Question: So, how do you feel about a 4 team playoff now?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
I'm going to wait until the playoffs have been in place for a few years before I decide if I like them or not.
Maybe if you went to divisions like the pros. With this many teams and 4 slots the losses still mean a helluva lot.
Here's something for you (and Tim Brando didn't even bother to reply when I pointed this out to him) - the selection committee renders ALL POLLS useless, null and void. They go from being transparent fictions to total fictions. And that's my beef.
The poll system was not so badly run that you had no idea who the top 4-5 teams (usually the top three is very easy) were. The problem there was situations like 1983, where Nebraska and Texas were both unbeaten but obligated to bowls where they couldn't play each other. That opened the door for teams to sneak through and it happened a lot: Notre Dame in 1977, Miami in 1983 and 1989, split championships in both 1990 and 1991, and Penn State getting hosed in 1994. It was not so bad as its detractors said but the bowl tie-ins caused a major headache.
So they eliminated all but the Rose Bowl with the Bowl Alliance and then the Bowl Coalition (1992-1997). The result was a string of disputed championships (1993, 1994, 1996, 1997) and then the B1G and the Pac Ten got on board with the BCS.
I'll say it again: the one merit to the BCS is that the top two teams play one another rather than the top team avoiding a tough game and choosing a low opponent knowing voters won't move a #1 team down in the final game if they win. (That happened to Miami in 1991. The Sugar Bowl wanted them and Florida was a top five team with one loss that had beaten Florida St with much greater ease than Miami had. The Canes instead chose to stay home against three-loss Nebraska and routed them - wimping out of the big challenge).
The problem is that the setup now still leads to injustices. Nebraska had no business in the game in 2001 - period. OU in 2003 AND 2008, same thing (but to a lesser extent in 2008). And then you've got the Auburn mess in 2004 that they're still whining about. So the four-team was going to take care of this.
Problem is that I figured 1-4 was a no-brainer. Nobody is whining for a playoff so that 7-5 Notre Dame, who is ranked at 25, gets a shot at the championship (well, except Irish fans of course). Given what they gave us? I'd prefer the BCS because the bait and switch was pulled.
In all sincerity - what's the difference between 60 SIDs or newswriters voting teams in the poll.....and 16 members of a mythical Blue Ribbon panel (I just vomited saying that) who all have different biases and schools and interests themselves? (It's a whole lot easier to bribe/threaten 16 folks than 60).
The poll system was not so badly run that you had no idea who the top 4-5 teams (usually the top three is very easy) were. The problem there was situations like 1983, where Nebraska and Texas were both unbeaten but obligated to bowls where they couldn't play each other. That opened the door for teams to sneak through and it happened a lot: Notre Dame in 1977, Miami in 1983 and 1989, split championships in both 1990 and 1991, and Penn State getting hosed in 1994. It was not so bad as its detractors said but the bowl tie-ins caused a major headache.
So they eliminated all but the Rose Bowl with the Bowl Alliance and then the Bowl Coalition (1992-1997). The result was a string of disputed championships (1993, 1994, 1996, 1997) and then the B1G and the Pac Ten got on board with the BCS.
I'll say it again: the one merit to the BCS is that the top two teams play one another rather than the top team avoiding a tough game and choosing a low opponent knowing voters won't move a #1 team down in the final game if they win. (That happened to Miami in 1991. The Sugar Bowl wanted them and Florida was a top five team with one loss that had beaten Florida St with much greater ease than Miami had. The Canes instead chose to stay home against three-loss Nebraska and routed them - wimping out of the big challenge).
The problem is that the setup now still leads to injustices. Nebraska had no business in the game in 2001 - period. OU in 2003 AND 2008, same thing (but to a lesser extent in 2008). And then you've got the Auburn mess in 2004 that they're still whining about. So the four-team was going to take care of this.
Problem is that I figured 1-4 was a no-brainer. Nobody is whining for a playoff so that 7-5 Notre Dame, who is ranked at 25, gets a shot at the championship (well, except Irish fans of course). Given what they gave us? I'd prefer the BCS because the bait and switch was pulled.
In all sincerity - what's the difference between 60 SIDs or newswriters voting teams in the poll.....and 16 members of a mythical Blue Ribbon panel (I just vomited saying that) who all have different biases and schools and interests themselves? (It's a whole lot easier to bribe/threaten 16 folks than 60).
Well no matter what anyone on here likes or dislikes the playoff will expand in time. Maybe not in my lifetime or the lifetime of many on here but it will you can take that to the bank! The key word here being "bank"! The genie was let out of the bottle with the creation of the BCS and now is at 4 starting next season and destined to grow!
Of course the devil is in the details namely the selection committee. As soon as a deserving perceived team is left out for a lesser perceived conference champion because of the conference championship set up, the crying and wailing, gnashing of teeth will begin.
Take this season for example. FSU, OSU and Auburn win out as conference champions and the committee selects Oklahoma State over Bama for the fourth spot because they are a conference champion and Bama is not. What about he PAC-12 champion? What about Notre Dame that doesn't play in a conference in football should they go undefeated or one loss?
Logically if being a conference champion is a perquisite for making the playoff a four team playoff is not sufficient. The argument will then evolve as to all major conference champions should get a shot because it is almost impossible to decide which conference is strongest. Which is strongest this season among, B1G, ACC , PAC 12 or Big 12?
The easiest answer would be to include all 5 major conference champions in a playoff but that number would not work out unless one team gets a bye and who is to choose which one gets a bye say two major conference champions or more finish with identical records? Then there is the event Notre Dame has a great season. See where this is going?
