The Faustian Playoff Proposition
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 35
  1. #1
    BamaNation Hall of Fame KrAzY3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,061

    Article The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    I intended to write a large(r) article, but it seems that a playoff is a certainty. It feels futile to break down things in a comprehensive manner when it is at best a eulogy. Nevertheless, there are a few things gnawing at me and I feel I need to get them off of my chest. I have to preface my statements by saying I would support a +1 that gives #1 a bye, and features #2 at home against #3. Without elaborating further, I think that would reward each according to their regular season accomplishments. I can not find a valid reason for including #4 though. Over the history of the BCS, the fourth seeded team has not once proven to be on equal footing with the champion. That aside, I might breath a sight of relief if we actually get a top four seeded playoff rather than some of the abominations we have seen discussed. My greatest concern is why there is such a strong desire for change.

    If I was to put it into broad terms, I would say the push represents a desire for inclusion over excellence. We are entering participation trophy territory, in which simply showing up is criteria for a reward. There are people out there that just can't comprehend why one person's accomplishments should be more rewarded, or are better. These people tend to think everyone should be able to get a college education, no matter how stupid they are. This mentality is galled by the notion of competitions that reward excellence. The notion of only letting the top two teams have a shot at being champion? This is an affront to that type of thought. If we must compete, surely we can let more teams have a chance! Never mind that the BCS has an unparalleled track record in crowning championship worthy teams. Set aside the fact that the lineal champion nature of #1 vs #2 presents an almost unassailable champion. They have a problem with the process itself. Allow me to finish this point by quoting Buzz Bissinger, who has polluted our conscious by writing a few things about amateur football: "I still think you have the fundamental problem of sports...It's all about winning."

    Another aspect of the push for a playoff is represented by money. Ironically, a playoff is almost universally fair to the players in that amateur, or professional you recieve very little in the way of compensation. The media has incentive to push for playoffs, as it both gives them topic for discussion and gives ESPN and the like more games to air, and the powers that be them self have financial incentives. It's the players that are generally speaking left only with their competitive spirit as motivation. Do college athletes get more free education for participating in a post season? Professional athletes get mere pittance when compared to their regular pay (hardly worth the risk financially). The NCAA? They make a majority of their money in the NCAA basketball tournament. So, it's remarkable that college football has held out this long.

    Why do I argue that this is a deal with the devil? It might not be disastrous, and surely many people supporting a playoff have good intentions (and in some cases valid, well thought viewpoints). The unavoidable reality is that, the national dialogue is being controlled by entities with dubious motivations. We have the media pushing us toward a playoff, and we have every right to question their motives. This is the same media that, in the form of the AP, refuses to be part of the BCS, but when it comes to the random home court advantage, 68 team, 31 automatic bid, wheel of fate NCAA basketball tournament, they refuse to release a poll at any point during or after the tournament. This is the same media that helped bring us terms like "Mythical National Champions", a derisive term that acts as though #1 playing #2 is somehow less credible than two lower seeds battling for a "championship". We have the powers that be, that despite the obvious top 4 seeded option, seem to insist on ridiculous proposals. So, I believe we are striking a deal with the devil. As good as our intentions might be, I see many, many ways for this to go wrong and consider who we're dealing with the likelihood of that happening eventually seem all but certain.

    To put this into more specific terms, and what motivated me to write this, was a May first piece by Rick Reilly I came across today. It might seem innocent enough, labelled "BCS finally gets it right", but as I read it I saw exactly what I feared. This is the devil we're dealing with, and I can't consider any bargain to be a good one in that case. Here's some excerpts:

    "So who wants in on my bracket contest? Where are President Obama's picks? You have a 12.5 percent chance of a perfect bracket.

    One will play Four and Two will play Three. Are you listening? The four highest-ranked teams have a chance! That's a 100 percent improvement on what we have now, which is dog meat!
    "

    I'll leave the Obama, dog meat part alone. But, are we really supposed to be enthused by this because we get to fill out a bracket? Is that really a motivating factor? 100% improvement? Is this guy a raving lunatic? Is that a rhetorical question? Let's see, we have #1 vs #2. Somehow, in the land of the media, adding #3 and #4 represents a 100% improvement. That's like having one painting, by Leonardo and you add one by Thomas Kinkade and claim your collection has improved by 100%. To use the BCS formula, we are being told by Rick that 17809 is 100% better than 19419. Only someone that cares more about brackets than excellence could come to that conclusion.

