Watching CFB Live, I was just wondering if the committee that formed the playoff system going to regret forming it in coming years. The reason being, is how many teams in the next 10 years are going to be from the SEC and vying for a spot in the top 4 teams. Say you have 2 SEC teams each year that finish in the top 4, (could happen)..for the next 6 years.. and one of those teams wins the NC. What if the SEC goes on another run of winning NC's in this system. Are we going to have other teams crying for another system to be established? Or will they cry to go back to the old way of the BCS? I really believe this new system is going to make those teams that screamed for a playoffs system regret it BIGTIME in the coming seasons. JMO. What say You?
Question: Is the committee that formed the Playoff system going to regret it?
- Thread starter dadleyblane5
- Start date
My suspicion is that this whole thing is designed to be a train wreck and set up the "real" 8 or 16-team playoff that is inevitable (and will probably be hosted by ESPN top to bottom).
The problem I have is that their proposal to solve this is more ridiculous than the BCS ever dreamed of being - and I didn't think that was humanly possible. Let'***** a few of the points:
1) What caused this whole thing? The 2012 BCSNCG rematch between Alabama and LSU. Doesn't common sense tell you that more teams in the playoff drastically increases rematches? And it's not like if you put in four teams that you merely doubled your odds - the odds of a rematch grow exponentially. In theory, we could have four teams in the playoff who all played one another - each with one round-robin loss - and get three rematches instead of one.
2) Polls are now complete and total myths and ultimately irrelevant. If CBS and Verne and Gary had any integrity about them, they'd say that today the "we don't know what number they 'really' are" Crimson Tide head to Baton Rouge to take on the "we can't tell what they are, either" LSU Tigers.
In theory, a team ranked number 25 - hell, an UNRANKED team in the final regular season poll - can be deemed playoff worthy. Granted, that probably won't happen, but what about a 15th-ranked Boise St that played one good team (sound familiar?) in November but were unranked before then and are now suddenly deemed great based on that 2007 Fiesta Bowl win?
3) Okay, polls are admittedly sometimes ridiculous and you have conference bias. What you have now is 16 doofuses who are going to fly into Texas (hey, we have the net here) seven times and discuss something that can almost always be solved by simple eyesight. It's the Brando fallacy - "we need to get the biases out of the voting and replace them with (just as biased) a blue ribbon panel, including Dennis Dodd, who has written columns where he took away Alabama's 2009 and 2011 national titles in a four-team playoff fantasy because he's so objective."
4) Why should it matter if a player was injured when a team lost? I mean, that's far worse than the conference championship requirement (and make no mistake - it WILL be a requirement). Teams have players injured all the time. I love how often Colt McCoy is cited and yet never do you hear about Donta Hightower missing most of that season or McElroy's ribs, McClain's flu, or anything else.
5) I suspect SEC dominance will be somewhat curtailed via elimination and the cyclical nature of the game.
Until we know the qualification requirements it's hard to say. But if winning your conference championship is one of them (and this will be the easiest way to eliminate 2 sec teams), then their objective will be achieved to get more teams eligible for the NC. Instead of two teams, one always being from the SEC now there will be four teams, with one from the SEC (almost every year).
I suspect the SEC teams will continue to have success even under this format. However, the problem with only having conference champions is similar to last year or 2011. If a four team playoff would have been in place Bama would have been in it despite late season lossess to LSU (2011) and the Barn (2013).
When an SEC team is ranked 3 or 4 in the major polls but can't be in the playoff because of the "conference championship" rule, that's when we'll hate it the most.
I suspect the SEC teams will continue to have success even under this format. However, the problem with only having conference champions is similar to last year or 2011. If a four team playoff would have been in place Bama would have been in it despite late season lossess to LSU (2011) and the Barn (2013).
When an SEC team is ranked 3 or 4 in the major polls but can't be in the playoff because of the "conference championship" rule, that's when we'll hate it the most.
With the playoffs (4 teams) in 2 bowl games it reduces the number of crap bowls from 35 to 33, now that is good news.
no they are probably going to add 8 more crappy bowls. afterall we really need to know who the 6th best MAC team is.
