You know, my real objection to the whole thing is that in 2009 sort of year, I see no reason that UA or UT should have play anyone else.
Question: So, how do you feel about a 4 team playoff now?
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
Agreed, but there are few of those seasons in which there are 2 undefeated teams who are clearly at the top. Still, I would argue that Florida was better than Texas that year.
I'm confused.
Did you mean to say that a one loss Alabama makes it over Boise State? I'm confused because your first statement and your last statement seem contradictory.
But how often was there a 2009 type year and how often was there a 2006 type year?
Unbeaten vs unbeaten only happened in 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010. That's six times in a system we used for sixteen years, meaning TEN times we had some sort of problem (and the media tried to create problems in 2009 since there were five unbeaten teams).
Yes, IMO. Alabama's strength of schedule was far higher. Boise State lost to TCU. Their only win against a ranked team came over Georgia in the first game of the season. I am saying that even in 2011 the strongest one loss conference runner-up (Alabama) makes it, IMO.
That's what I thought you were saying at the end, but this is what you said at the beginning:
Even in 2011 one would have to assume that a one loss Boise State makes it over Alabama
So you meant "Alabama makes it over Boise?" That's what I got from the later statement.
And I agree, esp since Boise lost to the only semi-decent team on their schedule.
I personally have no problem with a four team playoff. What I (and a lot of others) do have a problem with is the method used to select these four teams. Just ask yourself a couple of questions. Will this 13 member committee with their "criteria" give better results than 150 voters and six computers ? If not, then why go to it? To get different results. The main reason is to hopefully avert a replay of that LSU/Bama NCG. Why? Because it was bad for the "cash cow"...tv. With a 13 member committee the results are a lot easier to control than 150+ voters and six computers. With all the money tv has pumped into CFB, does anyone think they would just leave it to chance and "hope" they get some good games ? No, they've paid for it so they want control. Rest assured having two teams from the same conference will be difficult. If this committee cannot justify, on rare occasions even with their "criteria", not including two teams from any conference, they will be sure by seeding these teams meet in the first round. Never will you see a rematch like Bama/LSU for the NC...no matter how good they are. IMO, in a tight vote for those last couple of spots, your support will be more about your teams ability to draw viewers than about how good of a job you've done.
No, the BCS was not a perfect system by any means, but this new system is a step backwards. We needed a better system that would provide better results. What we got was a different system that gonna provide different results.
Different and better are not the same.
We're in COMPLETE agreement here as I assume you're talking about the selection committee.
Is this the computer that ranked Oklahoma State number one AFTER it had lost to Iowa State? Or the ones that picked Oklahoma to go to the BCSNCG AFTER they got pounded by Kansas State, 35-7?
And how many of those 150 voters have a vested interest in the outcome? Remember when Gary Pinkel moved Alabama up and put Okie State down because Missouri was coming to the SEC?
Is THAT the kind of bias you mean?
Keep in mind AGAIN - I'm NOT defending the committee selection thing, which I think is ridiculous. It's just that all of these objections could be made against the BCS as well. Why do people NOT see that obvious thing?
The one thing that I WILL grant the pro-BCS side here is the fact that MIXING the computers and the humans sort of (to a point) offsets the biases of both. That is why many of us favored the top four BCS teams.
You'd get different results with ANY different method (most likely).
So the reason they decided to do this was to avert a replay of ONE game and now run the risk of THREE replays? Or even one? If you have THREE games now, you exponentially increase the possibility of a rematch. Now maybe they didn't think of this logical portion, I don't know. But the main concern many here have expressed is "what if this SEC team that lost a game to a good team doesn't get a rematch?" I'm trying to see the difference in those two concepts. Granted, this does not appear to be your argument but it has been a common theme on this (now 15 page) thread.
I think EVERYONE would grant that the programs of Alabama and Notre Dame are BY FAR the two biggest draws in college football. So shouldn't they have had the highest ratings? Yet the FSU-Auburn game OUTDREW the Notre Dame-Alabama game. Seriously. Keep in mind that our game with LSU outdrew BOTH the USC-Oklahoma game (which featured two unbeaten teams) and the Miami-Nebraska game in 2002. Keep in mind as well that both of those games were on NATIONWIDE television while we were on ESPN.
