Regardless what system they went with, they were not going to scrap the entire bowl system.
It's Official: College Football Going to a Seeded 4 Team Playoff
- Thread starter DiamondDust
- Start date
No matter what format they wanna use..As long as we take care of business..We will play for the NC..Bottom line..Just win baby..
Finally! Never thought this would happen before i was 60. So excited, i wish it started now rather than 2 years from now.
I am worried of "SEC fatigue." The big question is who is on the committee and what criteria do they use. I don't want to see much in terms of criteria (keep it simple) and I don't want to see ANY journalists on the committee. I'd want former coaches/ players from various parts of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...-college-football-playoff-approved/55845112/1
These are the details I have pulled out
- The new deal will go for 12 years.
- SemiFinal Rotation - "We do not know the rotation yet," said BCS executive director Bill Hancock. "That's still to be determined."
- Endorsed the idea of a selection committee for the playoff teams (Whatever that means)
- The committee will rank playoff teams based on: won-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head and if a team is conference champion.(It appears that winning your conference gets you brownie points)
- Still to be decided: the name of new event, the composition of and procedures for the selection committee and the revenue-sharing formula.
This whole playoff deal was finally put together by the same people who want the SEC to just go away. They are there own worst enemies. The SEC will have that much greater chance of being there now. If they didn't like the results this past year, they are really going to hate this. Just think, the SEC has a chance to have 2 teams in again. What is the likelihood that that SEC doesn't have at least one team in the playoff. Slim and none, unless you stack the committee with BIG10 idiots.
Last edited:
True! I am still a Bama fan and no matter what they come up with that won't change. And even if we get screwed down the road with this format it won't be like Bama has never had that happen before. In fact its happened multiple times, but we are not the only ones who have been shafted over the years. As far as that goes though I like Bama's track record so far. 14 championships as far as I know is better than any other schools so...
I was going to say this is probably only the beginning. The thought of a selection committee makes me worry about the future of college football...
Heck, most media people are already clamoring for the inevitable 8 team playoff that is surely coming.
Good or bad, I don't know. The selection committee is my biggest gripe about this, as well as the thought process that a playoff produces the most worthy champion. Bracket feaver has finally overtaken college football.
Good or bad, I don't know. The selection committee is my biggest gripe about this, as well as the thought process that a playoff produces the most worthy champion. Bracket feaver has finally overtaken college football.
I dont know, seems to me an emphasis on conference champs is code for " last year will never happen again." I think they would have found some way of keeping bama out last year using this format because so many people did not want a rematch. The committee would have just said Bama was not conference champ so we chose someone else. The SEC might not be as much of a shoe in to get 2 teams in a playoff as people think with the old "they are not conference champs" out that they will have.
I wish I shared peoples' enthusiasm for playoffs, but I don't. I give it 5 years before a move is afoot to go to 8 teams.
In the unlikely event 2 SEC teams end up in the playoffs, they of course will be matched against each other in one of the semifinal games.
And for the brief period of time we have a 4-team playoff, I find it endearing how some people actually believe a second SEC team will make the playoffs ahead of, for example, a one-loss WAC or ACC conference champion. The Selection Committee will do their job of ensuring conference diversity in the playoffs.
In the unlikely event 2 SEC teams end up in the playoffs, they of course will be matched against each other in one of the semifinal games.
And for the brief period of time we have a 4-team playoff, I find it endearing how some people actually believe a second SEC team will make the playoffs ahead of, for example, a one-loss WAC or ACC conference champion. The Selection Committee will do their job of ensuring conference diversity in the playoffs.
This seems quite obvious to me. The Virginia Tech president, head of the Oversight Committee, was quoted today as saying that "conference champions" would be the overriding factor for the new selection committee to consider.
Which (I have to give Krazy3 some credit here) is perplexing considering Mike Slive wanted the selection committee.
Absolutely horrible. Let's use one example. Alabama is undefeated, ranked #1 and loses to Florida (who is ranked #1 the following week) in the SECCG. Now, they get docked in 50% of the criteria. They have the same win loss record as Florida but they now have a 50% penalty basically. I can accept the basic premise given the fact they just lost to Florida. That would be ok if not for the fact that a lower ranked USC team now gets a 25% bonus over Alabama because despite no conference championship game, and one less win, they won their conference.
This is an abomination. It is designed not to choose the best teams. If one wanted to really analyze it, they might conclude they are making something deliberately that will produce bad results so they can expand to 8 teams and get the automatic conference champions they want.