This - There are many who believe that the playoff is a result of the SEC dominance of the BCS, but the reality is that the conferences realized that they were leaving money on the table everywhere, not just with respect the additional 2 games played.
The people who decided this are not coaches or athletic directors.
They already had the best anti-SEC system they will ever know back when they could ignore all the facts and just vote Note Dame #1 because they dang well felt like it.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I think a lot of SEC fans are going to be disappointed to see how this thing plays out. There just seems to be a prevailing thought that this playoff will benefit The SEC. This would likely have been the case if they just did the smart thing and used the BCS formula to select the four teams, as I think the BCS got it right most years.
However, the decision to go with a "Committee" was in large part aimed at limiting another Alabama and LSU type Championship, and also to limit the SEC to one participant. I think the "Conference Champs" emphasis will many times be what the committee hides behind when selecting just one SEC team.
Example - look at this year, and lets take Bama and au out of it. Say LSU is undefeated, but loses to a one loss South Carolina in the SECCG. South Carolina will be in - that is one spot gone.
Lets say FSU loses to Clemson but wins the ACC, As defending Champs, and ACC champs, they would be selected - 2 slots gone now.
That only leaves 2 places, and while LSU may deserve one, we have not even mentioned the Big 10, Big 12, or Pac 10, I contend that most years in this type scenario undefeated or one loss champs from these 3 leagues will land the other spots, LSU may be deserving and would have been in under the BCS format, but the "committee" will go in other directions.
However, the decision to go with a "Committee" was in large part aimed at limiting another Alabama and LSU type Championship, and also to limit the SEC to one participant. I think the "Conference Champs" emphasis will many times be what the committee hides behind when selecting just one SEC team.
Example - look at this year, and lets take Bama and au out of it. Say LSU is undefeated, but loses to a one loss South Carolina in the SECCG. South Carolina will be in - that is one spot gone.
Lets say FSU loses to Clemson but wins the ACC, As defending Champs, and ACC champs, they would be selected - 2 slots gone now.
That only leaves 2 places, and while LSU may deserve one, we have not even mentioned the Big 10, Big 12, or Pac 10, I contend that most years in this type scenario undefeated or one loss champs from these 3 leagues will land the other spots, LSU may be deserving and would have been in under the BCS format, but the "committee" will go in other directions.
The SEC will get screwed by the play-offs..There's years when literally the best two teams in college football is from the SEC & there can only be on conference champions in the play-offs..How is it fair that the other team will be left out of the play-off just cause they're not conference champs..Just cause only conference champs are allowed in the play-offs(if that's the format)..Heck..There's been times when the Top 3 teams in the country was from the SEC..Yeah the SEC will get screwed by the play-offs..JMHO
Last edited:
Yep, the committee will screw it up, and it won't be by accident. The alpha worms on the committee will work the others to select who they want. This is a bunch of high profile individuals, most of whom are masters of manipulation. I have no confidence in the idea, and think it will be out of control by year 2.
The SEC will not get "screwed" by the playoff.
If you're unbeaten, I GUARANTEE you that you're in.
If you lose - well, you should have taken care of business.
End of story on that one.
If you're unbeaten, I GUARANTEE you that you're in.
If you lose - well, you should have taken care of business.
End of story on that one.
I have no doubt fans coast to coast will be disappointed. It happened almost every single year with the BCS (the only true exceptions were 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2009).
Well, yes and no. It guarantees that 2003 LSU won't split a title or 2004 Auburn won't be shut out. But on the other hand that whole point became moot when the SEC reeled off seven straight title wins.
Two points:
1) I agree completely with you regarding simply expanding the formula to include three and four. If I had known this monstrosity was coming, I would have simply kept the system nobody really liked anyway.
2) Whether or not the BCS got it "right" "most" years is irrelevant. If it ever got it wrong once it needs to be changed. The mere fact a team folks thought might be the best wound up winning the game doesn't alter some of the stupidity that went into it.