If a rematch is bad for the cash cow then how does increasing the risk of a rematch help? What if Oregon goes unbeaten this year and Michigan State's only loss is to Oregon in Autzen in September but the Spartans win the Big Ten? That is NOT beyond the realm of possibility at all. Or what if the loser of the Va Tech-Ohio State game wins all their other games and the conference? Or what if the loser of the Alabama-WVA game wins all their other games and the conference? Or the Miami-Nebraska loser produces the same result?
The possibility of a rematch has not been tripled, it's been increased by probably 20-fold.
This explains LSU jumping five spots in 2007, right?
It's difficult now. It only happened once in the entire 16 years of the BCS era.
Then we should all be celebrating because there is no way an unbeaten Boise State is getting into the playoff now!!!!
Besides - don't you think we were a better draw than Okie State?
You are correct: better and different are NOT the same.
But I'm really starting to get sick and tired of people saying one thing out of one side of their mouths on one system and then turning around and ignoring that same problem with the system they think was better. So just for the sake of everyone here, let's cover some INVALID objections to this new system.
1) A good team in a powerful conference might not make the championship game as the 2nd best team.
And this is ANY different from the BCS HOW exactly? For that matter, how is it any different than the old poll system, where many times SEC teams took each other out of the running by being strong (1994 Florida over Alabama).
2) They're biased in favor of their home conferences.
Again - how is this ANY different from the BCS? Tom Osborne told the Big Eight coaches to "stick together" in their voting in 1990, and do you think others don't do this? Yes - the computers offset SOME of the bias, I grant that point. But just saying "they're biased" is a laughable argument since every human has some element of bias.
3) This was done to prevent rematches.
If anyone can LOGICALLY explain to me how having MORE GAMES with MORE TEAMS somehow LOWERS the possibility of a rematch, I'm all ears. Besides - we've had tons of rematches in non-BCS bowls for years.
4) They're gonna require a conference championship
My suspicion is that this will be used as a sort of tiebreaker among what are deemed to be "equally deserving" teams. There is no requirement at this point, but I do throw in with the folks saying that will be the justification for the move from four to eight - they're dead on right about that.
I doubt that "Boise is 11-1 and won their conference" will trump "this SEC team only lost one game against a great foe and dominated everyone else." But hey I could be wrong.
Please keep this in mind: I have pointed out bad arguments from folks on "my side" in this argument as well. Tim Brando was a huge advocate of "the BCS stinks" and kept saying he wanted "a blue ribbon panel" of selectors. Then out of the other side of his mouth he would say "the voters are biased." That, of course, is nuts. You can't have it both ways.
5) This system is bad because.....
It all depends on what follows "because." Every system has flaws in it. I think the BCS was a good enough system to merely expand it but I didn't get to say anything.
Re: the historical examples of teams that would have been selected:
2011 is pretty simple and straightforward. You don't get bonus points for identifying the four teams when the four teams were otherwise pretty obvious. That's not telling us anything about what the Committee would do in a close case.
2012, however, is interesting in that he is saying, hypothetically anyway, that the Selection Committee would have taken 11-1 Florida, who didn't win its own division, over 11-1 Kansas State, which won the Big 12, and 11-2 Georgia (who beat Florida at a neutral site and who would have otherwise been in the playoff had it not lost in the SEC Championship Game to eventual national champion Alabama). This, if true, indicates two things:
(1) The Committee is willing to take a second SEC team over a champion from another major conference, provided both have the same record.
(2) There is still a very serious penalty in place to the loser of the SEC Championship Game, regardless of the strength of their regular season resume. In other words, even with the Committee, it is still better to never play in the SECCG than it is to get to Atlanta and lose, even if that loss comes in a back-and-forth nailbiter to the eventual NC. As such, at this juncture, I think a reasonable argument can be made that the existence of the SECCG actually harms the SEC, at least aside from revenue generation on that one particular game.
2011 is pretty simple and straightforward. You don't get bonus points for identifying the four teams when the four teams were otherwise pretty obvious. That's not telling us anything about what the Committee would do in a close case.
