OK, I don't get to listen to these guys because of my hours, but I listened during lunch today. Interesting. Lemme just say that you'd get the idea that they read TideFans based on a number of things said today (with one notable exception).
I was listening during the one pm to 130 segment. They were discussing the upcoming four-team playoff. They got onto that subject because they started with June Jones's spring football idea. They're for it. So that led into a discussion of undefeated TCU a few years ago, and I don't know which one made the comment but his summary was excellent.
He said that he was given all sorts of grief locally but that the fact is that TCU is a GOOD MID-MAJOR program, with emphasis on the mid-major. His point was that TCU (and he also named Boise St) should be proud of what they accomplished and - they don't belong within 100 miles of any FBS playoff system or BCS championship selection. He then pointed out that people liked to argue that the reason college football needs a playoff is because in high school they have playoffs; he countered that argument by noting that in those playoffs the 5A champion doesn't play the 3A champion - the 3A champion doesn't stand up and shoot its mouth off about how great they are and challenge the 5A champ.
And that's when it got even more interesting, because they then discussed the BCS/4-team thing and the conference champion non-requirement. One of them (Ian, I think) channeled his inner kRaZy and said that what all the pundits seemed to forget about the BCS was that the BCS made it necessary for a fan in Columbus, Ohio to actually be concerned about a game in Waco, Texas. He noted that while that will be diminished slightly but that IF YOU REQUIRE A CONFERENCE CHAMPION then you will - literally - remove ALL INTEREST that a fan in Eugene, Oregon has about what's going on down in Tuscaloosa (and vice versa). After all....if you REQUIRE a conference champion then all you have to do is worry about your own little world. Oregon can simply worry about the Pac 12 and not whether or not Baylor goes undefeated (although this will matter if there are still unbeaten teams in the Big Five).
But then it got even more interesting. After saying there's no way on the planet they would want to be in what they called "Condi's Gang," they then said that as long as there is NOT a conference requirement then there WILL BE TWO SEC TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF!!!! They did NOT call for this requirement - in fact, they pointed out that right now given the conference strength, it was only reasonable to conclude the probability of two one-loss SEC teams in a four-team setup. Their only beef with that is that they said it has to remain consistent - in other words, if you have a year like 2000, where the Pac 12 was the strongest conference and had two one-loss teams and a two-loss team - then that conference SHOULD have two representatives.
What made it funny, though, was they then began saying the reason there is NOT a conference champ requirement is because of pro-SEC bias in the setup (the exact opposite of what most folks here say). They concluded by noting that the positive to the whole thing is that if a team goes through the regular season in a major conference undefeated, then they are virtually assured of being there. The specific mention was last year's Ohio State team (one of the guys is a Buckeye fan), where the team was unbeaten for two solid years and yet there was an argument that even if they beat Michigan St then the SEC team (Auburn-Mizzou winner) should go over the unbeaten Big Ten team. As they noted - that was a genuine fear with the BCS but not now (assuming the Buckeyes won).
I don't know if you can get the podcast but it sure was interesting. They said a lot of things said here and what I found amusing was they take the exact opposite tack of many here - which leads me to think that maybe this setup might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting although this Blue Ribbon panel still gives me the creeps.
I was listening during the one pm to 130 segment. They were discussing the upcoming four-team playoff. They got onto that subject because they started with June Jones's spring football idea. They're for it. So that led into a discussion of undefeated TCU a few years ago, and I don't know which one made the comment but his summary was excellent.
He said that he was given all sorts of grief locally but that the fact is that TCU is a GOOD MID-MAJOR program, with emphasis on the mid-major. His point was that TCU (and he also named Boise St) should be proud of what they accomplished and - they don't belong within 100 miles of any FBS playoff system or BCS championship selection. He then pointed out that people liked to argue that the reason college football needs a playoff is because in high school they have playoffs; he countered that argument by noting that in those playoffs the 5A champion doesn't play the 3A champion - the 3A champion doesn't stand up and shoot its mouth off about how great they are and challenge the 5A champ.
And that's when it got even more interesting, because they then discussed the BCS/4-team thing and the conference champion non-requirement. One of them (Ian, I think) channeled his inner kRaZy and said that what all the pundits seemed to forget about the BCS was that the BCS made it necessary for a fan in Columbus, Ohio to actually be concerned about a game in Waco, Texas. He noted that while that will be diminished slightly but that IF YOU REQUIRE A CONFERENCE CHAMPION then you will - literally - remove ALL INTEREST that a fan in Eugene, Oregon has about what's going on down in Tuscaloosa (and vice versa). After all....if you REQUIRE a conference champion then all you have to do is worry about your own little world. Oregon can simply worry about the Pac 12 and not whether or not Baylor goes undefeated (although this will matter if there are still unbeaten teams in the Big Five).
But then it got even more interesting. After saying there's no way on the planet they would want to be in what they called "Condi's Gang," they then said that as long as there is NOT a conference requirement then there WILL BE TWO SEC TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF!!!! They did NOT call for this requirement - in fact, they pointed out that right now given the conference strength, it was only reasonable to conclude the probability of two one-loss SEC teams in a four-team setup. Their only beef with that is that they said it has to remain consistent - in other words, if you have a year like 2000, where the Pac 12 was the strongest conference and had two one-loss teams and a two-loss team - then that conference SHOULD have two representatives.
What made it funny, though, was they then began saying the reason there is NOT a conference champ requirement is because of pro-SEC bias in the setup (the exact opposite of what most folks here say). They concluded by noting that the positive to the whole thing is that if a team goes through the regular season in a major conference undefeated, then they are virtually assured of being there. The specific mention was last year's Ohio State team (one of the guys is a Buckeye fan), where the team was unbeaten for two solid years and yet there was an argument that even if they beat Michigan St then the SEC team (Auburn-Mizzou winner) should go over the unbeaten Big Ten team. As they noted - that was a genuine fear with the BCS but not now (assuming the Buckeyes won).
I don't know if you can get the podcast but it sure was interesting. They said a lot of things said here and what I found amusing was they take the exact opposite tack of many here - which leads me to think that maybe this setup might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting although this Blue Ribbon panel still gives me the creeps.