    "No more Auburns (12-0, ranked third, 2004) getting robbed! No more Cincinnatis and TCUs (both 12-0 in 2009, third- and fourth-ranked) getting double-shafted! No more USCs (12-1 in 2003, third-ranked, with five first-round draft picks) getting reamed!"

    To be fair, I included the whole quote. Auburn didn't get robbed. They are, one of a couple compelling cases to include the third (not fourth mind you) ranked team in the process. They played the 60th ranked schedule. They merely had a good season that fell short of either of the top two teams. The Cincinatti and TCU part is just gag inducing yellow journalism at it's finest. TCU lost to Boise State. Let's just stop there for a second, because his argument is that TCU, a team that finished ranked 6th in the AP poll was "shafted". He chooses not to even allude to Boise State because after all Boise State wouldn't even be included in a plus one. No doubt, if the same scenario plays out in 2015 he'll be explaining the need for a 8 team playoff. The most asinine part of this is his mention of Cincinatti. Cincinatti, who finished ranked 8th in the AP. Cincinatti who was blown out by 54-21 by Florida (the second best team in reality, but you won't see Rick take up their cause because we're not being inclusive if we include two SEC teams). So, somehow, a team that rode a soft schedule to a meaningless undefeated regular season, a team that proved to be completely unworthy of a championship, got shafted by not being included. I am left with the conclusion that Rick doesn't care one bit about worthy champions. As to USC? The second team in the history of the BCS that was excluded, that I believe might have had an argument for being championship worthy. Having said that, they lost didn't they? They didn't win a conference championship game did they? And, to tell me that including Michigan, who finished that season with three losses is somehow a massive improvement since it gives USC a second chance, well that's a hard sell in my mind.

    And there we have it. If you break things down, and really strain out the superfluous nonsense, what we are left with is the reality that USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004 are the only legitimate reasons to have a +1. The resolution to that is simple, but we both know a 3 team +1 will never happen. The other undeniable aspect of what is going on, is we're being lead by people that think sports shouldn't be about winning. That think 8th ranked teams should have a shot at championships. The BCS isn't perfect, but the results are pretty darn hard to argue with. We've had the BCS since 1998, and only once did a major selector disagree with the results (even then it was an overtly biased move, they actually took #1 votes away from Oklahoma/LSU and awarded them to USC in the final poll). If one is being objective, it is incredibly hard to argue with the results. I can accept the notion that if anything, the BCS accidentally got things right. That despite everything working against it, the BCS actually found a way to function. It's possible that a +1, despite the NCAA, Rick Reilly's, Big 10's, Pac-12's, and so of the world this might turn out ok. But, it's still a deal with the devil in my mind.

  2. Advertisement
  3. #2
    BamaNation Second Team
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Phenix City, AL
    Posts
    155

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Very Good analysis Krazy3. I agree with you 100%. Nothing is wrong with the BCS, it just fails to include the pretenders...

  4. #3
    Senior Administrator TIDE-HSV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Huntsville, AL,USA
    Posts
    59,853

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Very good post, Krazy one...
    "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity. - Ellen Parr"

    'If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?' - Steve Jobs

    “I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

  5. #4
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    14,149

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Whoa, what a read Krazy. I'm not sure I totally comprehend it all but will re-read to make sure I fully understand or might wait for it to come out in paperback.
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

    "Get off my lawn." Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino

  6. #5
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bama Torch in Pcola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,674

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Preach on brother. Deal with the devil indeed.
    "I waxed the dude."
    --Rory Turner, Alabama DB

  7. #6
    FB | REC Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,218

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    As I've said before , welcome to the world of gridiron socialism . The situation with USC in '03 wasn't the mess or shafting many would have us believe . The Trojans split the title and deserved to do so . Oklahoma was the school which should have been omitted . As a result , the BCS formula was altered and the results have been perfect ever since .

    As for the barn in '04 , the top 2 teams in week one never lost so how could anyone vote the barn into the mix ? Especially when in all reality their level of play diminished down the stretch against Georgia and Alabama . When every voter was looking for a reason to cast a vote for the barn , their play on the field made it clear that they had not done nearly enough to warrant passing Oklahoma or So Cal - a team which had soundly defeated the barn in '02 and again in '03 by a larger margin at the barn .

    What happens when the losers continue to come up short ? Bump it up to 6 teams ? 8 teams ? Of course Like Krazy , I can't stand the upcoming slippery slope we're now facing , but will live with it . Expand it to 6 or 8 and I'll find something else to occupy my time from September through January . Remember what it is that made D-1 football so special - the quest for perfection , importance of the regular season and NO PLAYOFF .
    "I know there's tremendous expectations here for what you would like to accomplish with this football program . I can tell you that however you feel about it , I have even higher expectations for what we want to accomplish . I want to win every game we play ." - Nick Saban 1/4/07

  8. #7
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    14,149

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    The addition of crappy teams in crappy conferences has diluted the quality of D1 football. CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sunbelt, Big East, WAC and the ACC should have their own division. Like Krazy said it is about inclusion; let's give everybody who fields a team a trophy and a ring.
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

    "Get off my lawn." Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino

  9. #8
    BamaNation All-American MOAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Swearengin, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    2,168

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Great post Krazy! Send this to Cecil Hurt or someone that folks might listen to, not that we don't listen to you! But someone with the credentials to actually be read by outsiders! ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!

  10. #9
    FB | REC Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,218

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayTide View Post
    The addition of crappy teams in crappy conferences has diluted the quality of D1 football. CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sunbelt, Big East, WAC and the ACC should have their own division. Like Krazy said it is about inclusion; let's give everybody who fields a team a trophy and a ring.
    ... along with several more quality recruits who are shafted out of their dreams and desires due to new signing limitations .
    "I know there's tremendous expectations here for what you would like to accomplish with this football program . I can tell you that however you feel about it , I have even higher expectations for what we want to accomplish . I want to win every game we play ." - Nick Saban 1/4/07

  11. #10
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arab, AL
    Posts
    16,095

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    You mentioned filling out brackets, and could this really be the motivation for a playoff...

    Believe me, with many in the media, it is the motivation. I suspect it may be for a lot of "casual" college football fans as well. They want the same fever of March madness to be in college football as well. All the while forgetting that college basketball is an afterthought until March.

  12. #11
    BamaNation Hall of Fame selmaborntidefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    18,191

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    KrAzY3,

    What you just posted here is a good example why there are many of us who reject the BCS logic argumentation. As you gave specific examples, I'm going to politely show why this does not work. Keep in mind that we are in agreement on the basics and I actually think that your Plus One is good but the one flaw being a team that hasn't played in 51 days playing a team that got loose last week.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    I can not find a valid reason for including #4 though. Over the history of the BCS, the fourth seeded team has not once proven to be on equal footing with the champion.
    I disagree.

    You can't seriously say Washington in 2000 didn't deserve a shot. In point of fact, there were FIVE one-loss teams right behind OU. And why did FSU get there? Because they lost early. Period.

    You also can't say one-loss Oregon didn't deserve a shot in 2001. They lost to a three-loss ranked Stanford team by a TD.

    That's MUCH better than losing 62-36 and not even winning your division (insert Nebraska here).