8 team playoff! 5 major conference champions plus 3 at large teams! Of course it won't stop there but that would probably please the masses for a while.
Personally in my opinion the 4 team playoff has the potential to cause way more problems than it answers.
Of course the devil is in the details namely the selection committee. As soon as a deserving perceived team is left out for a lesser perceived conference champion because of the conference championship set up, the crying and wailing, gnashing of teeth will begin.
Take this season for example. FSU, OSU and Auburn win out as conference champions and the committee selects Oklahoma State over Bama for the fourth spot because they are a conference champion and Bama is not. What about he PAC-12 champion? What about Notre Dame that doesn't play in a conference in football should they go undefeated or one loss?
Logically if being a conference champion is a perquisite for making the playoff a four team playoff is not sufficient. The argument will then evolve as to all major conference champions should get a shot because it is almost impossible to decide which conference is strongest. Which is strongest this season among, B1G, ACC , PAC 12 or Big 12?
The easiest answer would be to include all 5 major conference champions in a playoff but that number would not work out unless one team gets a bye and who is to choose which one gets a bye say two major conference champions or more finish with identical records? Then there is the event Notre Dame has a great season. See where this is going?
8 team playoff! 5 major conference champions plus 3 at large teams! Of course it won't stop there but that would probably please the masses for a while. Personally in my opinion the 4 team playoff has the potential to cause way more problems than it answers.
If FSU loses to Duke - they are done.
If Ohio State loses to Michigan State - done.
Oklahoma State lost to a 4-8 WVU team - done.
The only fly in the ointment might be Michigan State, but they are too far back even with a win over my Buckeyes - done.
I believe that the nation would actually want an Alabama/Auburn rematch if FSU and the Buckeyes lose. In fact, I bet that a lot of people are pulling for it. That was one of the best games of the year, and the rivalry was palpable. It came through the TV screen. And it just happened, so it is fresh in the memories of the voters.
I don't think that it will happen, because Duke is just not good enough to win that game, but I think that the Alabama loss actually helped erase most of the "SEC/Alabama fatigue". People actually feel bad for Alabama right now - people that hated Alabama before your game with Auburn.
My bad, I was just referring to the AU jumping an undefeated tOSU scenario. I think going undefeated in a major conference will be rewarded. I don't think either FSU or tOSU have the resume of any of the 3 one-loss SEC teams. I think all three would beat tOSU soundly. That said I won't stroke out if it is those two in the BCSCG. They did what they were supposed to and it ain't the Mountain West. That was my only point. I don think there are many tears outside Bama
. Lots of smiles in Ohio for sure
You say that until we're somehow ranked #8 and feel like we can beat the teams ahead of us.
Playoffs work both ways. The cream rises to the top because they prove themselves on the field.
Exactly.
Here we are at 1 loss PRAYING for other teams to place us back in NC contention...and dissing the very system that will favor the better team who suffer a fluke loss like ours to Awwburn.
Imagine if we still owned our own destiny.
If we're 8th then I wouldn't gripe that much. It is what it is. You are still going to have to bust your donkey to get into the finals. I really hate the idea of a committee but I'd rather have more room for error (4 spots) than less room (2 spots). I'm still going to watch
Thats ultimately the worst part of this loss. If this happened under next years formula, we would still be in the hunt, not on the outside looking in and hoping for a chance.
As far as the committee is concerned, I have some doubts but am ready to give it a try. I would have rather started out with the current BCS formula choosing the 4.
well, considering we would NOT be in a 4-team playoff since we're not a conference champ, I still hate it.
This is who would have been in the playoffs over the years. Wonder how we would have fared last year and in 2008?
where did you come up with that?
I am sorry but no team that lost to Louisiana Tech should ever make a playoff (Us in 99?)
I am sorry but no team that lost to Louisiana Tech should ever make a playoff (Us in 99?)
I really preferred to keep the system as it was, however the 4 team playoff is ok, just wish they had taken the top 4 BCS ranked teams. I think the committee is going to be very unpopular pretty quickly, and then instead of reinstituting the BCS to select the teams they'll just go to 8 teams and keep the committee intact. Heck , if I had my way, we'd still have only a handful of bowl games and play on New Years Eve and New Years Day.
I'm betting that the first week during the latter part of the season that the committee ranking are very different from all the other polls (and they al somewhat agree) there will be an uproar, so we'll see lots of criticism even during the season. I think the committee is kind of pointless.
I'm betting that the first week during the latter part of the season that the committee ranking are very different from all the other polls (and they al somewhat agree) there will be an uproar, so we'll see lots of criticism even during the season. I think the committee is kind of pointless.
I'm not sure what type of psychic ability it would take to know what the committee would have picked for each of those years.
This was my biggest gripe. Any top 4 list, with any criteria, that someone comes up with, will have undeserving teams. The top 2, sometimes one was clearly more deserving than the other, but once you start getting into 3 and 4, there can be some drastic drop offs. Over the entire life of the BCS, no team #4 BCS team ever had as many wins as the BCS champion. Not once. The #4 team was pretty much universally unqualified to compete for a championship.
The gripe was almost exclusively about the #3 team, (although a few people would complain that their #6 ranked cupcake conference team deserved a shot to), so letting #4 in as well seems to me to cause more problems than it fixes. That's why the expansion of a playoff I approved of (and someone else mentioned this as well) would have been something like the #3 BCS team face the #2 BCS team at their stadium, while the #1 team had a bye. That way, every team was rewarded for their performance, and it would be almost impossible for the #3 team to win a championship without having at least the same record as the previous #1.
I won't even get into the potential for the committee to leave the #2 or #3 team out of a playoff...
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-