online Now 2922

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2210
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 2917
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

$EC Draws Line in Sand - $outherns Continue to be Stupid

  • MSchott said...

    Lots to argue here. 1) How often does a .500 conference team go all the way in the NCAA tournament? 2) The team that's playing the best at the end of the season has the right to win the tournament. Maybe a great team had a poor season due to injuries but is healthy come tournament time.

    And it's not just the NCAA tournament. The Giants this year were a soft 9-7, and we're probably 4 or 5 games away from an NHL club with a losing record lifting the cup. Tournaments don't always crown the best regular season team, and every other sport at every other level is okay with that.

    signature image

    ashamanAJSV

  • ClankyIronBoots said...

    How can you not understand this? The SEC has had multiple teams in the top four numerous times. It would behoove them to support a top 4 system.

    So are they going to call for a conference champions playoff the first year they don't have anyone finish in the top 4?

    Beardy

  • Take the 4 conference champions. Lowest ranked conference champion plays in a play in game with a wild card team that can be from any confernce

    RIP tRCMB

    MR Universe1929

  • VargMan said...

    Explain yourself...the ncaa hoops tournament selection process is politics free.

    You're a loony.

    Beardy

  • JMSparty08 said...

    Disagree. The NCAA tournament, while a great and exciting thing to watch, is an absolute terrible way to pick a champion. No where else can a team go .500 in conference play, win 6 games, and become a champion. It's been expanded way too much.

    The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 2007-08 New York Football Giants would like a word with you.

    Beardy

  • MSchott said...

    Lots to argue here. 1) How often does a .500 conference team go all the way in the NCAA tournament? 2) The team that's playing the best at the end of the season has the right to win the tournament. Maybe a great team had a poor season due to injuries but is healthy come tournament time.

    See UConn 2011. 9-9 in conference play.

    "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." - Mark Dantonio.

    JMSparty08

  • Beardy said...

    The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 2007-08 New York Football Giants would like a word with you.

    NHL, MLB, NBA are different because those are not single elimination tournaments. Each has to play a series. I'm ok with the Cards winning it all in 2006 and other teams that may have not had the best of records during the regular season because #1 the playoffs in the MLB are difficult to get into (must win division or wildcard) and #2 it's not a single elimination. Winning 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 in several different rounds is quite an accomplishment.

    Same goes for the NBA, although getting into the playoffs there isn't as difficult.

    As for the NFL, still gotta win a division or be a wildcard. That's not the easiest thing to do (see Lions and Cowboys over the previous decade or two). You've got to admit, if you're in a major conference, it's not really that difficult to make the NCAA tournament provided you're at least .500 in conference play. And then you're only 6 games away from a championship as opposed to having to play a best of 5 or best of 7.

    This post was edited by JMSparty08 on 6/1/2012 at 3:53 PM

    "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." - Mark Dantonio.

    JMSparty08

  • JMSparty08 said...

    See UConn 2011. 9-9 in conference play.

    Good point but that's rare and they meet the criteria that the team that's playing the best when it counts wins the tournament. I don't know if they had injuries but they obviously played the best at the right time.

    MSchott ●

  • if that happens, then the outrage will be the preseason rankings and how everyone will vote for teams #3 and #4. I think most years the top team or top 2 teams has been fairly easy. but the rest of the top 10 teams could be a coin flip. and if that happens then the opportunity for the coaches and sports writers to drastically effect the outcome of where people land in the polls the last week is pretty high

    Monty Burns

  • Anyone else get the feeling these talks are going to collapse at the 11th hour and we're going to be stuck with the same bullshit because a few tidbits couldn't be resolved? I'm getting more and more weary that these talks are farther away from being reality than people have led us to believe and it's only going to get more divisive the more debate there is. My gut feeling was that if they didn't hammer it out quickly, people were going to dither and dick around and politick until the current model didn't seem so bad. When will some of the people in these talks just throw up their arms and say 'well, we tried..'?

    In a revamped BCS, winning a conference title should have weight, but it shouldn't be mandatory to advance to a playoff. If you feel that Oregon, Oklahoma State and Wisconsin were more deserving than Alabama for a playoff last year solely because they won their conference then you obviously did not comprehend the 2011 college football season or the quality of teams that were a part of it. To those people: You realize UCLA could have been 7-6 and heading to a 4-team playoff last year for the national title, right?

