It can't be worse than having a great team voted out of the number 1 spot because of media bias with NO chance at redemption against either team because they were so good neither could beat the other when they played head to head.
Question: So, how do you feel about a 4 team playoff now?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
Not sure that it matters as much as the assurance that the two best teams will get a shot. With 4 slots, the two best teams will make it every year.
Neither does any other system, so how this can possibly be a valid objection to any form of playoff is questionable.
This is also true, but again irrelevant.
But this comparison is only valid if the fourth best team in any conference in FOOTBALL is in the four-team format. This is a valid objection to expanding the field, but I seriously doubt any fourth place SEC team is going to be considered even for a 16-team playoff.
I would also note that this a terrible cross sport comparison since one features ONE game and the other a series.
Looking at the more recent posts...If you think by going from 2 teams to 4 teams automatically assures the best 2 get in I strongly disagree. If the method is flawed (which I believe it is because it is entirely based on human subjectivity) then the whole thing will be screwed up. Had the BCS selection method been expanded to 4 teams it would have guaranteed at least the 2 best were in and maybe all 4. There are many hypothetical scenarios I see that will make this much, much harder for SEC teams to get in (except for an undefeated or one loss Champion) Selma I don't disagree with your...Just win your games...but what are the odds of winning ALL your games in the SEC? IMO a whole lot harder than any other conference and we will be penalized for it. Lastly as some have said, this is leading to a 8 team playoff which is another subject.
Bring this thread back when the four teams are announced in December or whenever that happens.
I'm feeling worse about the four teams to be selected as we move closer to that day when we will more than likely see BIAS-in-Action by THAT committee!
I'm feeling worse about the four teams to be selected as we move closer to that day when we will more than likely see BIAS-in-Action by THAT committee!
I'm not quite following this (although this is what most people wanted - just add 2 BCS teams)
Here's the problem with what you're saying - way back in 1992, the SEC added divisional play and we were all told it was going to be an absolute disaster for the SEC, they might never again win a national title because the road to win was so difficult that it was going to be next to impossible for a team to navigate it. This came about because the SEC did not have any real national championship contenders after Herschel Walker left UGA at the end of the 1982 season. To give one pause: no SEC team played for the national championship for an ENTIRE DECADE extending from the 1983 Sugar Bowl (when Penn State beat UGA) to the 1993 Sugar Bowl (when we beat Miami). In fact, references were made to "you can't win the SEC with more than two losses."
Divisional play was going to forever end the SEC winning national titles.
1992 - Alabama, undefeated, national champion
1993 - Auburn, undefeated
1996 - Florida, undefeated in the SEC (loss to FSU), national champion
1998 - Tennessee, undefeated, national champion
2003 - LSU, national champion
2004 - Auburn, undefeated, SEC champion
2006 - Florida, national champion
2007 - LSU, national champion
2008 - Florida, national champion
2009 - Alabama, undefeated, national champion
2010 - Auburn, undefeated, national champion
2011 - Alabama, national champion; LSU, undefeated in regular season, SEC champion
2012 - Alabama, national champion
11 of the last 22 national champions have been SEC teams and SEC teams have completed SIX unbeaten seasons in the toughest conference there is.
Furthermore, there's at least one farce there because does ANYBODY REALLY think that 2008 Florida should get a pass for losing to (of all teams) Ole Miss AT HOME? This - I hope - is where that "conference champion" argument applies. Can you REALLY argue that even if Florida beat unbeaten Alabama, this somehow erases the loss to Ole Miss? A selection committee IN THEORY could select Alabama by virtue of saying that even though they lost to Florida, their schedule was tougher and they didn't lose to Ole Miss. (This is one of the 100 reasons I hate the idea of a committee).
Again, I don't quite understand the fear factor because any unbeaten SEC team is going in and in all probability so is any one loss SEC team provided they won the conference. I DO understand the fear the committee will be totally irrational, but I doubt that. Somewhat irrational, yes.
Once again it seems to me people are trying to hedge their bets and make sure we "get a second chance." I suspect we will get a second chance via the same route it happened before - it's just now it's no guarantee.
Once again, I fail to understand why people are so upset with an allegedly biased committee but had no problem with biased coaches and sportswriters both pre-BCS and in the BCS? (At least in the latter I can see the "computer offsets the bias some" argument, but the fact remains humans had most of the input).
I reiterate - I DO NOT LIKE the selection committee, so please nobody try to engage a straw man on that issue as if I'm defending it. It's just I don't have much tolerance for inconsistent arguments. "They're biased" is fine but not when you excuse it with the BCS or the old AP or UPI polls. Note that I have called out my own side for inconsistency as well, so it's not just a BCS-non thing.