    And to be blunt - this is why you haven't sold me despite your persuasive argumentation. The only way anyone would ever come to the conclusions you do on most of this is by IGNORING all the data that overthrow your hypothesis. Those are two notable examples right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    That aside, I might breath a sight of relief if we actually get a top four seeded playoff rather than some of the abominations we have seen discussed. My greatest concern is why there is such a strong desire for change.
    Because too many of us have seen too many teams who never got chance A simply because their name wasn't X.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    If I was to put it into broad terms, I would say the push represents a desire for inclusion over excellence.
    No, it's because Notre Dame shouldn't be in the top two when they have the same record and play a sorry schedule just because they're Notre Dame. Same goes for Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State or any other program ranked solely because of something irrelevant they did 30 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    We are entering participation trophy territory, in which simply showing up is criteria for a reward.
    Rhetoric. Nobody is giving out BCS trophies to every single team or even the top four.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    There are people out there that just can't comprehend why one person's accomplishments should be more rewarded, or are better.
    And it shouldn't come down to "this team has won X national championships in the past and therefore should be ranked higher despite playing a sorry schedule." LSU's 2003 schedule was no better than Auburn's 2004 as I've noted many times.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    These people tend to think everyone should be able to get a college education, no matter how stupid they are.
    That mentality is behind universal student loans but has nothing to do with the present conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    This mentality is galled by the notion of competitions that reward excellence.
    Note YOUR word - competitions. NOT "vote this team based on what they did last year or the year before that or 100 years ago." Actual GAMES, not opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The notion of only letting the top two teams have a shot at being champion?
    More rhetoric. The championship game will still have only two teams.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    This is an affront to that type of thought. If we must compete, surely we can let more teams have a chance!
    No, it's about teams getting left out in the cold because they weren't thought well of at the start of the year by self-appointed experts.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Never mind that the BCS has an unparalleled track record in crowning championship worthy teams.
    A circular argument because it's always 1 vs 2. That's NOT the issue. The issue concerns WHO should be in the game and most specifically HOW.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post

    Set aside the fact that the lineal champion nature of #1 vs #2 presents an almost unassailable champion.
    Except you don't know who would have won OU vs Washington any more than I do. Or OU vs Miami. Or Miami vs Oregon. We all THINK we do but then again how many folks thought Miami was going to rout Alabama in the 1993 Sugar Bowl? And how many thought we were going to rout Utah in the 2009 game?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    They have a problem with the process itself.
    Bingo.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Allow me to finish this point by quoting Buzz Bissinger, who has polluted our conscious by writing a few things about amateur football: "I still think you have the fundamental problem of sports...It's all about winning."
    A straw man you will invoke later, which is amusing but anyway..


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Another aspect of the push for a playoff is represented by money. Ironically, a playoff is almost universally fair to the players in that amateur, or professional you recieve very little in the way of compensation.
    I'm guessing you mean UN-fair here as that's how I'm reading it to mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The media has incentive to push for playoffs, as it both gives them topic for discussion and gives ESPN and the like more games to air, and the powers that be them self have financial incentives. It's the players that are generally speaking left only with their competitive spirit as motivation. Do college athletes get more free education for participating in a post season? Professional athletes get mere pittance when compared to their regular pay (hardly worth the risk financially). The NCAA? They make a majority of their money in the NCAA basketball tournament. So, it's remarkable that college football has held out this long.
    Generally in agreement with you here.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Why do I argue that this is a deal with the devil? It might not be disastrous, and surely many people supporting a playoff have good intentions (and in some cases valid, well thought viewpoints). The unavoidable reality is that, the national dialogue is being controlled by entities with dubious motivations.
    Which is also true now, so six of one and half dozen of the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    We have the media pushing us toward a playoff, and we have every right to question their motives.
    True but the converse is also true. And my suspicion is that a number of Tide fans here are scared to death that we'd get into a scrum with Boise State or somebody like that and lose. And I think THAT is what's driving it more than anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    This is the same media that, in the form of the AP, refuses to be part of the BCS, but when it comes to the random home court advantage, 68 team, 31 automatic bid, wheel of fate NCAA basketball tournament, they refuse to release a poll at any point during or after the tournament.
    I'd have to investigate this but I'll take your word for it. Personally, I hate basketball and don't really follow it even when I fill out a bracket.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    This is the same media that helped bring us terms like "Mythical National Champions", a derisive term that acts as though #1 playing #2 is somehow less credible than two lower seeds battling for a "championship".
    Uh, no. It's called mythical because the NCAA doesn't recognize it. Somewhere on here there's a newspaper of us beating Washington for our first Rose Bowl and the words "mythical national championship" are in that article.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    We have the powers that be, that despite the obvious top 4 seeded option, seem to insist on ridiculous proposals.
    No argument here, but that's more the Big Ten wanting a guaranteed slot.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    So, I believe we are striking a deal with the devil. As good as our intentions might be, I see many, many ways for this to go wrong and consider who we're dealing with the likelihood of that happening eventually seem all but certain.

