Question: So, how do you feel about a 4 team playoff now?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
That image posted earlier in this thread about the BCS top 4 being the college playoff scenario had me thinking about the 2002 season. I don't understand how USC with 2 losses (to KSU and Wazzu) gets the nod over a 1-loss Iowa, which didn't play Ohio State, and shared the conference title with tOSU. Iowa's only loss was to Iowa State, which got as high as #9 with a 6-1 record before losing again to Oklahoma.
Btw, I'm a huge fan of the national championship history, so this thread makes me horny.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Btw, I'm a huge fan of the national championship history, so this thread makes me horny.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The "Conference Champ" thing will be used to make sure the SEC has no more than one representative - just wait. Cannot believe there is so much faith in this system by our fanbase
I just gotta say though that it doesn't feel right reading Selma's post and not looking at Darth Vader 
...Anyways after reading many I these post;
2000- Yes Miami lost to Washington but I feel like their situation was similar to Alabama in 2012. They had a bad day but were still were a very formidable team and I think they would have been a much better choice to play OU and probably cool have beaten them.
2007- Kansas may have went 12-1 but they didn't play OU or Texas. Yes they maybe (BIG maybe) they could have beat one of them but probably not both.
Aside from the whole playoff thing just imagine if the SEC didn't have a conference championship game in 2008 & 2009. Then does Alabama or Florida play for the BCSNC???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...Anyways after reading many I these post;2000- Yes Miami lost to Washington but I feel like their situation was similar to Alabama in 2012. They had a bad day but were still were a very formidable team and I think they would have been a much better choice to play OU and probably cool have beaten them.
2007- Kansas may have went 12-1 but they didn't play OU or Texas. Yes they maybe (BIG maybe) they could have beat one of them but probably not both.
Aside from the whole playoff thing just imagine if the SEC didn't have a conference championship game in 2008 & 2009. Then does Alabama or Florida play for the BCSNC???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't confuse thinking two SEC teams can make the playoff with having faith in this system.
It appears that way when one of his post are quoted. However he has changed it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Besides a lack of understanding of what is going on, what else would it be? The system says they will pick the 4 best teams. The SEC is the conference most likely to have two of what is deemed the 4 best teams. One would have to have faith in the system to think that two SEC teams will make the playoff.
I said it earlier. I am more fearful that an 10-2 Oklahoma who is averaging 60 ppg who lost the Big 12 conference championship would get the nod over an 11-1 LSU team that averaged 18 ppg but allowed 2 ppg. Or, that Notre Dame will get in over an Arizona State team with an identical record because, hey, it's Notre Dame.
I honestly think it may even favor certain SEC teams because money may become more of a factor. If the committee has to choose between Alabama and Boise State, they would be stupid, from a financial standpoint, to pick Boise.
I'm not quite sure how you get the idea that we have faith in the system.
A large number of people here are against different aspects of it.
A large number are also voicing fears in advance with varying degrees of legitimacy.
And a large number are also saying, "Let's just wait and see - let's actually LET IT HAPPEN before we have any reaction."
The last group is the most rational of the bunch.
One part I really don't understand is the repeated expressions of fear of things like "well they're not gonna let two SEC teams in." I mean, so what if that's true? Many of these same folks are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who - five years ago and even more recent - did not want this playoff because "it's not fair that we would have to beat Florida twice" (when they were unbeaten in 2009). Many of these same people have suddenly jumped on the other side of the boat and said, "It's not fair if we DON'T get two SEC teams in there."
Make up your minds folks!!!!!
I realize krAzy3 and I spar respectfully but he has been consistent as have I. He was one of the few fans here that in 2011 - even if it meant we couldn't go - was a die-hard and adamant defender of the BCS. He still is, and he has pointed out (correctly, might I add) what will be lost from the season as the number of teams in the "playoffs" increase. But he HAS maintained his consistency and that part I respect from anyone.
I think it's B1G who is continually pointing out for everyone to just take a chill pill - wait and see.
Let me be blunt: Alabama is going to be fine whatever system is chosen, ok? We have won national titles when the bowls didn't count, won them when they meant everything, won the Bowl Alliance version (1992), won the BCS three times - we are the ONLY school that has managed to adjust and win under ALL sets of circumstances. People got mad at how we won in 1964 so they opted to include the bowl games - and then we turned around and won it BECAUSE they were mad at the old system. We have been dealt TWO severe injustices - 1966 and 1977, and BOTH of those would be rectified with this new system because we would have made the playoffs both years (Notre Dame would NOT in 1977) and then crowned an undisputed champion.
This defeatism of "they'd keep 2011 Alabama out" is based on assumptions. Now granted - Jim "Big Mouth" Delaney has given the SEC cause for concern. Quite frankly, I wish the Big Ten would be told where to stick their Rose Bowl because that crap about "tradition?" Well, Big Ten teams not named Ohio State flopping on New Years Day with shots at the championship is a longstanding tradition. I feel about the same folks here do - Delaney is shooting his mouth off both ways, trying to demand the Big Ten-Pac 12 Rose Bowl while insisting on a conference champion over a non-champion.
