Phil steele's pick for the 4 team playoff and the SEC bowl games

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,481
46,794
187
Not when the other conferences have every team with at least 2 losses (except the ACC, in our scenario).

No 2 loss team is going to make it over an 11-1 LSU. Unless we just absolutely kill them and then they look unimpressive the rest of their schedule.
Really depends - remember that there is a lot of emphasis on winning your conference. That is a reality that one fewer loss might not be enough to overcome since the teams with 2 losses would have played the extra game. The 2 loss conference champs would have the same number of wins - 11 - and they would have won their last game in a week in which LSU did not play giving them another push to the top.

I am not saying that a second team from a conference could not or should not make it in under this scenario. I guess it would depend on the other teams and their seasons. For me it would not be just about 1 loss vs 2 losses.
 

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
assuming this is for the last spot, who would you pick for the playoff...

A 1 loss USC or 1 loss LSU, assuming each loss is to us?

USC because this is the perfect place to apply conference champion status.

But, who do you pick if LSU loses 1 to us but USC wins the PAC12 with a loss to us and one other quality team (Notre Shame, or worse, a Pac12 team that they subsequently beat in the P12 championship game )?

While every scenario is unlikely in relation to the field, I think this is not a totally far fetched scenario!
I'd pick a final four of Bama, Ohio State, Clemson, and the winner of the Stanford-Oregon game.
You would be an excellent member of the BCS. Fired from the CFP committee.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,040
905
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
1. We could have had a 4-team BCS system. Two same-conference teams happens.
2. We could have had a 4-Team Poll Playoff. Two same-conference teams happens.

3. We have a committee selection for the playoff who is NOT tied to a BCS/Harris/Computer system or a Top four Poll vote. What does the third system tell me? A committee WILL prevent two same-conference teams from playing in the CFP. Also emphasis is placed on Conference Championships -- thus ruling out same-conference matches. Now that all ten conferences are having Championship Games the committee will have NINE other conferences to choose a champion from.

Never say Never. The old wounds will heal, the CFP is always tweeking the process, but it seems very unlikely it will ever happen.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
1. We could have had a 4-team BCS system. Two same-conference teams happens.
2. We could have had a 4-Team Poll Playoff. Two same-conference teams happens.

3. We have a committee selection for the playoff who is NOT tied to a BCS/Harris/Computer system or a Top four Poll vote. What does the third system tell me? A committee WILL prevent two same-conference teams from playing in the CFP.

Never say Never. The old wounds will heal, the CFP is always tweeking the process, but it seems very unlikely it will ever happen.
Oh, it probably WILL happen eventually. Despite the assumptions of a huge portion of this board, they're not really there to prevent two teams from the same conference - they're the buffer to prevent Boise State and the like from ever getting there. And probably to prevent THREE teams from the same conference from making it. It's a money-making venture and I will make the point again: had it been TEXAS and NOT TCU two years ago, Ohio State never would have been selected. Had it been Indiana instead of Ohio State, these folks would have placed undue weight on the VT loss.


I think the four-team BCS playoff is the best of playoff scenarios simply because the computers are used to offset the human bias portion of the equation. Even the polls basically voted on by SIDs were not so egregious as to be useless. As krazy3 has pointed out, the argument was almost always over the THIRD TEAM (aka the team left out), not the fourth, fifth, or sixth teams.