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Lunchables on 6/1/2012 at 5:30 PM

    Lunchables

  • Top 4 teams is fine with me IF the SEC makes a rule against over signing recruits. Also, programs like Alabama and LSU should get a serious anal probe from the NCAA. As long as the playing field is fair then top 4 teams is fine

    Now with a PhD in Applied Llama Physics...

    Dr RedHotLlama

  • Dr. RedHotLlama said...

    Top 4 teams is fine with me IF the SEC makes a rule against over signing recruits. Also, programs like Alabama and LSU should get a serious anal probe from the NCAA. As long as the playing field is fair then top 4 teams is fine

    Like that'll happen

    RIP tRCMB

    MR Universe1929

  • If the Big East wasn't such a shit conference, there could be a 6 team playoff with the champs of the B1G, SEC, Big 12, Pac 12, ACC, and big East Then if a non bcs team could manage to be ranked ahead of one of the top 6 conference champions, they take that team's spot.

    UMWolverines

  • Lunchables said...

    Anyone else get the feeling these talks are going to collapse at the 11th hour and we're going to be stuck with the same bullshit because a few tidbits couldn't be resolved? I'm getting more and more weary that these talks are farther away from being reality than people have led us to believe and it's only going to get more divisive the more debate there is. My gut feeling was that if they didn't hammer it out quickly, people were going to dither and dick around and politick until the current model didn't seem so bad. When will some of the people in these talks just throw up their arms and say 'well, we tried..'?

    In a revamped BCS, winning a conference title should have weight, but it shouldn't be mandatory to advance to a playoff. If you feel that Oregon, Oklahoma State and Wisconsin were more deserving than Alabama for a playoff last year solely because they won their conference then you obviously did not comprehend the 2011 college football season or the quality of teams that were a part of it. To those people: You realize UCLA could have been 7-6 and heading to a 4-team playoff last year for the national title, right?

    Right, but the only reason UCLA would have been there was because USC was ineligible. In any event, I think Jim Delaney's format is the best. Conference champs, but they need to also be in the top six.

    "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." - Mark Dantonio.

    JMSparty08

  • Lunchables said...

    You realize UCLA could have been 7-6 and heading to a 4-team playoff last year for the national title, right?

    Man, too bad there's not a single person of influence in the country proposing any system that would've included them.

    signature image

    ashamanAJSV

  • ashamanAJSV said...

    Man, too bad there's not a single person of influence in the country proposing any system that would've included them.

    Conference champions?

    RIP tRCMB

    MR Universe1929

  • MR. Universe said...

    Conference champions?

    Not an unranked one.

    signature image

    ashamanAJSV

  • Lunchables said...

    Anyone else get the feeling these talks are going to collapse at the 11th hour and we're going to be stuck with the same bullshit because a few tidbits couldn't be resolved? I'm getting more and more weary that these talks are farther away from being reality than people have led us to believe and it's only going to get more divisive the more debate there is. My gut feeling was that if they didn't hammer it out quickly, people were going to dither and dick around and politick until the current model didn't seem so bad. When will some of the people in these talks just throw up their arms and say 'well, we tried..'?

    In a revamped BCS, winning a conference title should have weight, but it shouldn't be mandatory to advance to a playoff. If you feel that Oregon, Oklahoma State and Wisconsin were more deserving than Alabama for a playoff last year solely because they won their conference then you obviously did not comprehend the 2011 college football season or the quality of teams that were a part of it. To those people: You realize UCLA could have been 7-6 and heading to a 4-team playoff last year for the national title, right?

    I get that feeling also. Instead of coming together each side will stand their ground.

    ErnieMcCracken ●

  • ErnieMcCracken said...

    I get that feeling also. Instead of coming together each side will stand their ground.

    See, for whatever reason I think the opposite. I think both sides are posturing - saying exactly what their colleges want to hear (except the B10 has sort of wobbled).

    But when they actually meet in a couple weeks, and big TV contracts are on the line, they'll come to some agreement.

    signature image

    PolskaSpartan ●

  • PolskaSpartan said...

    See, for whatever reason I think the opposite. I think both sides are posturing - saying exactly what their colleges want to hear (except the B10 has sort of wobbled).

    But when they actually meet in a couple weeks, and big TV contracts are on the line, they'll come to some agreement.

    Hopefully you are right however I see a +1 being the "solution" instead of the conferences coming together on a playoff format. A +1 would be incremental change.

    ErnieMcCracken ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports