That sums it up, brother. That's why you got the full "Banjo" from me.
Bama is miles better than anyone else. Why are people bickering about who's number 2,3, or 4? In the end, they will be known as also-rans.
News Article: College Football Is a Convoluted Mess—Again
- Thread starter VirginiaTide57
- Start date
Bama is miles better than anyone else. Why are people bickering about who's number 2,3, or 4? In the end, they will be known as also-rans.
IF and a big IF they expand I would wait. If I HAD to expand it I would stop at 6 teams. 1&2 would be rewarded with byes. 3&6 would play @ #3 home stadium. 4&5 would play @#4. Then they could allow #1 to play the lowest remaining seed and #2 the other. Either way (6 or 8 teams) you have to add another game. This way with the 2 home games you have great attendance and more importantly you don't add to the 500 bowl games.
I can see it now the Poulan Weedeater Playin Bowl.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can see it now the Poulan Weedeater Playin Bowl.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This whole idea of adding more teams is based on flawed logic. The more teams you add, the bigger the pool becomes to pick from.
In picking four teams we have Bama with 10 wins and six others with 9 wins. That is seven teams to choose from, if we limit it to one loss teams. Picking eight team we must dig down to at least two loss teams and probably into three loss teams.
In picking eight teams we have 6 with nine wins, 9 with eight wins and 10 with seven wins. That is 25 teams to choose from.
It stands to reason the more playoff teams means a deeper pool to choose from so it only gets harder to choose, not easier.
In picking four teams we have Bama with 10 wins and six others with 9 wins. That is seven teams to choose from, if we limit it to one loss teams. Picking eight team we must dig down to at least two loss teams and probably into three loss teams.
In picking eight teams we have 6 with nine wins, 9 with eight wins and 10 with seven wins. That is 25 teams to choose from.
It stands to reason the more playoff teams means a deeper pool to choose from so it only gets harder to choose, not easier.
This isn't going to happen because the conferences want to continue to control FBS football, not allow the NCAA to control FBS football. And no conference is just going to allow itself to be blown up to allow for one less "power" conference.To bite or not to bite, that is the question.....hmmmm
Ok bite it is.
4 Power conferences each with either 14 or 16 members split into 2 divisions.
56 or 64 teams who at the start of the season are allowed to win the National Championship, the remaining 72/64 cannot. I don't know but I don't 56 different schools have been crowned National Champions since college football began.
4 Conference winners play semi and final for the marbles.
Its not the number of teams in the playoffs that causes the debate and complaints, it's the fact that opinion plays a part in the process.
This is a MANUFACTURED problem that doesn't really exist.
The injustice - so we were told - always involved one or AT MOST TWO teams. Let's see the evidence from the BCS:
2000 - OU vs FSU (debate over Miami and Washington, who each had one loss)
2001 - Miami vs Nebraska (debate over Oregon and Colorado that only really happened due to 9/11)
2003 - LSU vs OU (debate over which two of three one-loss teams belongs, USC being the other)
2004 - USC vs OU (debate over Auburn - rightly - and to a lesser extent Utah, wrongly)
2006 - tOSU vs UF (debate over Michigan and a rematch that largely died down when UF won)
2007 - LSU vs tOSU (debate was pretty much nonexistent even given that mess)
2008 - OU vs UF (debate over the selection of OU over Texas - same record, better SOS, head-to-head win)
2010 - Auburn vs Oregon (debate over right treatment of TCU)
2011 - Alabama vs LSU (debate over whether Okie St should have played)
Look at all of those. Basically you have AT MOST four teams. That's at the absolute most.
If you're actually arguing over which one-loss team should be number four - as if those are equivalent - then you're part of the problem looking for the wrong solution.
In three years, we are NOW considering the insane notion that a two-loss team actually deserves a shot at the national championship.
That might work in one of those rare situations like 1990 or 2007 - but there's no need for it this year.
And here's the other thing that gets me:
Clemson did beat Louisville head-to-head (for example).
How can ANYONE say that somehow doesn't count? So if they meet again and Louisville wins in the playoff.....why does one count but the other doesn't?
The injustice - so we were told - always involved one or AT MOST TWO teams. Let's see the evidence from the BCS:
2000 - OU vs FSU (debate over Miami and Washington, who each had one loss)
2001 - Miami vs Nebraska (debate over Oregon and Colorado that only really happened due to 9/11)
2003 - LSU vs OU (debate over which two of three one-loss teams belongs, USC being the other)
2004 - USC vs OU (debate over Auburn - rightly - and to a lesser extent Utah, wrongly)
2006 - tOSU vs UF (debate over Michigan and a rematch that largely died down when UF won)
2007 - LSU vs tOSU (debate was pretty much nonexistent even given that mess)
2008 - OU vs UF (debate over the selection of OU over Texas - same record, better SOS, head-to-head win)
2010 - Auburn vs Oregon (debate over right treatment of TCU)
2011 - Alabama vs LSU (debate over whether Okie St should have played)
Look at all of those. Basically you have AT MOST four teams. That's at the absolute most.
If you're actually arguing over which one-loss team should be number four - as if those are equivalent - then you're part of the problem looking for the wrong solution.
In three years, we are NOW considering the insane notion that a two-loss team actually deserves a shot at the national championship.
That might work in one of those rare situations like 1990 or 2007 - but there's no need for it this year.
And here's the other thing that gets me:
Clemson did beat Louisville head-to-head (for example).
