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

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
But again, this is a circular argument that there's no reason to accept. In essence, we're saying this:

Oklahoma beat Florida State head-to-head, therefore, it counts

Miami beat Florida State head-to-head, but it DOES NOT count

Washington beat Miami head-to-head, but it DOES NOT count

There is simply no rational reason for subscribing to that argument.
I guess the fact that no one beat Oklahoma is besides the point? Otherwise, your point goes against playoffs in general because all they do is give us more of the Team A beat Team B scenarios, by putting more teams into the pool and as such more losses. I understand that my view, which is that only #1 matters is easy enough to disagree with though, so I can't blame your not going along with it...

But you can't use the result of a game that hasn't even been played to make the decision, either But you're arguing in circles again and assuming the legitimacy of the ranking. Again - you can't use a game that has not even been played to determine the teams that will make the playoff.
We do have the luxury of using those games to judge the accuracy of the BCS process, and it's stood up remarkably well. Nothing though, is perfect, but who really thought TCU or Cincinnati was the best prior to their bowl games? I made posts (not sure if you saw them, otherwise I'm guessing you remember) saying how I was desperately cheering for Nebraska, I wanted Alabama to have an easier championship game.

I think I'm done at this point. You and I agree on what we want - a relevant, meaningful college regular season capped with a deserving and undisputed champion. Heck, I even agree with you on keeping the BCS but simply expanding it. All the years of complaint always had to do with teams in the top four (except that lone "we believe in Boise" crap from ESPN in 2010).

But you and I both oppose this interloping of a committee.
As I said before, I don't really want to argue with you, and I think we are largely in agreement, I guess we're both detail oriented and we can't overlook certain salient points from our perspectives. I respect your point of view. The polls are flawed, the BCS was flawed, the new playoff will be flawed, I guess I just feel like the BCS will probably be the least flawed process and I will probably remember it fondly. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll try to leave it at that for now.
 
Last edited:

RollinTider1335

All-SEC
Jun 12, 2010
1,460
0
0
Spring Hill, TN
I suspect that within four years, maximum, we'll see two SEC teams in it. Regardless of what you might think about bias, there's zero question that the SEC is the big daddy in CFB right now, and there's currently no one who can knock the SEC out of that position.

Unless the committee is willing to take serious heat for leaving a one-loss SEC team out, I'd not be surprised to see two of them in the first two years. That said, they will undoubtedly place them so they play each other first rather than risking a repeat of 2011.

Looking back over recent years, here are the year's ranking when two SEC teams were in the top four (last two weeks, depending on what you look at ranking-wise):
2013: Bama & barn; USC & barn
2012: Bama & UF; Bama
2011: Bama & LSU; Bama & LSU
2009: Bama: Bama & UF
2008: Bama & UF; UF

That's a LOT of SEC teams finishing in the top two after weeks 15 or 16 - that won't be easy to overlook by the playoff committee if they don't want to catch flack. While most conferences would love to see the SEC falter, the reality is they all know we collectively OWN CFB right now, and if you want to have a rightful claim to being the best, it's going to be through an SEC team.

Anything less would be hollow and everyone knows it, whether they'll admit it or not...

I don't really disagree on any of your points, except that you are basing your entire rationale on that they want the top 2 teams. When it comes down to it, they will arrange this marriage for whoever brings in the most money. Bama vs ND or So Cal or Nebraska or Oklahoma or Tx has much more national appeal than Bama vs. LSU. When in reality, we all know Bama and LSU could win it all and are the best.

This format is only about maximizing revenue and giving the perception the best 2 teams are there. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just reality.
 

Nolan

Hall of Fame
Jul 4, 2006
5,591
679
137
Oahu
I do agree with those who have said keep the former BCS selection process to determine the 4 finalists, this makes the most sense. IMO, the selection committee is doomed from its beginning due to severe criticism from bias and biased alliances which will eventually force the playoffs to 8 teams.
Last year, after conference championships week it would have looked like this:

#1 FSU vs #4 Michigan State

#2 Auburn vs #3 Alabama

JMO, but that looks good to me!
 

alwayshavebeen

All-SEC
Sep 22, 2013
1,213
110
82
North Carolina
The 4 team play-off is fine and actually good. Not using the former BCS formula and switching to a selection committee is IMO going to mess the whole thing up sooner than later.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Last year, after conference championships week it would have looked like this:

#1 FSU vs #4 Michigan State

#2 Auburn vs #3 Alabama

JMO, but that looks good to me!
Since auburn won the SEC we would have been left out in favor of a 2 loss Baylor since they were Big XII conference champs.
 