But at least wait and see it in action before passing judgment on it. I hope it's rendered superfluous by outcomes but we all know about how strange that can be. The whining about second chances concerns me as well since it's what I call "the Florida State argument" of the 1990s.
If we lose two games pre-Auburn this year, not one person on this board will be overly concerned with who gets selected anyway (unless, of course, it's Auburn, gag).
Yes...I do believe the system would have been better served with the top 4 BCS formula teams and that's really where I should stop.. ..It is clear you think through all this stuff and I wonder how you feel about a scenario where a 2 or even 3 loss team defeats a previously undefeated team in the SECCG? Who goes home, and opens the door for a for a 1 loss ACC or whoever Champion?
I think that most (even in B1G country) would have preferred a 4 team playoff using the BCS method of choosing the teams. I also think that the fact that this "committee" will begin releasing a poll weeks before their pool selection keeps them honest. Stay in their top 2 and you will make it through. Allow yourself to slip to #4 and you might lose your spot in their "meetings" at the end.
The problem with what you're saying here is that a virtual precise scenario already happened in the BCS era and NOBODY HERE had a problem with it (sans the 16-team playoff partisans).
BCS Rankings for November 26, 2001 (source: 2009-10 USA Today College Football Encyclopedia)
1) Miami (10-0)
2) Florida (9-1)
3) Texas (11-1)
4) Nebraska (11-1)
5) Oregon (9-1)
That weekend Tennessee (10-1) beat Florida and (9-2) Colorado shocked Texas in the Big 12 title game. Thus, the next rankings said:
December 3, 2001
1) Miami (11-0)
2) Tennessee (10-1)
3) Nebraska (11-1)
4) Colorado (9-2)
5) Oregon (10-1)
And that Saturday, all number two Tennessee had to do was knock off a 9-3 LSU team they had already beaten 26-18 earlier in the year. To make it even better, LSU's starting QB (Rohan Davey) went down with an injury.
LSU won the game. A THREE-LOSS team knocked Tennessee out of the title game and put a Nebraska team that did not even win its division and had lost its last game by four touchdowns into the championship. I would point out that this very scenario is an ironclad argument AGAINST the BCS even though it hardly constitutes one FOR a four-team playoff.
The scenario you propose is slightly different because it would have an unbeaten team. I can only think of two times when a team entered the SEC championship game undefeated and came out beaten: 1994, when we lost to Florida, 24-23, and 2008, when we lost to Florida, 31-20. In all other cases, the unbeaten team has proven its worthiness.
I would surmise that such a scenario COULD, in fact, happen. But here's where the selection committee idea can actually go haywire.....what if Jeff Smith and Archie Manning make the point that, well, even though SEC Team X lost a close one to a three-loss team, they were without Colt McCoy, who got hurt on the first series, and they probably would have won otherwise and they only have one loss?
The more teams make it the less exclusive that it is and less prestigious but it MUST be fair. It is simply not fair to ANY SEC team or major conference power who plays a tough schedule to have them start the year unranked, go undefeated against the schedule and then be told, "Well too bad, the two teams we ranked at the start of the year ahead of you never lost so you're getting hosed here." If the four-team playoff is done RIGHT, it could be the BEST SOLUTION OF ALL to the problem. But now we have made the polls a complete farce. What if Alabama survives LSU on the same day Oklahoma hangs 75 points on some overrated team and the committee says, "Wow, Oklahoma!!"?
My fear is volatility in the polls with the new weekly rankings - it will reward the most recent game played and ignore embarrassments like losing to a joke (for example, Okie State would overcome their Iowa St debacle by drilling the Sooners as they did in 2011).
I knew deep back in my mind that this had actually happened, but I had some appointments this morning (which amazingly cleared my mind).
In 1998, the regular season ended with the following BCS rankings:
1) Tennessee (11-0)
2) UCLA (10-0)
3) Kansas State (11-0)
4) Florida State (11-1)
5) Ohio State (10-1)
This was the first year of the BCS, and it was a disaster in the making because Kansas State had been number one in the USA Today Coaches Poll since Ohio State had lost Michigan State (coached by? Nick Saban!) on November 7th. With this move to the BCS, it was about to have a major train wreck the very first year - because the team everybody pretty well thought was the best was going to not even be in the championship game.
And then as often happened in the BCS era, the BCS system was saved BY disaster FROM disaster. First, UCLA's game with Miami from early in the year had been postponed because of a hurricane. In the makeup game, Miami shocked UCLA, setting the stage for Kansas State to take care of business and then meet Tennessee in the BCSNCG. Naturally, K-State blew a two touchdown lead in the final quarter (15 points to be exact) and lost in overtime to Texas A/M, who entered the game at 10-2.
