Coach Saban Addressed UCF's "National Championship"

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Every game still matters in CFB, and that's the way it should be.
I am not sure if this is true anymore. If Alabama and GA are both undefeated in the SECCG this year, you are both getting in the CFP. Essentially the SECCG will not matter. And PSU beat OSU in 2016, then won the B1GCG, and still got left out of the CFP, replaced by OSU.
 

Snuffy Smith

All-American
Sep 12, 2012
3,539
641
162
Huntsville, AL
Coach Saban Addressed UCF's "National Championship"

I am not sure if this is true anymore. If Alabama and GA are both undefeated in the SECCG this year, you are both getting in the CFP. Essentially the SECCG will not matter. And PSU beat OSU in 2016, then won the B1GCG, and still got left out of the CFP, replaced by OSU.
Agree - but the BCS changed that not the CFP. When most games mattered is back when you had to win the conference to be in one of the major bowl games & the National Champion was going to be the highest ranked winner of one of those 4 or 5 games. Even then you could get lucky with some other team taking an unexpected loss & get in with a loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Of course it's ridiculous.

You guys can defend this all day, but you're literally arguing that it's okay to let a team that barely won half it's games get into the playoffs is okay. That's fine, it's the NFL rules, but the point is it does mean the regular season results are minimized.

Heck, if the regular season is just as important than it is in CFB, then why do you see NFL teams resting starters after they've clinched a playoff spot / home field? Because those games no longer matter. You'd never see that in CFB as EVERY game has the potential to keep you out of the playoffs - as it should be.

So yah, I have a problem with the NFL playoff system - I literally said that about three pages back. It's as broken as March Madness, just in a (slightly) different way.

Every game still matters in CFB, and that's the way it should be.

Y'all can continue to make the same arguments over and over, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
Well the iron bowl loss effectively didn’t matter, but a beat down in Iowa city did. So every game doesn’t matter in CFB.

I remember driving home from Starkville and an ESPN radio commentator beat everyone to the punch and said the iron bowl and SECCG will not keep Alabama out because tOSU lost to Iowa. He said people are going to add the 2016 playoffs to the 2 losses and keep a tOSU team that had an impressive resume out even if Alabama was a non champ. So effectively the playoffs were decided week 11.
 
Last edited:

Skeeterpop

Hall of Fame
Jul 18, 2008
5,651
27
67
Well the iron bowl result effectively didn’t matter, but a beat down in Iowa city did. So every game doesn’t matter in CFB.
I would have to disagree with you. It did matter. Had Alabama won and won the SEC there would have been no discussion we were in the playoff. We lost and there was lots of discussion and disagreement if we should get in because of that loss. Now we still got in, but it was because we still had a better case even with that loss. But the loss did affect the conversation just not the eventual outcome.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I would have to disagree with you. It did matter. Had Alabama won and won the SEC there would have been no discussion we were in the playoff. We lost and there was lots of discussion and disagreement if we should get in because of that loss. Now we still got in, but it was because we still had a better case even with that loss. But the loss did affect the conversation just not the eventual outcome.
Alabama would’ve still got in had they lost to UGA they weren’t keeping Bama out after week 11. The only thing that mattered was that we got a month and week headstart for the playoffs.

The only way it would’ve kept us out was if Wisconsin would’ve beat tOSU.
 
Last edited:

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
I wouldn't mind if we stopped counting any prior to 1961, actually.
I would mind. In 1925, 26, 30 and 34 Bama has a highly legitimate claim. Those were glorious years and they were very important years for Alabama and Southern football. The NCAA, recognizes 25, 26 and 30.

1934 can be recognized as well. It was undefeated/untied, dominated undefeated/once tied Stanford in easily the most preeminent Rose Bowl - the only other 2 bowl games, the Sugar and Orange were in their first year. The only other team that was considered was Minn who was 8-0 beating 2 teams with a winning record. Bama was 10-0 beating 5 teams with winning records - winning all but one game by more 20 or more and those 2 by 7 and 16. So, Bama certainly has a valid claim and has several selectors who have chosen them. Bama's team included Don Hutson, Dixie Howell, Paul Bryant, Bill Lee, Tarzan White, Joe Domyanovich, Riley Smith - 4 of whom are in the college football HOF, and was coached by Frank Thomas, also deservedly in the HOF.

41 is bogus and 73 is shaky (but it is a wire service one, so you have to claim it), but those 4 are legit NC claims too. Alabama earned them.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Of course it's ridiculous.

You guys can defend this all day, but you're literally arguing that it's okay to let a team that barely won half it's games get into the playoffs is okay. That's fine, it's the NFL rules, but the point is it does mean the regular season results are minimized.
2001 - Colorado beats Nebraska, 62-36, and their "reward" is a rematch with Texas; after they win, they get to watch Nebraska play for the title
2011 - LSU beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game while Alabama rests.
2017 - Auburn beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game, when they lose it, Alabama makes the title game.