Last edited:

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
It's all about conference champions. Get used to it.
Says who? You've said this multiple times without backing it up with anything. Is that just your opinion that it will be conference champs or do you think that is a criteria for the top 4? I could come up with 10 different scenarios where all 4 wouldn't be conference champions. The ACC conference champion would only make the final four if the team was undefeated or a one loss FSU. Its highly unlikely any other ACC team could go undefeated other than FSU. Notre Dame could easily make the playoff also and they don't belong to a conference...
 
Last edited:

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
Since auburn won the SEC we would have been left out in favor of a 2 loss Baylor since they were Big XII conference champs.
We would have made the playoff over Baylor last year considering the manner in which our only loss occurred.
 

GreatDanish

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2005
6,079
0
0
TN
No it's not, but it will be determined not to allow two teams in from any conference. That in itself will take care of the SEC.
We'll see soon. I have zero faith in the committee, but this fear that they aren't taking two from a conference doesn't bother me. I'm more concerned that they will take a 10-2 Oklahoma team that scored 80 ppg and didn't win the conference over an 11-1 LSU team that shut out 8 of its opponents but lost the SEC CG. Or, that they'll take an undefeated Boise State over a 10-2 Michigan State.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,843
187
I hope that this year, in the first year of this new system, a conference other than the SEC has two deserving teams. We could very easily see how the committee intends to handle such things without an SEC bias (pro or con). If they allow 2 teams from another conference into the field of four, they set a precedent that will help the SEC in the future. If they don't allow it, no one can say that it was the result of an anti-SEC bias, but we will know what to expect in the future.
 

CrimsonProf

Hall of Fame
Dec 30, 2006
5,716
69
67
Birmingham, Alabama
The point has already been made but I'm going to reiterate. How many times has the #4 team had a legit claim to the NC? Rarely, if ever. That's what bothers me - a team that is no. 1 and has quite possibly won 13 games now having to play a team that is 10-2 or maybe 11-1.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
The point has already been made but I'm going to reiterate. How many times has the #4 team had a legit claim to the NC? Rarely, if ever. That's what bothers me - a team that is no. 1 and has quite possibly won 13 games now having to play a team that is 10-2 or maybe 11-1.
It's not that I disagree with you (because honestly, I don't) but a view from history:

1965 - Alabama jumps from #4 to the national championship when 1-2-3 (Mich St-Arkansas-Nebraska) lose

1966 - Georgia was a one-loss SEC team, losing to Miami, 7-6 on the road (the Canes were #9 at the end of the year); while it could be argued "they didn't beat Alabama," it can equally be argued, "Alabama didn't beat UGA and the schedules were virtually even."

1970 - Number six, Arizona State, was undefeated (they were WAC back then) and beat 8-4 UNC in the Peach Bowl (note to history: both Wyoming (1967, 10-1) and ASU were passed over by prestigious bowls and this snubbing in 1970 actually led to the formation of the Fiesta Bowl, which would change history

1973 - Number four in the final AP poll (Alabama ) did win a share of the national title; number five was Penn State (unbeaten for the third time in six years and with the Heisman winner, John Cappelletti) and number six was unbeaten and once-tied Michigan

1977 - it depends upon whether you allow Kentucky to be eligible when they're on probation (oh and didn't play Alabama, either); the Wildcats ended up at number seven with a loss to 5-6 Baylor so probably not. Oh, and Notre Dame was numbe five entering the bowl games, too, and won it all.

1981 - Pitt would have had a legitimate claim if Clemson had lost to Nebraska - and for that matter so would #5 SMU

1983 - yes, Miami beat Nebraska but the fact is that the final top four could have been shuffled almost any way and it would have been very hard to determine a winner. Keep in mind that Miami ended the regular season at NUMBER FIVE.