Of course, I chuckle at the fact these folks have to fly into a room in Grapevine, TX to do this - in the days of the Internet and Skype.......
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Be pretty crazy if the NC game was Bama vs FSU - that would mean the opening game of the 2017 season would be a rematch...
Yeah, and Jimbo would have to spend eight months answering, "So what are you gonna do different so the outcome will be in your favor this time?"
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,040
905
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
Of course, I chuckle at the fact these folks have to fly into a room in Grapevine, TX to do this - in the days of the Internet and Skype.......
Oh, you hit a sore spot with me here!!! We pay our local electric COOP to fly down to Gulf Shores or Orlando each year for a three day "working vacation." A vacation workshop, you see. We can't do it here in Boaz, or 20 miles away in State Park Convention Center and Lodge. Well we actually could, but then they would lose the FREE TRIP TO THE BEACH. Anyway, I agree it is funny that they hae to fly around to meet with email, video conferencing and the like.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,040
905
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
Selma, you gave me a headache. That is a difficult choice if I throw my SEC bias out the window. Honestly, I can't feel right in picking only four. I can't rule out Oklahoma and Notre Dame for not having a CG and then let Ohio State, Oregon and Clemson in when both lost their CG, can I? Or can I? If Okla and ND had played a CG they might have lost just like OSU and Clemson. This is very confusing if I really try to get it correct.

During the real season I would have stats to look at, like scoring and defending ranking and such. I suppose that is where I would make my decision.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Selma, you gave me a headache. That is a difficult choice if I throw my SEC bias out the window. Honestly, I can't feel right in picking only four. I can't rule out Oklahoma and Notre Dame for not having a CG and then let Ohio State, Oregon and Clemson in when both lost their CG, can I? Or can I? If Okla and ND had played a CG they might have lost just like OSU and Clemson. This is very confusing if I really try to get it correct.

During the real season I would have stats to look at, like scoring and defending ranking and such. I suppose that is where I would make my decision.
That's sort of my point.

I've been clear on my position: the BCS was a POSITIVE STEP FORWARD, although it took me a long time to see it that way. I recall anger and frustration when teams ranked 1-2 couldn't meet and sometimes #3 had the same record and had beaten one of them and yet they had no shot (see 1985 Penn State-OU-Miami for a great example) SOLELY because of opinion rankings. After several split titles in the 90s (1990-91-97) along with two other controversial champions (1993-94), the BCS was a great step forward in that it matched up 1 vs 2. Presumably, we no longer had the problem of Team A and Team B playing across the country at different times.

But I was one of those who cheered when chaos demonstrated the flaws in the BCS system, too. What's funny to me is that this whole 'conference champion' argument came out of the 2011 dispute and yet TWICE prior to that - 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma - the BCS had the SAME PROBLEM and NOT ONE DAMNED WORD was said about changing the system.

One of my favorites btw was 2001. That's the year November and December carnage left us with a disgraceful Miami-Nebraska Rose Bowl that wasn't even entertaining beyond seeing Jeremy Shockey's tattoo. Team after team got eliminated. And btw - I did not know this at the time (I was in med school so my attention to details was lacking) but what actually caused the Nebraska in the title game debacle was 9/11. Not because of the rescheduled games but because of one game that was NOT rescheduled. Washington State was supposed to host Colorado on 9/15 that year. When the games were postponed, there was simply no available date to make up the game. (It seems to me the Big 12 could have delayed their title game like the SEC did and played it on December 8, but I'm ASSUMING they probably didn't figure it would matter since Colorado wasn't supposed to be a contender anyway).

If CU had beaten Wazzu, the Buffs (with two losses) would have played, er, got killed by Miami; and if CU had LOST to Wazzu then it would have strengthened Oregon's SoS enough to put them in the game against the Canes. You have to remember that Wazzu was a 10-2 team that year and highly ranked themselves.


I first used the conference champion argument when OU managed to undeservedly sneak into the game in 2003 and resulted in a split championship. The insanity is that it was the second time in three years it happened - and just conveniently managed to help the same conference both times. A team that gets blown out 62-36 (and it wasn't even THAT close) in their final game has no business playing for a national title; and neither does a team that gets blown out in their conference title game, 35-7, after months of us hearing they were 'the greatest team ever.' (Btw - let me salute Bob Stoops for ADVOCATING during the 2004 Sugar Bowl that the conference championship is a good argument, but he likewise noted that you can't suddenly come up with that rule after the season is over, either).