In all cases, the winning team got punished and the losing team got rewarded.

Heck, if the regular season is just as important than it is in CFB, then why do you see NFL teams resting starters after they've clinched a playoff spot / home field? Because those games no longer matter. You'd never see that in CFB as EVERY game has the potential to keep you out of the playoffs - as it should be.
Gee, and I thought it had to do with the fact that in the NFL you MIGHT clinch a playoff spot in week ten while in CFB there's no such thing as clinching a playoff spot until they tell you you're in.

So yah, I have a problem with the NFL playoff system - I literally said that about three pages back. It's as broken as March Madness, just in a (slightly) different way.
I don't disagree with your main claim, but the problem isn't 9-7 teams who are in the top six, it's 7-9 teams who are NOT in the top six but get to bypass teams that are thanks to geography.

Every game still matters in CFB, and that's the way it should be.
No, it doesn't. THIS is what drives me crazy about folks defending CFB. NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

2011 Alabama-LSU made no difference whatsoever. At all. The winning team had to play an extra game and run the risk of not making it while the losing team benefited from losing. Could we one day see an SECCG like 2009 with two unbeatens and then BOTH coaches rest their starters because they're ranked 1 and 2 and the loser won't fall any lower than fourth? Could this actually set up a team picking its opponent by throwing a football game?

Y'all can continue to make the same arguments over and over, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
the funny thing is that we don't really disagree with conclusion, we disagree with the road map of how to get there. And this whole "every game counts" simply is a cliche that has no relationship to reality.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
2001 - Colorado beats Nebraska, 62-36, and their "reward" is a rematch with Texas; after they win, they get to watch Nebraska play for the title
2011 - LSU beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game while Alabama rests.
2017 - Auburn beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game, when they lose it, Alabama makes the title game.

.
2003 Oklahoma got a huge reward for losing
I don't disagree with your main claim, but the problem isn't 9-7 teams who are in the top six, it's 7-9 teams who are NOT in the top six but get to bypass teams that are thanks to geography.




.





.
Honestly I believe having a better record in the NFL sometimes hides what kinda team you are than proves how good you are. Ive seen many Peyton Manning Colts teams have record breaking regular seasons only to poop the bed in the first game of the playoffs. I think the worst team that ever won a SB in my lifetime is either the 2006 Colts or the 2012 Ravens. Both took advantage of really mediocre schedules and tanked the last 6 weeks of the season only to luck into a championship a month later. Both had 10+ regular season wins. In Indy's case they had 12 and were a 3rd seed, The 1 and 2 seeds lost in the divisional rounds and 3 and 4 played for the AFCCG. Peyton Manning was 3 TDs and 7 picks in 4 games in the playoffs to tell you how mediocre they were.


.







the funny thing is that we don't really disagree with conclusion, we disagree with the road map of how to get there. And this whole "every game counts" simply is a cliche that has no relationship to reality.
This is pretty much the argument. I can get behind seeding, and being stricter on not allowing 8-8 and 7-6 teams getting home field. But the NFL playoffs is probably the best playoff system in sports in that it represents the best teams and geographic arguments. The only criticisms that ever really come up is when a 8-8 or 7-6 team gets in, but how many times have they advanced to the CCG? 0 is the answer. I think not allowing them to host is a better argument personally.

I think many college football only fans try to overjustify the reasoning of why they don't like the NFL. Whether it be the " I don't like folks getting paid for a hobby" (now college is starting to move towards payment in some capacity), "There are no real rivalries" (Tell that to a Steelers-Ravens, Bears-Packers, and a Cowboys-Eagles fan), and "The regular season doesn't matter". The truth is the NFL is different, but is far from a lesser product. imo
 
Last edited:

The Ols

Hall of Fame
Jul 8, 2012
5,136
5,724
187
Cumming,Ga.
My only argument would be that while 2011 Bama-L7U may not have mattered in the end, we did NOT know that at the time of the game...
2001 - Colorado beats Nebraska, 62-36, and their "reward" is a rematch with Texas; after they win, they get to watch Nebraska play for the title
2011 - LSU beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game while Alabama rests.
2017 - Auburn beats Alabama and their "reward" is to play an extra game, when they lose it, Alabama makes the title game.

In all cases, the winning team got punished and the losing team got rewarded.



Gee, and I thought it had to do with the fact that in the NFL you MIGHT clinch a playoff spot in week ten while in CFB there's no such thing as clinching a playoff spot until they tell you you're in.



I don't disagree with your main claim, but the problem isn't 9-7 teams who are in the top six, it's 7-9 teams who are NOT in the top six but get to bypass teams that are thanks to geography.



