Could the SEC get left out in the cold this year?

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,503
46,848
187
Strange things happen in sports. You just have to play the games on your schedule and hope that things work out for your favorite team(s). There are many scenarios in which no SEC team makes the playoffs, but so many more in which at least one does.

Week one of the season is the time for universal optimism. I like your chances.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Under the current system, no unbeaten SEC team will ever be left out in the cold. If you lose two then you probably ought to be left out.

I prefer that to the blind BCS way of "yeah, you were ranked #2 all year long and unbeaten but Boise State beat Hawaii, which lowered your SoS and you dropped out of the championship game." At least now you DO control your own destiny.

How many times have four teams arrived at the bowl games undefeated?

Off the top of my head: 1979, 2004

1973, but three had ties. And there were 3 in 1987 (Miami, OU, Syracuse)

And nobody considered Utah a contender in 2004, even with Urban Meyer as the coach.

This undoes the potential for injustice, which is what makes it a good system. Unfortunately, all they really had to do was keep the old BCS and expand it to four.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
Has anyone else noticed that the people who most vociferously OPPOSE a playoff are the same ones (in general) who worry about "we might not get in with two losses," which would, in fact, happen with a 16-team playoff?

If you're a two-loss team and we're going to use that whole "every game counts" nonsense, then you don't belong in the four-team playoff. Period. Besides, it all shook out last year and I don't recall anyone here complaining all that much about who got in - the complaint became a case of "well under the BCS, we would have played Florida State and probably won."

True, but irrelevant since we all knew the rules before the season began.
Heh, I suppose you could be talking about me. I try to be very consistent, I don't have your mental wizardry to aid me, but I am always honest as long as my mind doesn't fail me.

First, as you well know I would vastly prefer the BCS, yes. But, and I've said this all along, if it is to be four teams then without question it has to be the four most deserving teams! There should be nothing at all, no weird criteria, no wins are all that matters nonsense that should get in the way of selecting the best four teams.

Let me give an example. If for instance Alabama plays the #2 SoS again, and they have 2 losses. Do you believe that a team with say a 60 SoS, let's say a Big 12 team or an ACC team with one loss deserves to be in over them? I wouldn't agree with that. Every game matters, yes, but some games matter more. We all know that, we all know that there's like 0 risk of losing certain games. So it doesn't matter if you win 10 meaningless games, they are still meaningless. Now, might the BCS have done the same thing? Sure, it might have. However, the BCS had the intellectually honest computers. That choice would have been made with those factors weighing in. The playoffs have a biased committee, which already produced a silly and easily manipulated "quality wins" (something the BCS wisely ditched) statistic to favor over SoS. In short, I don't trust the committee.

I'll circle back around though. My contention, for a very long time was that the BCS essentially got the top team right all the time. I still believe that, do I think the playoff got it wrong and missed the top team? No, but it is a different process. In a playoff, I think it's much, much more important to get the other teams right because you are operating under a process which increases the statistical probability that the best team does not win!

Now, we have a third and a fourth team right? Which, as I have long argued almost universally don't belong there in the first place. Was Ohio State one of the top two teams in the regular season? Certainly not, they got soundly beat by Virginia Tech at home in the regular season. Where they a top four team? May be... I'm not here to argue against their inclusion in a four team playoff though.

What I am saying is that when it comes to selecting teams three and four, I think record means a bit less than it did when you were trying to figure out team one and two. For instance, would a one loss FSU team have been more deserving than two loss Alabama team? Certainly not. When you reach for a fourth team, you're pulling up a team that doesn't deserve a shot anyway, that's being given a second chance. All I'm saying is it that if you are going to give them a mulligan, if you are going to say ok yeah sure you don't deserve this but sure, why not? Then it really should be the fourth most deserving team and not the fifth or sixth more deserving team.

Also, if you want to pretend only winning is what matters, then we might as well just look outside the Power 5 right?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Heh, I suppose you could be talking about me. I try to be very consistent, I don't have your mental wizardry to aid me, but I am always honest as long as my mind doesn't fail me.

First, as you well know I would vastly prefer the BCS, yes. But, and I've said this all along, if it is to be four teams then without question it has to be the four most deserving teams! There should be nothing at all, no weird criteria, no wins are all that matters nonsense that should get in the way of selecting the best four teams.

Let me give an example. If for instance Alabama plays the #2 SoS again, and they have 2 losses. Do you believe that a team with say a 60 SoS, let's say a Big 12 team or an ACC team with one loss deserves to be in over them? I wouldn't agree with that. Every game matters, yes, but some games matter more. We all know that, we all know that there's like 0 risk of losing certain games. So it doesn't matter if you win 10 meaningless games, they are still meaningless. Now, might the BCS have done the same thing? Sure, it might have. However, the BCS had the intellectually honest computers. That choice would have been made with those factors weighing in. The playoffs have a biased committee, which already produced a silly and easily manipulated "quality wins" (something the BCS wisely ditched) statistic to favor over SoS. In short, I don't trust the committee.