What turned me against the conference champion argument was watching the SEC from 2006-2011, most notably 2008, 2009, and 2011, where an argument could be made that the two best teams in the country were in the same conference. It was indisputably true in 2011, and I honestly think so in 2009 as well (I think Florida would have rolled Texas probably by more points than we did because their offense was better - but they couldn't beat us).

The conference champion argument is a GREAT argument to say 'this team is the number one seed' - that's one thing, but to deny another team a shot when you can do the eyeball test and it is CLEAR that that team is one of the top four is incomprehensible to me. That's why I presented the case listed above. I remember way too many times a pundit would say "the only problem we'll have with the BCS is if X happens" - and sure enough, X almost always happened. A lot of people forget that the BCS damn near blew up in 1998 (the first year); they forget this because it turned out okay and compared to some other later debacles, the dodging of the ramifications is often forgotten. (For those who don't recall, there were four unbeaten entering November and three entering December.......and then two lost on Championship Saturday and the third, the Vols, needed to gut check it late to win). The bigger problem was that K-State was #1 in the USA Today poll (after Ohio State lost) but#3 in the BCS poll where only 1 and 2 made the game; it would have been hilarious if all three unbeaten had gotten there and exposed the poll fraud for what it was then.

As far as SoS, that's a BIG deal to me. And we never know that until the end. BYU's 1984 title won against an awful schedule didn't look like quite as easy a schedule in the summer - Pitt turned out to be no good that year.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Let's take a look.


Here are his top 10:

1 FSU
They return 18 starters from a three-loss club, so I get the 'love.' But should I remind everyone how many close call wins these guys have had recently in a mediocre conference? SIX in the past two seasons; they could very easily be 17-9 in their last two years.

What really stinks for us is that if they beat Ole Miss, our win over the Rebels suddenly isn't so impressive. But if they beat Ole Miss even NARROWL (by any margin at all), it becomes "they beat one of the best teams in the SEC" and they'll chant that all year long.

Replacing our QB and Heisman winner and a pretty tough neutral site/road schedule.......only the Tide, baby

3 Oklahoma
The Sooners won't have to deal with a powerful Baylor team that has beaten them in recent years, but.......they open with Houston (and the former OSU OC that shredded FSU in the bowl game) on the road and then have a home game against the Buckeyes.

So when LSU wins in Lambeau, Steele will move them to #1, right? Returning starters on a team that got exposed in November last year - but they should be very good.

5 Clemson
Here's the part I don't get: can't pick Clemson for the title because they lost so much but........still essentially suggesting they will ONLY lose to FSU. In a lousy conference.

6 Ohio St
I suspect Ohio St this year is FSU last year; they, too, have had a bunch of close games against teams they have the talent to absolutely maul. I'm guessing they lose to OU, one expected loss (to UM or MSU) and then one upset that makes no sense; that's the Urban way after losing the ton of talent.

7 Tennessee
Why does this remind me of Ole Miss 2009?

8 Washington
Why is everyone so high on Washington? They're 15-12 the last two years under Petersen; is this the year they get it all together?

9 Notre Dame
Can't blame him here; they play a sorry slate of cupcakes for the most part. No FSU, no Clemson.

10 Stanford
So Stanford loses to Washington and Notre Dame?

He's essentially predicting USC now to be a four-loss team at a minimum (Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, and Alabama)
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,295
31,347
187
South Alabama
Let's take a look.




They return 18 starters from a three-loss club, so I get the 'love.' But should I remind everyone how many close call wins these guys have had recently in a mediocre conference? SIX in the past two seasons; they could very easily be 17-9 in their last two years.
Yes FSU lives on the edge, but for whatever reason they usually pull it off. Its hard not to justify FSU as anything less than a top 5 team, and adding to the fact is that they have beaten Clemson in every game in Tallahassee since 2006. So realistically outside of Ole miss and Clemson, you are really pulling from the ACC wheel of destiny and Florida, a team that hasn't had a competitive game with them since 2012, to knock them off.
The Sooners won't have to deal with a powerful Baylor team that has beaten them in recent years, but.......they open with Houston (and the former OSU OC that shredded FSU in the bowl game) on the road and then have a home game against the Buckeyes.
Of all the teams that he has on his top 4, Oklahoma is the one I think he has misjudged. I don't even think with the Baylor crisis they win the Big 12 easily. I honestly think Charlie might sting them again. Charlie Strong might not be the coach Texas has been hoping for, but he is a nightmare to Stoops. Big Game Bob has struggled mightily against Strong's defense both years with presumptive national championship caliber teams. I don't see any forgiveness for losing to Texas this year if they do unless tOSU is a great team