To make matters more amusing, Tennessee only led MSU by a score of 14-10 with eight minutes left in the SECCG. The Vols held on and put it away, but is this not the scenario you're talking about? An unbeaten team (K-State) that everybody thinks is the best somehow loses to a team not really in the running and it undoes their season? Keep in mind that the reason K-State was so highly thought of was that they were in the same conference as the Nebraska team that had won three of the last four national titles (e.g. same reason many figured Auburn was going to beat FSU).
It was so terrible that because there were fewer BCS games then, K-State got passed over and didn't even get the BCS at-large bid. They wound up in the Alamo Bowl, where nobody wanted to be, and Drew Brees unloaded on them for Purdue.
My point is that the precedent has already been established prior to any committee. Indeed, any committee that overrules this result had better have a damn good reason for doing it.
No doubt weird stuff is commonplace in the last 2 weeks of the season and has historically "fixed" itself. I guess going back to my scenario the question is who is more deserving of a playoff berth (I know we are leaving out a ton of factors) The now one loss SEC runner-up or the 3 loss champion? Generally speaking I think the one loss team based on the entire season is more deserving, and to my point I think the BCS would have treated it that way and even a chance both would go. I think the committee would treat it quite differently and select the three loss champ and it would be a long shot for the one loss because of other conference champions being given priority. Does that make any sense at all??
I do not see this committee ever choosing a 3 loss conference champion over a one loss conference runner up from one of the major conferences. Not gonna happen.No doubt weird stuff is commonplace in the last 2 weeks of the season and has historically "fixed" itself. I guess going back to my scenario the question is who is more deserving of a playoff berth (I know we are leaving out a ton of factors) The now one loss SEC runner-up or the 3 loss champion? Generally speaking I think the one loss team based on the entire season is more deserving, and to my point I think the BCS would have treated it that way and even a chance both would go. I think the committee would treat it quite differently and select the three loss champ and it would be a long shot for the one loss because of other conference champions being given priority. Does that make any sense at all??
Agree. Some people read that the committee will take into account whether a team won their conference or not and think that CC's automatically get in the playoffs. That will not be the case.
It's hard to believe the committee have it figured out themselves. My only aspirations going forward under our new format will be getting the top two football teams in America in these playoffs. Any football fans fortunate enough to be number 3 and 4, should simply pause and count their blessings. This will not be science.
Not necessarily. If the two best teams are in the same conference, like Bama/LSU a couple of years ago. That's the main thing that brought on this change. A conference non-champ will have a hard time making the final four.
For example if Bama and OSU go undefeated and are their conference champs, and Stanford, Oklahoma, FSU, and LSU are 11-1 but three of those are conference champs, LSU would be at the bottom of that list of four teams vying for two spots, even though their lone loss was to Bama
Just last year, after undefeated ACC champ FSU and one loss SEC champ Auburn(ugh), there were four one loss teams that would have been battling for two spots. Two (Michigan St. and Baylor) were conference champs and two (Bama and OSU) were not. Bama and OSU would have most certainly been left out of the playoffs, and IMO a two loss Stanford with a PAC championship and their probability to draw west coast viewers may have even snuck in there. When this happens there will be a move to an eight team playoff...count on it...after all, more teams mean more money. As they say "follow the Benjamins".
You're "sort of" right here, and that's the fear I think. However.....using the broad spectrum let's consider something nobody has yet discussed - how many times has a one-loss Big Five team been left OUT of the mix? We'll start with the BCS era:
1998 - Ohio State, Kansas State, UCLA, Arizona, Wisconsin
BCSNCG: Tennessee (unbeaten) vs Florida State (one loss to NC St in week two)
Why were they eliminated?
Ohio State and Wisconsin were co-conference champions and didn't play each other
Arizona lost to UCLA, 52-28 at home
K State lost the Big 12 title game in OT to two-loss aTm
UCLA lost to Miami in the final week
The real reason FSU won? They had the big reputation and they lost first
1999 - Nebraska, Kansas St
BCSNCG: Unbeaten FSU vs unbeaten Va Tech (with Michael Vick at QB)
Why were they eliminated?
K State lost to Nebraska, 41-15
Nebraska lost a close one to Texas
The real reason? There were two unbeaten major conference teams
2000 - Washington, Miami, Oregon St, Va Tech
BCSNCG: Unbeaten OU vs FSU (one loss to Miami)
Why were they eliminated?
Washington won the Pac Ten but lost to two-loss Oregon
Oregon St lost to Washington
Miami lost to Washington but beat Fla St
Va Tech lost to Miami
The real reason? OU was unbeaten, FSU had the reputation, and the Noles played the toughest schedule
OK, I'll stop.