I'll circle back around though. My contention, for a very long time was that the BCS essentially got the top team right all the time. I still believe that, do I think the playoff got it wrong and missed the top team? No, but it is a different process. In a playoff, I think it's much, much more important to get the other teams right because you are operating under a process which increases the statistical probability that the best team does not win!

Now, we have a third and a fourth team right? Which, as I have long argued almost universally don't belong there in the first place. Was Ohio State one of the top two teams in the regular season? Certainly not, they got soundly beat by Virginia Tech at home in the regular season. Where they a top four team? May be... I'm not here to argue against their inclusion in a four team playoff though.

What I am saying is that when it comes to selecting teams three and four, I think record means a bit less than it did when you were trying to figure out team one and two. For instance, would a one loss FSU team have been more deserving than two loss Alabama team? Certainly not. When you reach for a fourth team, you're pulling up a team that doesn't deserve a shot anyway, that's being given a second chance. All I'm saying is it that if you are going to give them a mulligan, if you are going to say ok yeah sure you don't deserve this but sure, why not? Then it really should be the fourth most deserving team and not the fifth or sixth more deserving team.

Also, if you want to pretend only winning is what matters, then we might as well just look outside the Power 5 right?
Actually, I wasn't talking about you fwiw.

:)
 

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,574
2,334
282
cullman, al, usa
This undoes the potential for injustice, which is what makes it a good system. Unfortunately, all they really had to do was keep the old BCS and expand it to four.
That is exactly what they should have done. Let's see, the BCS formula worked very well almost every year. Keep the same formula and add two more teams? Nah, let's get a committee! It's so stupid that I would actually call it insane. However, it's what we have, so I hope we do what we have to do in order to get another crack at the playoff.
 

BamaSC

All-SEC
Oct 17, 1999
1,840
262
207
Chapin, SC
Yes, they could. Any playoff system that has 4 spots for 5 major conferences is woefully flawed and worse than what we had before. If we're to have playoffs, all major conference champions should be represented. That would mean dropping to an 11 game season and have an 8-team playoff (5 conference champions + 3 at large).
 

colbysullivan

Hall of Fame
Dec 12, 2007
16,697
13,612
187
Gulf Breeze, FL
Yes, they could. Any playoff system that has 4 spots for 5 major conferences is woefully flawed and worse than what we had before. If we're to have playoffs, all major conference champions should be represented. That would mean dropping to an 11 game season and have an 8-team playoff (5 conference champions + 3 at large).
If we're going to be stuck with this playoff nonsense, I still think 6 is the magic number. 5 conference winners and the best at-large team. That gives the #1 and #2 seeds a bye in the first round.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
If we're going to be stuck with this playoff nonsense, I still think 6 is the magic number. 5 conference winners and the best at-large team. That gives the #1 and #2 seeds a bye in the first round.

I'd argue the other way around. Go to 3. 2 vs 3 play each other, with 2 playing at home. Championship game at a neutral site.

The problem is largely #4. There's been a lot of 2 vs 3 talk over the years. There has been a lot of controversy there. #4 though? We pretty much always knew they didn't belong. Even last year, Ohio State might have been the best team, but they lost to Virginia Tech, at home! If the regular season matters, that loss was terrible. Baylor and TCU? Very soft schedules.

But, we can and will always debate those last teams in, the problem is the further you get from #1, the less legitimate their claims are. Can an SEC team be left out? Finish fifth or what ever? Sure, but to me the more pertinent question is if the fourth team deserves to be left in. We already knew that in a playoff pretty much any team, no matter how subpar their regular season could win. That isn't the question, the question is who deserves a shot.

The SEC generally deserves a shot, but I'd mind it a lot less if the SEC got left out with 2 losses and a smaller pool of teams than if they got left out with a larger pool, which still could happen of course.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
That is exactly what they should have done. Let's see, the BCS formula worked very well almost every year. Keep the same formula and add two more teams? Nah, let's get a committee! It's so stupid that I would actually call it insane. However, it's what we have, so I hope we do what we have to do in order to get another crack at the playoff.
IMO, doing a better job of selecting the best teams was never the goal of those who finally agreed to a playoff. (They (Delaney, Scott, etc.) parlayed their "reluctance" into leverage that enabled them to bargain for an alternative to the BCS.) IMO, they simply wanted a system that would be " more inclusive" of all conferences. I.e., insure the likelihood that only one team from any would make it and 4 confs would be represented. Thus, the publicly stated criteria that conf championships would carry extra weight. So, we will have 4 conf champs almost every year, with rare exceptions.

IMO, Mike Slive was either duped or more likely forced to accept the extra weight given to conf champs. In either case that alone almost insures one rep from 4 confs each year - 4 best teams is not the objective.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
This does not align with the actual voting that we saw last year from the committee.
My argument does not mean that we won't get the 4 best teams or even that the BCS is a better selection system. But, IMO, the ultimate motive for having a selection committee is to insure that we get as wide a representation conference-wise that we can. Even though that is not their stated objective, it is clear from their criteria - heavy weight given to conf championship. That tells you plainly. But other things also tell you too, such as the dissatisfaction with the SEC's dominance that especially chafed and even infuriated Delaney. He was beginning to make excuses or in some cases attack the SEC regarding recruiting or academics, etc.