    To put this into more specific terms, and what motivated me to write this, was a May first piece by Rick Reilly I came across today.
    Ah yes, the Anti-Christ himself, pun intended. A complete fool is Mr Reilly.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    It might seem innocent enough, labelled "BCS finally gets it right", but as I read it I saw exactly what I feared. This is the devil we're dealing with, and I can't consider any bargain to be a good one in that case. Here's some excerpts:

    "So who wants in on my bracket contest? Where are President Obama's picks? You have a 12.5 percent chance of a perfect bracket.

    One will play Four and Two will play Three. Are you listening? The four highest-ranked teams have a chance! That's a 100 percent improvement on what we have now, which is dog meat!
    "
    Reilly's just mad we beat LSU in a rematch. The funny thing - and here's where you and I agree - is how many people said this past year they wanted a four-team playoff because they were "dissatisfied" and then turned right around and said we'd have wound up with the Alabama-LSU rematch anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    I'll leave the Obama, dog meat part alone. But, are we really supposed to be enthused by this because we get to fill out a bracket? Is that really a motivating factor? 100% improvement? Is this guy a raving lunatic? Is that a rhetorical question? Let's see, we have #1 vs #2. Somehow, in the land of the media, adding #3 and #4 represents a 100% improvement. That's like having one painting, by Leonardo and you add one by Thomas Kinkade and claim your collection has improved by 100%. To use the BCS formula, we are being told by Rick that 17809 is 100% better than 19419. Only someone that cares more about brackets than excellence could come to that conclusion.
    I'm assuming he's kidding. We already get to fill out a bowl picks contest thing, so the notion we were missing something is a little ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    "No more Auburns (12-0, ranked third, 2004) getting robbed! No more Cincinnatis and TCUs (both 12-0 in 2009, third- and fourth-ranked) getting double-shafted! No more USCs (12-1 in 2003, third-ranked, with five first-round draft picks) getting reamed!"
    OK, this is relevant to what you're about to say - I THINK he was referring to TCU in 2010, not 2009, but he did say 2009.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    To be fair, I included the whole quote. Auburn didn't get robbed. They are, one of a couple compelling cases to include the third (not fourth mind you) ranked team in the process.
    Fine, but I already gave you two examples that overturn your claim. I can give you at least three more from the pre-BCS era: 1965 Alabama, 1977 Notre Dame, 1983 Miami.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    They played the 60th ranked schedule.
    They won the SEC, which we're always told is the toughest conference. And don't forget in continuing the Lowder-Bowden feud, Clemson dropped a game with them. Do you seriously think that would have put them in the title game?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    They merely had a good season that fell short of either of the top two teams.
    But let 'em rot, right? Since the self-appointed experts told us OU and USC were the best then hey, they're infallible.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The Cincinatti and TCU part is just gag inducing yellow journalism at it's finest.
    Now - here's where your analysis falls apart.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    TCU lost to Boise State. Let's just stop there for a second, because his argument is that TCU, a team that finished ranked 6th in the AP poll was "shafted".
    Uh, no, his argument is that the number four team before the bowl games was shafted. In a four-team, TCU doesn't play Boise State. They play us - and funnily enough I recall several fans on here expressing nervousness because they hadn't watched TCU enough to know what they might do.

    You can't throw in results that wouldn't have existed at the time as validation of your argument, KrAzY.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    He chooses not to even allude to Boise State because after all Boise State wouldn't even be included in a plus one.
    An excellent point on your part. But that particular year he'd have been hard-pressed to argue Boise should have been there.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    No doubt, if the same scenario plays out in 2015 he'll be explaining the need for a 8 team playoff.
    Probably - the man IS an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The most asinine part of this is his mention of Cincinatti. Cincinatti, who finished ranked 8th in the AP.
    Yes, but we were one play away from getting them in the national championship game.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Cincinatti who was blown out by 54-21 by Florida (the second best team in reality, but you won't see Rick take up their cause because we're not being inclusive if we include two SEC teams).
    But you pro-BCS folks who are always telling us that the BCS matches up "the two best teams" were all up in arms because "it wouldn't be fair" for us to "have to beat Florida twice."

