Question: So, how do you feel about a 4 team playoff now?

Bamaro said:

True but the way we played last night I hate to think what MM could have done to us compared to a 3rd stringer.

Click to expand...

I guess we won't know, but we definitely deserved to be in the playoff.

Bamaro said:

True but the way we played last night I hate to think what MM could have done to us compared to a 3rd stringer.

Click to expand...

He's better than just being a "3rd stringer." That's the amazing thing. That Ohio State has 3 QBs that can win at the highest level. That's just not something most teams have.

But we definitely deserved the #1 seed. Oregon certainly deserved to be there. Florida State did based upon not losing, but honestly they were not one of the best 4 teams. TCU should have replaced them, but that is hindsight. Ohio State's SOS was stronger in hindsight because the Big Ten was a stronger league than we thought.

I'm sorry, but I'm calling this one out....

JDCrimson said:

The playoff is going to favor conferences that dont have to grind through their conference to get into the playoff.

Click to expand...

Ohio State went undefeated in their conference and won a championship game. So did Florida State. Oregon lost once but made up for it.

JDCrimson said:

As we can see, the SEC is such a meat grinder that it will be difficult to have enough depth to compete, imo.

Click to expand...

The SEC is always a meat grinder and in every other year recently did well in the bowls. Keep in mind that not one single SEC team is having to play an "extra game" than they did before since we lost last night. Never any other time does it keep the league from winning abut 75% of the bowls.

JDCrimson said:

This was a bad injury year for us but look around the conference this year. There were some horrific injuries to several teams that effectively derailed their hopes.

Click to expand...

Ohio State lost TWO QUARTERBACKS!!!! TWO!!!! The guy who beat us only had about 12 passes of experience under his belt. And yet he ate us alive on third and very long.

JDCrimson said:

I said it in another thread but even with a 3 week layoff we still looked like a tired and beat up team last night. Come to think of it we might of have stopped running left because of Cam's shoulder and ankle injuries simply could have held up to that abuse throughout the game. In fact there may have been other injuries along the OL not well known that may have bent us toward more passing.

Click to expand...

But we were playing a team with some reduced scholarships (due to Tattoogate) and less depth than ourselves whose last game was the same day as ours.

How is this any different?

While I think the playoff system is probably good for college football as whole from a financial and hype/interest standpoint, I don't believe it serves the interests of the SEC or Alabama very well.

The dominance of the SEC (both perceived and in reality) served the league well in the BCS system. By increasing access to other leagues, you are creating a tougher gauntlet for an SEC team to run in pursuit of a title. As other posters have stated, the meat-grinder SEC schedule batters our teams and will continue to make it harder for multiple teams to qualify.

Higher-ranked teams will always face more pressure in tournament situations, while the lower-seeded teams can play looser with "nothing to lose", because the tournament scenario increases their chances to get back into it in future years as opposed to a potential once-in-generation shot under the old system. I think we saw some of that in our game, and will see more of it in the future (especially if it expands to 8).

It is simply a shift from rewarding the season long body of work with a one game shot at a title toward a two- or three-game (if you count conference championship games) gauntlet that determines overall success or failure. It will result in a change of thinking in terms of scheduling, practice/preparation, etc. It is a new world, and there's no turning back.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "BCS Defense" logic that says:

"If two teams are voted in there they deserve to be there but if FOUR TEAMS are voted in there and one we think shouldn't be there wins, it STILL doesn't deserve to be there."

Because that is EXACTLY what the BCS proponents are saying here without actually coming out and verbalizing.

RobK said:

While I think the playoff system is probably good for college football as whole from a financial and hype/interest standpoint, I don't believe it serves the interests of the SEC or Alabama very well.

The dominance of the SEC (both perceived and in reality) served the league well in the BCS system. By increasing access to other leagues, you are creating a tougher gauntlet for an SEC team to run in pursuit of a title.

Click to expand...

If the SEC team is indisputably superior, I fail to see how this is any problem at all. Besides, it was the SEC who was FOR it a decade ago.

RobK said:

As other posters have the meat-grinder SEC schedule batters our teams and will continue to make it harder for multiple teams to qualify.

Click to expand...

but the excuse now is we were tired and so was MSU and Ole Miss and Auburn ad nauseum - and I reiterate that this was NOT a problem when we were all WINNING bowl games every year.

RobK said:

Higher-ranked teams will always face more pressure in tournament situations, while the lower-seeded teams can play looser with "nothing to lose", because the tournament scenario increases their chances to get back into it in future years as opposed to a potential once-in-generation shot under the old system. I think we saw some of that in our game, and will see more of it in the future (especially if it expands to 8).

It is simply a shift from rewarding the season long body of work with a one game shot at a title toward a two- or three-game (if you count conference championship games) gauntlet that determines overall success or failure. It will result in a change of thinking in terms of scheduling, practice/preparation, etc. It is a new world, and there's no turning back.

Click to expand...

We couldn't beat Ohio State and therefore the presumption we were as good as were ranked is rebutted. I'm sorry, I'm not an angry fan but this excuse-making is getting on my nerves.

After Year 1 of the four team playoff; IMO a case could be made to expand to 6 teams. I say that because it appears that #5 would have been a better participant than #3 and equally as good as #4 and #1. This may not hold every year, but there is probably not going to be much difference year in and year out in #s 4-6.

There is nothing that bothers me more than people (especially during game threads) saying, "We didn't deserve to be there!" As if they are a football God. Those kids deserved to be in the Playoff no matter how "selfish" we as fans are! If you don't like it, change channels and watch something that will make your life "more complete"! JMHO

Ldlane said:

There is nothing that bothers me more than people (especially during game threads) saying, "We didn't deserve to be there!" As if they are a football God. Those kids deserved to be in the Playoff no matter how "selfish" we as fans are! If you don't like it, change channels and watch something that will make you life "more complete"! JMHO

Click to expand...