As to the just win crap. Yeah, just go undefeated and you're fine. The only problem is, just go undefeated in a division with four of the top 20 football programs of all time, in a conference with 7 of the top 20 of all time. Sure, that's a piece of cake. There are 11 conferences to be won, 11 "bonuses" for inclusion. The SEC has 35% of the top teams and only gets 9% of the "bonus". The won loss record is bad as well, because it refuses to acknowledge that 2 losses in the SEC (like Arkansas last year for example) is better than one loss in a lot of other conferences.
If you are a one loss team among many? Despite prevailing wisdom that you're one of the top teams? Despite playing in far and away the best conference in the land? Well, you'd better hope you won your conference because they made this specifically for inclusion. Not for the best teams, it's what I said all along. This is about inclusion over excellence. I'm not sure how anyone could make the case that this is better than what we have now.
It will be interesting to hear what the pro-Slive take will be on this. Slive came out publicly in support of a process that is overtly anti-SEC. I have to question what it is that was to terrible that he had to embrace something really bad to save us from that. It seemed to me all along that he was the fool in this, and I haven't seen one tiny shred of proof that he was anything but. I read today that it was the SEC that proposed the four team playoff for example. I think a bunch of commissioners got Slive into a room with them and made him look like a fool. I'm sure they mislead him, but that sounds like a pretty easy to do given what I've heard from him on this issue and others.
I hate to be a bit political, but his rush towards getting this approved without knowing the details reminds me a lot of Nancy Pelosi's famous quote on the health care law. Why in earth was he in such a rush? Couldn't he have sat there until he got assurances that conference champions would not be the prevailing criteria? All he had to do was demand use of the polls, or simply refuse that criteria. Yet, instead he was like yeah buddy let's get this done before we have the details worked out!
Last edited:
I'm going to wait to hear what the criteria are first. I've read that SoS will be a big factor in whatever committee we get's decision making process and saw one commissioner say he liked the idea of using the NCAA Selection Committee as a model, which weighs SoS heavily (RPI). If enough weight is given to the SoS by committee members, it could balance out the conference champion stuff.
We don't even know what the selection process will be, so it's a little early to be bashing Slive (or defending him).
I know I don't trust them, SEC winning last 6 made everyone else say we gotta do something about this.
A WSFA reporter asked on Facebook if people liked the idea. I commented and said I do not while giving my reason. The jewel comment was this:
No, it won't. When compared to the Big East, or WAC? Sure, it will. But, the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC? We know who the better conference is, but SoS is calculated from the bottom up, so for instance Vanderbilt or who ever is stinking it up down there matters as much as Alabama when calculating this. For instance Ole Miss mutilated the conference SoS last year.
This is worsened by the 9th conference game. Look at Oklahoma State's schedule, then explain to me how their SoS was higher than Alabama's. They played an extra conference game, and due to the oddities in calculating SoS, despite the argument to be made that the SEC had the top three teams in the country, their SoS came out higher. Alabama played a tougher schedule, yet Oklahoma St. on paper played a higher SoS. That's because SoS didn't calculate that Alabama played Penn St. at full strength, or how exponentially more difficult the LSU game was than any game Oklahoma St. played.
So, when it comes to the other major conferences, it won't and can't balance out anything. USC would still jump Alabama. The notion that SoS will save SEC teams being jumped just isn't based in reality. So, SoS included, Oklahoma St. jumped Alabama and in 2008 USC jumps Alabama. That's assuming as I have all along, that the conference champ provision is only a "tie breaker", SoS is used, and that the conference champ provision is not the dominant factor or some parties seem to be asserting. The conference champ part poisons the process as I said before.
As to Slive, I've been bashing him since he rammed through that signing limit. I know he doesn't control everything, heck he might not control anything. But, he sure does sound like an idiot if you actually listen to the words coming out of his mouth. If you are forced into doing something stupid, you should at least have the common sense not to act happy about it. He's cheered, encouraged, and rushed through this process much like he did the signing limit. He explained why it makes him happy, why it's a good thing, and basically he's been the cheerleader in both instance. Never mind both things are horrible ideas. Never mind both are tailor made to break the SEC's stranglehold on greatness. We have to listen to this guy explain to us why we should be happy about the SEC having harm done to it, and why he's happy that the SEC is having harm done to it, and I'm disgusted by it.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-