    You also ignore the fact that Cincinnati was pretty well distracted by Kelly going to Notre Dame. Now - I'm not arguing they even belonged there as the performance in bowl games by the Big East has demonstrably shown they most certainly did not and do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    So, somehow, a team that rode a soft schedule to a meaningless undefeated regular season, a team that proved to be completely unworthy of a championship, got shafted by not being included.
    But the problem is this - you're using ONE EXAMPLE when there are others that overturn your claims that you ignore. I'll grant that Cincinnati being there would have been a disaster. But you can't out of one side of your mouth say, "See, this proves my point" but ignoring all the other cases that prove your point is incorrect.

    Yes, it would have been an unworthy team. Of course, if they had first beaten Texas and then beaten us, you couldn't say they were unworthy champions, either.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    I am left with the conclusion that Rick doesn't care one bit about worthy champions.
    Who determines such? Once again - your argument is built upon, "Well, Cincinnati got killed by Florida." But the counter is that if they had beaten Texas and Alabama, they wouldn't have been "unworthy champions," either, especially since everybody considered them two of the three best teams in the nation.

    It's amusing to me how many Alabama fans want to give excuses for the 2009 Sugar Bowl but don't want to hear them from other teams. If Kelly is prepping for a national championship semi-final rather than a bowl game where he has no shot, do you honestly think he interviews for the Notre Dame job at the time?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    As to USC? The second team in the history of the BCS that was excluded, that I believe might have had an argument for being championship worthy.
    You don't have much choice since they DID win the AP championship.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Having said that, they lost didn't they?
    So did everybody else. And unlike OU, they didn't lose by FOUR TOUCHDOWNS to a HUGE UNDERDOG, they lost to a team with a guy named Aaron Rodgers at QB. In triple OT. On the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    They didn't win a conference championship game did they?
    1) Neither did OU.
    2) Irrelevant because their conference doesn't have one.

    But now you go and do it again:

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    And, to tell me that including Michigan, who finished that season with three losses is somehow a massive improvement since it gives USC a second chance, well that's a hard sell in my mind.
    "Michigan, who had two losses LIKE EVERY OTHER CONTENDING TEAM IN THE COUNTRY..."

    That would not have been a problem had USC played LSU, which is the match-up that should have happened. A team that gets blown out by 28 points to a mediocre divisional champ had no business in the game in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    And there we have it. If you break things down, and really strain out the superfluous nonsense, what we are left with is the reality that USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004 are the only legitimate reasons to have a +1.
    Uh, no.

    We were - literally - TWO PLAYS from having the number one team in the polls miss the BCS title game in 1998. If UCLA beats Miami (they lost by 3) and K-State beats aTm (they blew a huge lead and lost in OT) then the number one team in the polls doesn't even play in the game. Talk about getting lucky - that would have discredited the BCS right out of the chute and it came so close to happening. Why? Well, because the computers didn't like them.

    2000 - you cannot argue that FSU was any more deserving than Miami, Washington, Oregon State, or Va Tech.

    VT lost to one-loss Miami.
    Miami lost to one-loss Washington.
    Washington lost to to two-loss Oregon
    Oregon State lost to one-loss Washington.
    Florida State lost to one-loss Miami.

    2001 - you also cannot argue that a team that got bludgeoned, 62-36, has
    any business in the game. The issue with Colorado was they had not one
    but two losses. Of course, they would argue that since they beat Texas
    in a rematch that first loss "didn't really count."

    You've admitted two others, 2003 and 2004.

    You also know FULL WELL that if there is a four-team playoff then the rankings are going to be different. So in 2006, you have (probably) Ohio State, one-loss Michigan, one-loss Florida, and one-loss Wisconsin.