Yes, we DID unquestionably deserve to be in a four-team playoff.

That's not really disputable.

yes, we lost but not nearly as bad as those defending national champions with the Crableg King falling on his rump.

I still hate the playoff will always hate the playoff and will hate it even more when it goes to 8 teams. I will never change my mind.

selmaborntidefan said:

If the SEC team is indisputably superior, I fail to see how this is any problem at all. Besides, it was the SEC who was FOR it a decade ago.

but the excuse now is we were tired and so was MSU and Ole Miss and Auburn ad nauseum - and I reiterate that this was NOT a problem when we were all WINNING bowl games every year.

We couldn't beat Ohio State and therefore the presumption we were as good as were ranked is rebutted. I'm sorry, I'm not an angry fan but this excuse-making is getting on my nerves.

Click to expand...

It is not excuse making at all. It seems to me to be a FACT that the old system favored the SEC more than this system. The old BCS system virtually guaranteed the SEC champ a one-game shot at a title. The PERCEPTION of SEC dominance (whether accurate or not) worked more in our favor under the old system. The new system will undoubtedly expose the league more when it is weaker than the old BCS did. I don't see how you could dispute that.

I'm just looking at this from a homer perspective and not objectively. But I don't see how you could argue that the old system didn't work in our favor.

If they stay with the four team playoff (or expand it), the college season needs to be shortened to ten games like it use to be. I know it won't happen due to the money aspects, but we are headed to NFL type seasons.

DzynKingRTR said:

I still hate the playoff will always hate the playoff and will hate it even more when it goes to 8 teams. I will never change my mind.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why. We went to the Sugar Bowl, but we just lost. Same as last year. It just happens to be a part of a larger picture now.

Moro Creek said:

If they stay with the four team playoff (or expand it), the college season needs to be shortened to ten games like it use to be. I know it won't happen due to the money aspects, but we are headed to NFL type seasons.

Click to expand...

If, heaven forbid, we go to a 3 team playoff, the scheduling gets really tricky.

If you keep the regular season at 12 games (13 with conference title games), how do you shoehorn the playoff games around semester finals and still maintain a meaningful nucleus of bowl games centered around New Year's Day? Do you play the first round of games the week leading up to Christmas? Do you keep the first round on New Year's Day and go deeper into January (potentially keeping players out of school in the new semester and creating enrollment/eligibility issues into a new semester for players turning pro)?

On the flip side, if you cut down the regular season even by one game, you cut into game ticket revenue, local economic impact for home games, resources for "money game" teams in FCS and low-level FBS who count on all those games, second- and third-tier TV revenues, etc. And even if you cut a regular season game or two, you still have the same issues with when to schedule the playoff games.

GrayTide said:

If the old BCS system were still used then an Alabama vs FSU title game, as it turned out, would have not pitted the two best teams. Had the BCS picked Alabama vs Oregon, as it turned out, we would have been the team embarrassed. It would appear that TCU, after the fact was more deserving than FSU and possibly Alabama.

Click to expand...

FSU is arguable, but Bama? Give me a break. And weren't you one of the Debbie Downers saying we'd be a 3-4 regular season loss team after the Ole Miss game?

What happened was Bama played their C- game and Ohio State played their A- game. Two good teams that BOTH belonged, one outplayed the other and won. And even with that, a couple different bounces of the ball and WE are playing Oregon.

I believe the 4 team playoff is probably great for college football (outside of the selection committee which is an entirely different story), but terrible for the players and coaches. Why? I have listened to Phil Savage talking about the tremendous burden this places on the players and coaches in terms of time and obligations. Bama and OSU had to be in NO 5-days leading to the game. Afterwards the winner has to fly back home and get to practice and a million other things in order to go on another 5-day trip to Dallas. Same for the Oregon - FSU situation.
These are kids and I can only imagine the toll it takes on them to go through this. Maybe they can shorten the time spent at the semi's or move the games a little further apart...I don't know...but at some point somebody needs to think about the student athletes.
If you think a 6 or 8 team play-off is the answer...factor this in the equation and see if it changes your mind.

alwayshavebeen said:

I believe the 4 team playoff is probably great for college football (outside of the selection committee which is an entirely different story), but terrible for the players and coaches. Why? I have listened to Phil Savage talking about the tremendous burden this places on the players and coaches in terms of time and obligations.

Click to expand...

I think this aspect sometimes is missed by a lot of spectators. I'm not sure anyone ever really imagined a 15 game college football season back when bowl games started.

You would think, for instance that Alabama would have been well rested and healed up, but they weren't. And that's due to playing 13 games, and not just any 13 games, one of the toughest schedules in the country. We've all had to heal up from things that really were not fine after a few weeks. Some of those guys were clearly at their limit physically, and the added burden of knowing even if you win it's not over, really had to push things over the top. I honestly feel it's just too much to ask a student athlete, a guy who is in college, to play 15 games and handle all the additional pressures that come with that.
Edit: I'm not just saying that after the Ohio State game either, I've always contended that for instance 2009 Alabama doesn't go undefeated in a playoff due to injuries.

It might be different, if a team plays a lot of relatively easy games, but one has to wonder how healthy and how energetic an SEC team can really be and at what point it's just too much.

To accommodate the 4-team playoffs, I think taking away a game (either conference championship or one less conference game) would be a good thing. But that will never happen.