1984 - it is doubtful BYU was even one of the top ten, much less top five teams in the country

1987 - Syracuse, number four, was unbeaten - and they actually played a slightly tougher schedule than Oklahoma did

1989 - Colorado or Tennessee could have (up to a point) made legitimate claims. Yes, Notre Dame beat CU but lost to Miami (#1) who lost to FSU (#3), who beat Auburn by 8 while one-loss Tennessee beat them by seven (and btw - FSU had TWO losses, not just one). I wouldn't argue for it but the claim could be made.

1990 - Florida State was playing well at the end (but two losses) and Washington should have beaten national champion Colorado (one of those fluke games) - they were four and five. Granted, this is a weak year but the comparison is weak since CU had a loss, a tie, and a should have been loss in the Fifth Down game.

1992 - Michigan was unbeaten (everyone forgets this) but had THREE ties. So, no, not this year.

1994 - in light of Florida State's then recent history of beating Nebraska in New Year's Day bowls (1987-89-92-93), one could argue FSU would have beaten them head-to-head.

1996 - Unique year, the top four all beat each other

1998 - Arizona and Wisconsin have somewhat legitimate claims, nobody including Tulane's coach (Tommy Bowden) took their claim seriously

2000 - yeah, Washington would have as much claim as FSU did to play for it, so would Miami and - for that matter - Oregon State as well

2007 - again, a unique year - Mizzou's two losses were to the same team, they had the same record as the national champions.....and what about one-loss Kansas at number seven?

2008 - Texas ended at four and in light of their beating OU by the same margin, yes, they most certainly would have a claim

Okay, so AT WORST (and I don't buy all of these) we have 18 cases since 1965 (basically 50 years) where the number four team might have a legitimate claim (I don't consider the claims of Tulane, Marshall, Boise St, or Utah in recent years to be legitimate - look at what has happened the moment they joined decent conferences).

Three times: 1965, 1977, and 1983 - a team has jumped from four (or five) to number one. The first was very unique and only happened because of the outcry from 1964 (if people would have kept their mouths shut, Alabama would have one fewer title, ha ha). The other two cases involved number five playing number one and then everyone in between them losing a bowl game.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
A Closer Look - This Is Why An Eight-Team Playoff Is Coming Soon

So which other ones would be legitimate?

1973, 1990, 2000, 2007, and 2008

So basically once a decade (five times in 50 years) a number four team has SOMETHING resembling a legitimate claim. But notice something else - ALL of those cases also involve unique circumstances. In 1973, the vote was divided because three power programs - Alabama, OU, and Notre Dame - were all unbeaten (the Sooners had a tie), and Michigan and Ohio State had tied one another. Penn State was an up and coming program. OU was ineligible for a bowl game, Notre Dame beat Alabama in a classic, and Penn State beat the same LSU team that Alabama had beaten by 14 points by only seven despite a month to prepare.

Penn State DID beat some decent teams but their schedule was not really all that difficult. My beef is that it's pretty hard to give a guy on an unbeaten team the Heisman and not have that team at least in the mix. If the schedule keeps Penn State from a shot then shouldn't the player running up all those yards likewise be punished for doing it against mediocre competition? I'm just saying. So I would not fight hard for 1973 but it's a possibility.


1990 - well, a unique situation all the way around. Fact is that probably ANY TEAM in the top five could have a legitimate claim. Colorado won the title because: a) they lost early; b) everyone else lost late; and c) they beat Notre Dame in a memorable game. Miami was probably a better team than either CU or Tech that year but Miami lost to BYU and Notre Dame. However - if we're talking four-team playoff here then this year would have been VERY interesting in the final poll.

Look at it:

1) Colorado - loss to Illinois, tie with Tennessee, should have been loss to Missouri
2) Ga Tech - unbeaten, a tie vs UNC, knocked off then #1 UVA (which meant little at season's end)
3) Texas - lost to Colorado
4) Miami - lost to BYU and Notre Dame
5) Notre Dame - lost to Stanford (who Colorado beat) and Penn State
6) Florida State - lost to Miami and Auburn (8-3-1)
7) Penn State - lost to Texas and USC, but beat Notre Dame
8) Washington - lost to Colorado and UCLA but demolished the same USC team that beat Penn State
9) Houston - on probation, one loss to Texas by 3 TDs

And here's the problem.....how do you pick from this year?

I'd guess Colorado is probably in and Ga Tech, right?