    2007, ok, I guess you can argue LSU over a VT team they killed. But that year was an anomaly that isn't good for either you or me to argue. It was one of those weird years (1984, 1990) that comes along every so often.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The resolution to that is simple, but we both know a 3 team +1 will never happen. The other undeniable aspect of what is going on, is we're being lead by people that think sports shouldn't be about winning.
    This is preposterous. You have a quote on an unrelated subject by a dolt and you're trying to pretend like everyone in college football says the game shouldn't be about winning.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    That think 8th ranked teams should have a shot at championships.
    Who specifically thinks that? What does that have to do with the four-team playoff?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    The BCS isn't perfect, but the results are pretty darn hard to argue with.
    Not really. We've had the BCS for 14 years and even you concede the number three team having a claim many times. I argue that your dismissing number four is not quite accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    We've had the BCS since 1998, and only once did a major selector disagree with the results (even then it was an overtly biased move, they actually took #1 votes away from Oklahoma/LSU and awarded them to USC in the final poll).
    Irrelevant. You'll have even less disagreement when teams actually PLAY GAMES to determine the winner as opposed to a team getting voted in on the basis of reputation.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    If one is being objective, it is incredibly hard to argue with the results.

    It would be except the entire process is subjective in the first place. The extra two teams reduces (does not eliminate) subjectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    I can accept the notion that if anything, the BCS accidentally got things right. That despite everything working against it, the BCS actually found a way to function. It's possible that a +1, despite the NCAA, Rick Reilly's, Big 10's, Pac-12's, and so of the world this might turn out ok. But, it's still a deal with the devil in my mind.
    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
    "And if I die in Raleigh - at least I will die free"

    "In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Tuscaloosa underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...the REC."

  13. #12
    BamaNation Hall of Fame TideFan in AU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Almost close enough to the pasture to smell it!
    Posts
    6,960

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Very nice post, Krazy. Though I am a fan of the +1, I share your fear that it will lead to more teams in a playoff. In fact, that is my biggest fear for CFB. My hope is the that Presidents do what they always have, and keep the bowl system in place. This automatically limits the number of playoff teams.

    The part I don't completely agree with you is the number of years that the BCS "got it right". There's really nobody that can really argue about '03 and '04. OU had no business in that game in '03 after getting destroyed by K State in the B12CGC, and much as we all hate barney, NO SEC team that goes through the SEC undefeated should ever get left out of of at least a chance to play for the BCSNCG - even the goobers.

    Besides '03 and '04, myself and most everyone else paying attention feel like '01 and '08 were equally wrong. Nebraska was allowed to play Miami after getting run out of the stadium 62-36 by Colorado. Oregon went on to soundly beat #3 Colorado 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl. Its pretty much impossible to argue that Nebraska deserved to be there over Oregon.

    In '08, OU was given the berth in B12CGC over Texas (who beat OU by 10 at a neutral site) by the B12's ridiculous conference tiebreaker rules. In any other conference, Texas would have played for the championship. This was not a failure of the BCS per se, but nonetheless, the 2 best teams in country did not play, which is what the BCS is designed to do. (Side Note: based on the OU's performance in the BCSNC, I'd argue we were better than they were, while sitting at home with the same 12-1 record that they had. OU never led against FL while we lead up 9:21 in the 4th) I would have loved to have played OU for another shot at Florida. Wouldn't you?

    Even in '99, which is not considered a controversial year, Virginia Tech played FSU for the BCSCG by going undefeated in the horribly weak Big East, while playing James Madison, UAB, 6-6 Clemson, and 7-5 Virginia OOC. VT beat 4 teams a winning record and no one with a record better than 9-4. Nebraska finished #3 that year beating 5 top 25 teams and 2 top 10 teams, including 11-1 K State. Nebraska's only loss was a 4 point loss to Texas, and they avenged that loss in the B12CGC. There's very reasonable doubt that VT was not as good as Nebraska. This is basically the equivalent of an undefeated TCU, Tulane or Boise getting in the BCSNCG over a very good 1 loss team that played a murderous schedule.