2012, however, is interesting in that he is saying, hypothetically anyway, that the Selection Committee would have taken 11-1 Florida, who didn't win its own division, over 11-1 Kansas State, which won the Big 12, and 11-2 Georgia (who beat Florida at a neutral site and who would have otherwise been in the playoff had it not lost in the SEC Championship Game to eventual national champion Alabama). This, if true, indicates two things:
(1) The Committee is willing to take a second SEC team over a champion from another major conference, provided both have the same record.
(2) There is still a very serious penalty in place to the loser of the SEC Championship Game, regardless of the strength of their regular season resume. In other words, even with the Committee, it is still better to never play in the SECCG than it is to get to Atlanta and lose, even if that loss comes in a back-and-forth nailbiter to the eventual NC. As such, at this juncture, I think a reasonable argument can be made that the existence of the SECCG actually harms the SEC, at least aside from revenue generation on that one particular game.
Last edited:
Agree 100% - the SECCG will cost an SEC team a shot at the field of 4 eventually, and probably sooner rather than later. I am less concened about that in the B1G in this area as we have too much work to do to get back to the top at this point.
I don't think there is any real doubt that you are correct, and, if anything, it's really just a miracle that the SECCG only cost a team once in the 20 years since it has been in place. We had really close calls in 1992, 2006, and 2007, but only in 2001 did it cost the conference.
That sort of thing puts the game in a real tough position to defend. Obviously I loved Tennessee's collapse to LSU and Saban in 2001 and Lulu and Junior and all that -- hell, I ate that up like a starving man being given free reign at Commander's -- but as a conference as a whole a scenario like that is just an absolute, unmitigated disaster. You should be getting a Tennessee v. Miami BCSNCG, and instead they are hanging out down in Orlando or wherever while Miami gets to cakewalk to a crystal ball. And it's not like you can really avoid it, either. If you do it long enough, it's bound to eventually happen a few times...
Of course, not that I need to convince you of any of that. Had the B1G not jumped on that bandwagon, we would have had a Florida State v. Ohio State BCSNCG last season.
I've wondered about this too. Especially when there are two teams from the east and west divisions who would, otherwise, probably get in the four team playoff. The one who loses the SECCG will be out.
However, in another scenario, there could be an SEC team who lost early to mid season who has worked themselves back up to playing in the SECCG. They might be ranked 5-10 in the polls, but then they go and dominate the SECCG and it could vault them into a top four playoff spot.
So the SECCG probably hurts an undefeated SEC team, but it may still help a 1 loss team get into the top four.
What is Bozo St doing on that list? Replace them with Arizona. Or anyone, who doesn't have a smurf turf field.
Can we get a consensus on the following things?
1) If the selection committee picks the top four there's no need for the committee?
2) If the selection committee does NOT pick the top four there's no need for rankings?
3) If we had to go to a playoff format:
a) four is the absolute maximum to preserve the integrity and meaning of the regular season
b) four is the absolute maximum to allow for unusual circumstance without it necessarily being fatal to any contenderyou
c) we should simply have taken the Top Four BCS ranked teams
Can we get above 90% agreement on all of the above? Even if you are a BCS advocate (kRaZy and a few others), could you agree to these? And if you think polls (non-BCS) is preferred, could you agree with the above given the circumstances? And if you support a 4/8/16-team playoff......could you agree with the above points?
1) If the selection committee picks the top four there's no need for the committee?
2) If the selection committee does NOT pick the top four there's no need for rankings?
3) If we had to go to a playoff format:
a) four is the absolute maximum to preserve the integrity and meaning of the regular season
b) four is the absolute maximum to allow for unusual circumstance without it necessarily being fatal to any contenderyou
c) we should simply have taken the Top Four BCS ranked teams
Can we get above 90% agreement on all of the above? Even if you are a BCS advocate (kRaZy and a few others), could you agree to these? And if you think polls (non-BCS) is preferred, could you agree with the above given the circumstances? And if you support a 4/8/16-team playoff......could you agree with the above points?
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 7
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