But I also don't think it was so bad that it needed to be tossed into the ashbin, either. However, let me show you an excellent example of a legitimate problem: why did Alabama's five-point loss at home to Texas A/M hurt the Tide less than Oregon's three-point overtime loss at home to Stanford? Both opponents that won were about even (both were two-loss teams), the schedules top to bottom were close to even, and both lost in November. Why did Oregon's cost them more? And don't even say "because Alabama won their conference championship," because this is the very point most folks here are upset about. The conference championship shouldn't matter - so you cannot legitimately argue that it did then.
My point is not to impugn us but to simply point out legitimate questions. The fact Alabama won out in the end does not alter whether or not a system that treats the loss by one team to a similar level opponent differently is by definition unfair. At least when it comes to Okie State one can simply make the point that losing to a .500 ballclub you had down 24-7 in the second half pretty much proves your unworthiness. But that claim cannot be made about Oregon in 2012.
Well, let's look at your scenario as laid out and I think you would actually have to endorse the choice if the situation were to arise.
No problem so far.
Whether or not this is true would depend in large part on a number of factors, including how big the loss was and whether or not there were any other unbeaten teams left.
It would depend on the record. However, I can guarantee you that unless the one loss is in the conference title game, two of those leagues will get a one-loss team in there nearly every time. The Big 12 will......if it's Oklahoma.
That depends on a number of factors:
- did LSU blow out all of their other opponents? Were they handed a referee's gift?
- did they play a VERY tough schedule
- how good did Wisconsin do since they play LSU? Did Wisconsin beat the one-loss Big Ten team? Is Wisconsin that team?
I contend that in 2011 that if we had had a four-team playoff, Alabama would still have made it in. The reasons for that are numerous but keep in mind that NOBODY outside of Stillwater, Oklahoma tried to argue that were anything less than one of the two best teams. Hell, even LSU fans admitted that at the time.
Look at who we had:
1) LSU - unbeaten, SEC champion
2) Alabama - only loss in OT to LSU
3) Oklahoma State - one-loss Big 12 champion
4) Stanford - Pac-12 champion, one huge loss to Oregon
5) Oregon - losses to both two and four (eliminated)
6) Arkansas - losses to 1 and 2 (eliminated)
7) Boise State - 11-1, did not win Mountain West conference
Nobody else was a serious contender in the real world. Only Boise State is left, which leads to some simple reasoning.
Both Boise State and Alabama lost at home
Both failed to win their conferences
Alabama's SOS was far greater than Boise's
Alabama's loss was in OT to the nation's only unbeaten team
The verdict: Alabama
This would have taken no bias to figure out. And this is in the so-called tough situation.
If LSU in your scenario wants in, they have to win. It's that simple. Just because Alabama and Aubun have benefited from second chances in recent years doesn't mean one can rely on the back door being open.
Well let's remember that Okie Lite didn't play a conference championship game either. Not having that extra game is probably what ultimately out Alabama on top of them in the polls.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had they kept the BCS Formula & used that poll to base the playoffs off the BSC Polls, and kept the human equation & selection committee out of the selection process, I would have absolutely no problem with a 4 or 8 team playoff, if it was based off the BCS rankings at the end of the year..I don't trust a "Selection committee" & absolutely think they will stick it to the SEC the very 1st chance they get..JMHO
But they did play their last game AFTER us - and OU threw the dang thing. They were behind us from the moment they lost to Iowa State so the lack of conference championship didn't really hurt them. In fact, Bedlam helped them.
They are not going to regret it. They are going to be overjoyed when they see how much cash those two extra games will bring in. But the system will not last long. They will expand it to eight teams to lard on the cash from four additional games. And don't look for fairness in the selection process. The teams will be chosen to maximize popular appeal and revenue. If two teams from one conference must be chosen, they will be seeded to ensure that they meet early, thus ensuring that they cannot meet in the final.
It's going to be all about the money.
It's going to be all about the money.
You really think OU threw it?? How do you figure?? I didn't watch the game because my unit was doing a training exercise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-