    If you believe this to be true, (which I do) there's 5 of the 14 BCSNCG's that didn't conclusively match the 2 best teams in the country, which again, is its only function. Getting it right 64% of the time is the reason for a push for some type of a more conclusive way to determine who is really #1 and #2 for people like me. It's not about "inclusion over excellence" in my eyes. It is actually the desire for excellence (or as close as you can get) that drives my belief that there needs to be a change in the system. The system doesn't need to be scrapped, it just needs to be tweaked to prevent these type of years from happening.

    I will say, though, if given the option of leaving like it is vs any playoff scenario that doesn't include JUST the top 3 or 4 teams, I'd absolutely say leave it alone.
    Last edited by TideFan in AU; May 8th, 2012 at 09:51 PM.
    “And the roses in this grand ol’ stadium are once again Crimson!” - Eli Gold, 1-7-10

    Alabama wasn’t just dominating Monday night. They were some word that has yet to be invented in the English language. - Aaron Torres, 1-10-12

    "If this was a prize fight, they'd call it off!" - Brent Musberger, 1-7-13

    "Alabama, back on top of the College Football world!" - Chris Fowler, 1-11-16

    "Touchdown!!! Alabama Wins!!!" - Chris Fowler, 1-8-18

  14. #13
    BamaNation Hall of Fame selmaborntidefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    18,191

    Re: The Faustian Playoff Proposition

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    As I've said before , welcome to the world of gridiron socialism . The situation with USC in '03 wasn't the mess or shafting many would have us believe . The Trojans split the title and deserved to do so . Oklahoma was the school which should have been omitted . As a result , the BCS formula was altered
    We agree up to this point. That was a travesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    and the results have been perfect ever since .
    Not hardly. They've not been as bad as some of the bloviators say, but they haven't been perfect. Why LSU over one-loss Kansas in 2007, for example? Oh that's right - because it was Kansas. Now had it been Oklahoma or USC, we know who would have played Ohio State.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    As for the barn in '04 , the top 2 teams in week one never lost so how could anyone vote the barn into the mix ?
    So in other words - if the experts underrate you at the start of the season it's YOUR fault. OK. They have nothing to go on but hunches.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    Especially when in all reality their level of play diminished down the stretch against Georgia and Alabama .
    What are you talking about? They beat number eight Georgia, 24-6.
    They struggled against us - but they beat us by more than our 2009 team beat them when we won it all. And you can't really count a rivalry game as the norm. Consider how close we came to losing to the Vols in 2009.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    When every voter was looking for a reason to cast a vote for the barn , their play on the field made it clear that they had not done nearly enough to warrant passing Oklahoma
    Because they didn't run up scores to impress folks? Gee, OU did that in 2003 and we all saw how that ended.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    or So Cal - a team which had soundly defeated the barn in '02 and again in '03 by a larger margin at the barn .
    1) Funny how often this argument comes up. Unfortunately, it's irrelevant since they weren't the same two teams.

    2) OU choked in the title game in 2003 - why wasn't that held against them if you're holding 2003 against Auburn?

    3) Following this line of reasoning, Notre Dame won the 1977 national championship because:
    a) they had the same record as Alabama
    b) they beat Alabama in 1976 by three points

    I do hope you'll admit that's a ridiculous argument.

    Since 2008 Florida beat Alabama by 11, there's no need to play the 2009 SEC title game, right? They're much more similar teams than 2004 USC and Auburn were.

    Quote Originally Posted by LCN View Post
    What happens when the losers continue to come up short ? Bump it up to 6 teams ? 8 teams ? Of course Like Krazy , I can't stand the upcoming slippery slope we're now facing , but will live with it . Expand it to 6 or 8 and I'll find something else to occupy my time from September through January . Remember what it is that made D-1 football so special - the quest for perfection , importance of the regular season and NO PLAYOFF .
    No you won't. You'll be there. It's in your blood because you're a Tide fan.
    "And if I die in Raleigh - at least I will die free"

    "In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Tuscaloosa underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...the REC."

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

TideFansStore.com: Get YOUR gear!

[CLICK] GET BAMA Calendar