The problem here is that you didn't tell me what the records were of the SECOND PLACE TEAMS in those other conferences. In this case you would have five conference champions for four spots and the committee would do an outstanding job commended by all.
But there are several questions:
1) Who beat Oklahoma?
2) Who beat Stanford?
3) Who beat Florida State?
Florida State and OU both play Okie State. Did either one lose to them? That would become important.
And what were the scores of those games and where were they played?
You're probably right - but I'm tempted to ask "so what?" I mean, how is this ANY different than what we have now - except we now have to fit MULTIPLE one-loss teams into ONE slot rather than THREE? Yes, the selection committee part is different. My suspicion is that the committee was set up primarily to get to the 8 or 16-team playoff.
For starters - how can you REALLY put Alabama ahead of Missouri in any pecking order? It's hardly fair to punish Mizzou for having to play an extra game. Yes, I think we would have killed them, but it doesn't matter. Besides - it WOULD be "fairer" if Ohio State and Alabama were left out because they DID lose to teams IN the playoff. Michigan State lost to Notre Dame but won the conference while Baylor lost to Okie State but also won the conference.
So you're right but I'm not sure of your point. Why should we go ahead of Baylor and Mich St in those circumstances I guess is my question. Do I think we'd beat them all? Yeah, but we did go 0-2 to end the year so....
I doubt Stanford would have made it. The only real draws on the West Coast are Oregon and USC.and IMO a two loss Stanford with a PAC championship and their probability to draw west coast viewers may have even snuck in there. When this happens there will be a move to an eight team playoff...count on it...after all, more teams mean more money. As they say "follow the Benjamins".
In your scenario, the SEC runner up might not have made it into the top two in the BCS either. It depends on when you lose, and to whom.Not necessarily. If the two best teams are in the same conference, like Bama/LSU a couple of years ago. That's the main thing that brought on this change. A conference non-champ will have a hard time making the final four.
For example if Bama and OSU go undefeated and are their conference champs, and Stanford, Oklahoma, FSU, and LSU are 11-1 but three of those are conference champs, LSU would be at the bottom of that list of four teams vying for two spots, even though their lone loss was to Bama
Just last year, after undefeated ACC champ FSU and one loss SEC champ Auburn(ugh), there were four one loss teams that would have been battling for two spots. Two (Michigan St. and Baylor) were conference champs and two (Bama and OSU) were not. Bama and OSU would have most certainly been left out of the playoffs, and IMO a two loss Stanford with a PAC championship and their probability to draw west coast viewers may have even snuck in there. When this happens there will be a move to an eight team playoff...count on it...after all, more teams mean more money. As they say "follow the Benjamins".
There is no perfect system, and we can find holes in them all.
Rhetorical question:
Why do so many people who think the BCS is better than the four-team playoff bring up scenarios "proving" how a team will potentially be excluded from the four-team playoff but ignore that those same teams wouldn't have made it under the BCS anyway?
Go over the 16 years of the BCS - can you find even one team that wouldn't make a FOUR-TEAM field that DID make the championship game under the old system?
The only possible one I can think of might be 2011 Alabama - and the only reason I say that is because of the presence of a selection committee. ALL of the other "problem teams" - 2001 Nebraska, 2003 Oklahoma, 2006 Florida, 2007 LSU, 2008 Oklahoma - would still have made a four-team playoff. Even our 2011 team makes it WITHOUT a selection committee.
Why do so many people who think the BCS is better than the four-team playoff bring up scenarios "proving" how a team will potentially be excluded from the four-team playoff but ignore that those same teams wouldn't have made it under the BCS anyway?
Go over the 16 years of the BCS - can you find even one team that wouldn't make a FOUR-TEAM field that DID make the championship game under the old system?
The only possible one I can think of might be 2011 Alabama - and the only reason I say that is because of the presence of a selection committee. ALL of the other "problem teams" - 2001 Nebraska, 2003 Oklahoma, 2006 Florida, 2007 LSU, 2008 Oklahoma - would still have made a four-team playoff. Even our 2011 team makes it WITHOUT a selection committee.
Even in 2011 one would have to assume that a one loss Boise State makes it over Alabama. The conference champions were (at the end of the season and after conference championship games):
LSU - 13-0 and ranked #1 (makes the field)
Oklahoma State - 11-1 and ranked #3 (makes the field)
Stanford - 11-1 and ranked #4 (makes the field)
Boise State - 11-1 and ranked #5
Wisconsin - 11-2 and ranked #10
Virginia Tech - 11-2 and ranked #11
All of the remaining teams in the top 10 were conference runner ups (or worse), and the SEC also had Arkansas in the top 6. The SEC West had 3 teams in the top 6 that year. I think that Alabama makes it into a 4 team field.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 8
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