I don't blame them. The BCS was becoming increasingly slanted in favor of the SEC. Some of it deserved, some was just momentum. You can see it again in this year's preseason polls. Delaney and others were being hurt in money and pride. They were desperate. They pulled it off.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Come on. No one really thought FSU was one of the top 4 teams. It's always been about inclusion and not necessarily the 4 best teams.

This might be the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on TideFans.

If a team that has won 29 consecutive games and is the defending national champion is NOT one of the four best teams in the final pool, you may as well go back to the popularity voting contest.

A team with a 3-0 record against SEC teams during that 29-game run.

A team that beat the same Ga Tech team that manhandled Miss State

A team that beat the same Notre Dame team that had an easier time with LSU than Alabama did.

A team that beat the same Clemson team that mauled South Carolina and massacred OU


Hate Jameis Winston all you wish. Hate the Criminoles, I do. But let's not get absurdly ridiculous with the arguments.


Btw - you DO realize that if we had had a BCS setup, Florida State would have been one of the TOP TWO teams, don't you?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
My idea makes too much sense. That's why it will never happen.

A four-team playoff under the old BCS setup. No selection committee

1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 - at the HOME CAMPUS of 1 and 2.

Start the bowl season with the National College Semi-Final games (around December 20), two weeks after the conference championship games. Play the national title game on January 2 at the home of the winning bid. The losers then get their conference title bowl game (SEC to Sugar, Big Ten to Rose, etc).


==============OR================

Complete the bowl games on January 1 and match-up 1 versus 2 a week later in the traditional Plus One.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
My idea makes too much sense. That's why it will never happen.

A four-team playoff under the old BCS setup. No selection committee

1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 - at the HOME CAMPUS of 1 and 2.

Start the bowl season with the National College Semi-Final games (around December 20), two weeks after the conference championship games. Play the national title game on January 2 at the home of the winning bid. The losers then get their conference title bowl game (SEC to Sugar, Big Ten to Rose, etc).


==============OR================

Complete the bowl games on January 1 and match-up 1 versus 2 a week later in the traditional Plus One.
Again - IMO, they were not looking to choose the 4 best teams, but to insure nationwide conf inclusion. Many suggested using the BCS formula but they (Delaney, et al) used the "willingness to agree to a playoff" as leverage to "suggest" a new selection process. This process would insure the likelihood of only conf champs being selected, which by definition would limit 1 representative per conf. This is almost guaranteed with the most emphasized criteria being "Conf champ". There may be rare exceptions but that is the goal - that they be "rare" and "exceptional". In the 16 year BCS era there were 9 years in which multiple teams from the same conf would have participated in a 4 team playoff, with the frequency increasing over time (5 of the last 6, with the last 3 years including 2 SEC teams). So, you see why they did not want to use the BCS formula. (This is why Delaney and Scott were willing to allow the prestige of the Rose Bowl to diminish and accept a "crass" playoff.) IMO, we will likely have that happen no more than one time in the next ten years under existing conditions. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Interestingly, I saw where the BCS formula would have selected the exact same 4 as the committee last year with the same order except FSU and Oregon flipped. They don't mind the 4 best teams, in fact prefer it, but IMO, that is not the goal. It is to spread or share the gold and glory.
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,503
46,848
187
Again - IMO, they were not looking to choose the 4 best teams, but to insure nationwide conf inclusion.
I think that having one or no loss teams spread across conferences after the conferences beat each other up produces this outcome, not the playoff committee. I think that you are looking at the result and blaming the system, but this has generally been the result each year. There have been seasons with multiple teams from the same conference in the top 4 at the end of the season in the past, but that has generally been because the winners of the other conferences had 2 or more losses.

This system will be tested when we see a season like that again, and we will. Until then all we can do is watch football and hope that our teams make it in.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Nowhere did I say FSU didn't belong to be there. They earned their spot.

I'm just saying they weren't one of the 4 best teams. There were at least 10 teams that were better than FSU last year.

Let's look at the poll and you give me names then.

1) Ohio State? Yes
2) Oregon? Yes
3) TCU? Debatable
4) Alabama? Yes
5) Michigan St? Doubtful
6) Baylor? Doubtful
7) Ga Tech? Hey, FSU beat them head to head so I guess not
8) Georgia? While I realize the transitive property doesn't apply to CFB, Georgia lost to the only two common opponents they had with FSU - both games FSU won.So based on that, probably not. OK, they both beat Louisville, so my bad.
9) UCLA - ????
10) Miss St - not a chance
11) Arizona St - no
12) Wisconsin? doubtful
13) Missouri - do you REALLY think Mizzou would have beaten FSU last year? the team that lost to Indiana?
14) Clemson - lost to FSU head to head
15) Boise St - nope
16) Ole Miss - nope

There's no team way down the list, either.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.