But how do you pick two from the other seven? Okay, we'll eliminate Houston by virtue of the probation, but you still have six legitimate claims and two slots.

Texas has only one loss, so wouldn't they be in? But now you get to the rematch problem, since if Texas beats Colorado they will win it all.

And who in God's name is number four?

How in the world can two-loss Miami be ahead of two-loss Notre Dame, who beat them pretty easily?
And for that matter....how can Notre Dame be ahead of a Penn State team that beat them IN SOUTH BEND?
And then how can Penn State go over Washington? And oh by the way if Penn State DOES go in over Washington, you have the follow rematch scenarios:

Penn State-Texas
Colorado-Texas

And can you really justify Florida State ahead of Miami, who beat Florida State? (And for the record, FSU beat Penn State by seven in the Blockbuster Bowl, so if you pick Penn State.....)

And for that matter since Miami absolutely pancaked Texas in the most lopsided Cotton Bowl in history, the choice of Texas over Miami looks pretty awful in retrospect.

Again - I'm not using after-the-selection games for justification of the selection at the time but - as Krazy notes - to justify the method afterwards. This one would look pretty bad.
So I'd say that 1990 would be a year that perhaps number four was as good or better than number one.

Btw - this is sort of Krazy's scenario playing out using real teams and what has really happened - please tell me which FOURTH TEAM the selection committee can pick that is not going to cause a ruckus? At least if you start with the BCS polls, you can say "hey, the computers and humans offset each other and this is what we have."

But yes 1990 was one of those years.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Okay, now I'm up to 2000. Here's the final (I'm using AP) regular season poll:

1) Oklahoma - unbeaten, selected (no dispute)
2) Miami - one loss to Washington
3) Florida St - one loss to Miami
4) Washington - one loss to Oregon (10-2), but beat Miami
5) Oregon St - one loss to Washington but beat Oregon who beat Washington
6) Va Tech - loss to Miami by 20 points in Miami

Who gets in?

Okay, we can rule out VT because the loss was by 20 points (but aren't we now saying that you need to run up the score?).

Who wins among the others? Do we eliminate Oregon St because "they didn't win their conference championship?" Does their three-point loss to Washington on the road somehow hurt them more than Washington's seven-point loss to a two-loss Oregon that OSU beat on the road?

Again - in this case I think Washington has a legitimate claim, certainly as much as FSU does. (It was hilarious to watch the Canes fans scream "unfair" and conveniently ignore their own loss to the Huskies, though).

And for the record - Washington played the toughest schedule of the three but it was not so drastically tougher as to really alter it all. This is one year a four-team playoff would probably work.

But we have to decide the rules BEFORE we play the game.

Those of you (and myself) fearing this will lead us to an eight-team playoff are correct.
 

MOAN

All-American
Aug 30, 2010
2,420
226
87
Swearengin, Alabama, United States
I can't wait till this discussion gets going again at the end of the upcoming season LOL! Than again and again..... ;)

What is the current contract for? We know it will not get changed before the contract is up but how many of us will still be around by then to discuss it? I am not any kind of Nostradamus but when the current contract expires it will go to at least 8 maybe more. Its all about the money! Well that is if the current monetary system we have now is still around by then, but it will be something else if not.

The truth is there is no system to make everyone happy and never will be. Heck by the time the current college contract is up the big "in" sport may be Soccer lol! Of course I just as soon not be around to see that happen. ;) But don't let me hold anyone up carry on!! Better than anything on television right now, I just wanted to put my two cents worth in!!! ;)
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I can't wait till this discussion gets going again at the end of the upcoming season LOL! Than again and again..... ;)

What is the current contract for? We know it will not get changed before the contract is up but how many of us will still be around by then to discuss it? I am not any kind of Nostradamus but when the current contract expires it will go to at least 8 maybe more. Its all about the money! Well that is if the current monetary system we have now is still around by then, but it will be something else if not.

The truth is there is no system to make everyone happy and never will be. Heck by the time the current college contract is up the big "in" sport may be Soccer lol! Of course I just as soon not be around to see that happen. ;) But don't let me hold anyone up carry on!! Better than anything on television right now, I just wanted to put my two cents worth in!!! ;)
Eight more weeks of this crap.

Then we can complain about what we didn't like in the WVA game, LOL!!!
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.