Here's the part I don't get: can't pick Clemson for the title because they lost so much but........still essentially suggesting they will ONLY lose to FSU. In a lousy conference.
Again. Dabo has never beaten FSU in Tallahassee and is 3-5 against them overall. SEC>>>ACC.

Why does this remind me of Ole Miss 2009?
If Tennessee is 9-4 with a cotton bowl win, then I think there is a different narrative than the Ole Miss one after the season if one of those 9 wins are against Florida. I see some people predicting Tennessee to win the SEC or be a 11 plus team , but most are just predicting the East with 8+ wins, which 8-4 regular season might do it. On the otherhand, the 2009 Ole Miss team was predicted to be undefeated going into the SECG and lose to Florida by most, and Alabama was usually predicted to be 3rd in the SECW. Bottomline: 9-4 for this Tennessee team with a win over Florida would be viewed as an improvement, the 2009 Ole Miss team was an embarrassment with all the preseason hype.

Why is everyone so high on Washington? They're 15-12 the last two years under Petersen; is this the year they get it all together?





So Stanford loses to Washington and Notre Dame?

He's essentially predicting USC now to be a four-loss team at a minimum (Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, and Alabama)
Well I think he isn't too high on Oregon, and USC's last 4 games are just ridiculous:
Saturday
Nov. 5
Oregon Ducks (HC)
LA Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, CA
TBABuy
Tickets
Saturday
Nov. 12
at Washington Huskies
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
TBABuy
Tickets
Saturday
Nov. 19
at UCLA Bruins
Rose Bowl, Los Angeles, CA
TBABuy
Tickets
Saturday
Nov. 26
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
LA Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, CA

As for Stanford, I don't know that he is picking them to lose to ND because he could just as easily be picking them a 2 loss North team.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Yes FSU lives on the edge, but for whatever reason they usually pull it off. Its hard not to justify FSU as anything less than a top 5 team, and adding to the fact is that they have beaten Clemson in every game in Tallahassee since 2006. So realistically outside of Ole miss and Clemson, you are really pulling from the ACC wheel of destiny and Florida, a team that hasn't had a competitive game with them since 2012, to knock them off.

Again. Dabo has never beaten FSU in Tallahassee and is 3-5 against them overall. SEC>>>ACC.
And Deshaun Watson played in how many of those games??? His first career START was the week after FSU beat them in 2014. He came in with them trailing, 3-0 and played okay.

On the otherhand, the 2009 Ole Miss team was predicted to be undefeated going into the SECG and lose to Florida by most, and Alabama was usually predicted to be 3rd in the SECW.
Actually, this is not correct, either.

There were 64 votes, 63 of whom picked Florida to win the SEC and one of whom picked Ole Miss. But Alabama was the favorite to win the West on more than half the ballots (33) with Ole Miss second (16).


Bottomline: 9-4 for this Tennessee team with a win over Florida would be viewed as an improvement, the 2009 Ole Miss team was an embarrassment with all the preseason hype.
If they're 9-4 they're not going to finish the year at number seven. And Steele is calling them - and I quote - "a legitimate national championship contender." Four-loss teams are not national title contenders. I do agree with YOUR assessment of the Vols, however.


Well I think he isn't too high on Oregon, and USC's last 4 games are just ridiculous:
Yeah, I noticed that. USC might be decent and still lose 5-6 games.
 

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.