The first ruckus is going to happen the first year a team NOT in the top four makes it. But the seediest aspect of it all is this "blue ribbon panel" (to use a Tim Brando hackneyed cliche). This seems like an attempt to guarantee no Boises make it. But Delaney does not control the committee (and to be fair - he IS looking out for what he deems the best economic interests of his conference) so let's wait and see.
But no, nobody is just buying into this. Most of us are simply saying let's see what happens.
Even though I've been against the four team playoff the whole time, I don't think it will always keep out two SEC teams. Of course, this is all speculation, as we've seen varying accounts of how important the conference champion criteria is, but for instance in 2011, I don't think they could use it to knock Alabama out entirely. At one point, they discussed making is mandatory, but if I recall correctly that could have pushed a two loss team into the playoff in 2011 (Stanford and Alabama didn't win their conference).
I do think that 2011 was used as a test case, and specially they seemed to have looked at a way to push Oklahoma St. ahead of Alabama. In practical application though, all that really would have done is given us Okie St. with the #2 seed and Alabama with the #3 seed. The problem arises when you start to look at the other years and wonder how a non-conference champ coming in at 3, 4, and 5 would fare. For example, last year Michigan St. likely jumps Alabama to gain the #3 seed, but what about Baylor? Alabama was #3 in the BCS, and Baylor was #6, but given they had the same record, and Baylor was a conference champ, it's all too believable that once Michigan St. was placed at #3, Baylor could sneak in.
That's the real test and what we'll all have to wait and see on. If the committee really will put #6 ahead of #3, we have a serious problem on our hands... then again I guess one of their other goals is to make us forget the BCS formula, so we won't be able able to as easily grade the committee's performance.
I'd also agree with the sentiment that this committee seems set up to exclude programs outside of the power 5. The SoS requirement would hit schools like Boise St. particularly hard, and not having as much sympathy on the committee as they do in the AP poll won't do them any favors either.
I do think that 2011 was used as a test case, and specially they seemed to have looked at a way to push Oklahoma St. ahead of Alabama. In practical application though, all that really would have done is given us Okie St. with the #2 seed and Alabama with the #3 seed. The problem arises when you start to look at the other years and wonder how a non-conference champ coming in at 3, 4, and 5 would fare. For example, last year Michigan St. likely jumps Alabama to gain the #3 seed, but what about Baylor? Alabama was #3 in the BCS, and Baylor was #6, but given they had the same record, and Baylor was a conference champ, it's all too believable that once Michigan St. was placed at #3, Baylor could sneak in.
That's the real test and what we'll all have to wait and see on. If the committee really will put #6 ahead of #3, we have a serious problem on our hands... then again I guess one of their other goals is to make us forget the BCS formula, so we won't be able able to as easily grade the committee's performance.
I'd also agree with the sentiment that this committee seems set up to exclude programs outside of the power 5. The SoS requirement would hit schools like Boise St. particularly hard, and not having as much sympathy on the committee as they do in the AP poll won't do them any favors either.
As opposed to what, exactly? Boycotting college football before you even see how this plays out? You are free to draw any assumptions that you wish, but understand that they are only that - assumptions.
As for me, I am cautiously optimistic. Not because I assume that they will get it right, but because this has the potential to be even better than the BCS. I just wish that the 4 team choices were driven by formulas like the BCS rather than by a committee, but since this committee will be releasing rankings well before the final 4 are chosen, they are going to have placed a great deal of pressure on themselves to stick to that ranking on decision day, IMO.
Do you not understand what is going on? What you think we have is what we had with the BCS. We would still have the BCS if things were going to remain the same. And since when was ND not an exception to ANYTHING?
I understand completely. I believe you are the one confused thinking you *have* to be a conference champion to be in the top 4
They wouldn't even need a committee if there were only 4 major conferences. And, of course, no ND. Their only reason for being is to pick 4 of the 6.I understand completely. I believe you are the one confused thinking you *have* to be a conference champion to be in the top 4
I don't know what your saying. Your original point was that teams had to win a conference to make the top 4. I simply said that is not the case and that I could come up with at least 10 different scenarios where the 4 playoff teams wouldn't all be conference champions. So under your assumption do you think Alabama would not have made the playoffs in 2011 because we were not conference champions?
Apparently you missed my post #92 at the top of Page 8 in this thread. Here is what I said:
"Even if I am wrong about the two teams from one conference, you can take the following to the bank. There will NEVER, EVER be two teams from the same conference in the NCG. That is the ENTIRE reason the BCS is dead and the committee is alive."
Bama 2011 would be a rare exception. They would have been seeded 4th and met LSU in the first round. There is NO WAY both would have been given the opportunity to advance to the NCG.
Anyone who believes that the Top 4 teams will be selected needs to read the following:
"We are to reward conference championships no matter how they come about, whether it's a conference championship game, or in the Big 12 -- that counts for something to win your conference. "
http://espn.go.com/c....dule-analytics
"We are to reward conference championships no matter how they come about, whether it's a conference championship game, or in the Big 12 -- that counts for something to win your conference. "
http://espn.go.com/c....dule-analytics
Last edited:
Godwin's Law reaches college football.
I agree we need to see what happens. We can speculate all we want and accuse the committee of all kinds of bias and agendas. But until the playoffs have been going on for a few years, it is unfair to judge how the process works. I would not be surprised if some tweaking is done from year to year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 0
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-