How can ANYONE say that somehow doesn't count? So if they meet again and Louisville wins in the playoff.....why does one count but the other doesn't?
As long as we are reasonably assured that the best 2 teams make the pool, no need to increase the size of the pool. That means that those 2 teams get their shot. Win or lose, they had a chance.
Example - last year OSU was one of the 4 best teams, but not one of the 2 best teams. That is why I didn't whine when we were left out. But if a pool of 4 leaves us out this year and we beat Michigan, I am going to have a serious beef with the system.
Example - last year OSU was one of the 4 best teams, but not one of the 2 best teams. That is why I didn't whine when we were left out. But if a pool of 4 leaves us out this year and we beat Michigan, I am going to have a serious beef with the system.
We either agree to a system or we do not. If we agree to a system, the one in the playoff counts more because we agreed that it counts more. You are overthinking it. You have to peak at the right time in a playoff system.
I don't dispute that point, it was more rhetorical.
But some folks here are wanting to discount Clemson's win in the process, and I cannot accept that notion, either.
I'm concerned we're already now hearing murmurs of 'eight teams' as if #8 (who is usually going to have at least two losses) has any claim to the throne. I can't think of one single time in the entire history of college football that one could possibly make that argument without laughing.
The more teams in the playoff the more likely the best team doesn't win. Keep the nr of teams to no more than four and bring back the BCS rating system. I don't see any advantage to the committee. Its just provides more for the talking heads to discuss and drive the huge number of shows across the networks.
Don't the member colleges form their respective conferences as opposed to the conferences being independent of their members?
Last edited:
Yes, in theory the presidents of the schools control the commissioners and the conference offices. However, sometimes it's not true on the ground, so to speak. The same general idea is true of government also, and we see how that works...
You forgot Western Michigan because for some reason, they "deserve" a shot too.
Perhaps, but they get their shot. That is what matters. There are no guarantees in this life.
I never wanted a playoff in the first place. I felt like the BCS was a good system, and I felt it served the SEC particularly well. As of right now Alabama is now facing a situation where yet again they have to play an extra game against a team that really shouldn't be there. Not just that, but Alabama is in a situation where they could lose to Auburn and it wouldn't really matter. That's kind of messed up.
That aside, it feels like the committee and the conference champion criteria is there to poison the process. If they do include non-conference champions, people will cry that they didn't win their conference. if they don't, people will cry better teams were left out. If they'd stuck with the BCS, and the top 4 from there, there would have been far less discussion of conference champions in the first place. Now, people want 8 teams? Really, if this was an 8 team playoff Alabama shouldn't even put in the starters against Auburn. That's what the regular season would be reduced to.
I felt all along that the SEC was played for a sucker with this playoff thing. What good has it done the SEC and what good can it do?
That aside, it feels like the committee and the conference champion criteria is there to poison the process. If they do include non-conference champions, people will cry that they didn't win their conference. if they don't, people will cry better teams were left out. If they'd stuck with the BCS, and the top 4 from there, there would have been far less discussion of conference champions in the first place. Now, people want 8 teams? Really, if this was an 8 team playoff Alabama shouldn't even put in the starters against Auburn. That's what the regular season would be reduced to.
I felt all along that the SEC was played for a sucker with this playoff thing. What good has it done the SEC and what good can it do?
So far the committee's ranking have aligned with the BCS. Until something wonky happens in the final vote, I will accept that they are trying to do the right thing.
Under the BCS, a loss by Alabama to Auburn or in the SECCG this year would put you on the outside looking in. That is how it is helping Alabama. As for the rest of the SEC, well it pretty much sucks this year.
Saban spoke of playing more p5 and or conference games. Said you may lose more but the match-ups and increased SOS would help position teams.
Still would be hard with so many teams. I also don't like taking away the drama of what a team like Auburn did (to us) in 2013. They won two games to close the season and was rewarded. I doubt they would have beaten UGA or Bama a majority of times that year but did when it counted and got a huge reward.
Still would be hard with so many teams. I also don't like taking away the drama of what a team like Auburn did (to us) in 2013. They won two games to close the season and was rewarded. I doubt they would have beaten UGA or Bama a majority of times that year but did when it counted and got a huge reward.
Exactly. We can afford to lose one game and still make it to the 4 team play-off. No way under the BCS system.
These two posts nailed it. With picking four, the best 2 teams will be in that group; no need to go deeper. The only thing is the 4th team will have several other teams just as deserving and they will feel slighted...boo hoo!
This is one year when I'd almost prefer the old poll system. We used to wish for other teams to lose so Bama would be the only remaining unbeaten and would get the national championship through the polls rather than risking an upset in a 2-game playoff.
Who exactly is deeming that they shouldn't be there? In 2014 Ohio State "shouldn't have been there" and went on to beat Bama and win the whole thing. Part of the reason the playoff is great is because we don't actually KNOW how the elite teams in college football stack up, and the playoff gives us a chance to see them settle it on the field.
I agree that the BCS was probably more favorable to the SEC though. That's one of the major catalysts for it ending.
I love the current system but I would have no problem going to eight. People keep pointing out that there will always be people left out -- but the reality is if you're arguing you should have been 8 instead of 9 you can't really claim a championship resume anyway because you definitley didn't win your conference. All five Power 5 Conference champions, two at larges, and the best group of five champ, seeded based on committee ranking.
So 2015 first round would have looked like:
Houston @ Clemson
Ohio State @ Alabama
Stanford @ Michigan State
Iowa @ Oklahoma
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: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 23
-