No, it doesn't. THIS is what drives me crazy about folks defending CFB. NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

2011 Alabama-LSU made no difference whatsoever. At all. The winning team had to play an extra game and run the risk of not making it while the losing team benefited from losing. Could we one day see an SECCG like 2009 with two unbeatens and then BOTH coaches rest their starters because they're ranked 1 and 2 and the loser won't fall any lower than fourth? Could this actually set up a team picking its opponent by throwing a football game?



the funny thing is that we don't really disagree with conclusion, we disagree with the road map of how to get there. And this whole "every game counts" simply is a cliche that has no relationship to reality.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
My only argument would be that while 2011 Bama-L7U may not have mattered in the end, we did NOT know that at the time of the game...
But we sort of "did" in the sense that the press was already saying that if LSU lost, they would still be in line for a rematch.
It was only when Alabama lost that the whole "they didn't even win their division" argument came up.

One writer even pointed out that what made the whole thing bizarre is that it would have been better for Alabama to lose to MISSISSIPPI STATE in 2011 than who they did lose to in a one-play game.

Of course, if we had beaten LSU but lost to MSU and still won the division, the objection would have been, "They lost to MSU!" Yet the same folks didn't want to process "Okie State lost to Iowa State."
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
My only argument would be that while 2011 Bama-L7U may not have mattered in the end, we did NOT know that at the time of the game...
On November 5th we didn't know, but on November 19th we did. So it didn't matter the moment Lane Kiffin beat Oregon, and when RGIII beat oklahoma
 
Last edited:

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Part of the problem is, what do people mean when they say that "every game matters" or the "regular season matters". I'm unaware of any study, but my guess would be that it is often used as an idiom. I.e., it is almost literal but not quite. They surely don't mean that a team cannot lose a game. E.g., Bama losing to LSU yet making the BCS championship doesn't prove that losing to LSU rendered the reg season meaningless. In the end Bama and circumstances overcame that loss, but it mattered - just like last year and ... Also, it doesn't mean that by the end of the year that the Vandy/UT game has great significance to many, or has any effect of the playoff. What it kinda means is that the reg season has much more significance than the mostly "post season" driven sports like NBA, NCAA BB, NFL, NHL, where ~.500 often gets you in the playoff vs NCAA football where, while becoming a little more post season driven, usually you still cannot afford more than one reg season loss and many can't even afford that. But just because a team with a loss can make the CFP doesn't mean that "every game matters" is not true in the sense that most probably mean it.

I much prefer the college football model, where despite the protests of some here, does require much more attention to every regular season game than the pro version. The 12-6 2007 NY Giants are the legitimate NFL champions because they played by the established rules and won. But I would prefer that the system would have rewarded the 18-0 NE Patriots, but too bad for me, that's not the NFL system. Does that mean that NE was definitely the better team or even deserved it more? No. But it is much more likely so. And that's the most you can hope for. Determining who is the most deserving or best is usually extremely difficult. But you set the parameters and method and go with it and everyone should accept the outcome. The 1945 and 66 Bama teams were 2 of its greatest, probably better or more deserving than a few who won NCs, but they did not win the wire service polls and thus IMO, should not claim NCs, and to their credit, they do not. (Oh, that they would abandon evil 1941 :).)

Back to CFB, I dislike the automatic qualifiers because of the great disparity between leagues, even the P5 leagues. Of course the Committee is not assured of making the best decision, but IMO, they have done a very good job to this point. Probably more than we could have even hoped. A strong argument can be made for all 16 teams that have made it even though arguments could have been made for a few other teams as well.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Part of the problem is, what do people mean when they say that "every game matters" or the "regular season matters". I'm unaware of any study, but my guess would be that it is often used as an idiom. I.e., it is almost literal but not quite. They surely don't mean that a team cannot lose a game. E.g., Bama losing to LSU yet making the BCS championship doesn't prove that losing to LSU rendered the reg season meaningless. In the end Bama and circumstances overcame that loss, but it mattered - just like last year and ... Also, it doesn't mean that by the end of the year that the Vandy/UT game has great significance to many, or has any effect of the playoff. What it kinda means is that the reg season has much more significance than the mostly "post season" driven sports like NBA, NCAA BB, NFL, NHL, where ~.500 often gets you in the playoff vs NCAA football where, while becoming a little more post season driven, usually you still cannot afford more than one reg season loss and many can't even afford that. But just because a team with a loss can make the CFP doesn't mean that "every game matters" is not true in the sense that most probably mean it.
Lets look at 2017...
Going into championship week Auburn was ranked #2 with 2 losses over 1 loss Oklahoma and an undefeated Wisconsin. Effectively the LSU loss did not matter at all.
UGA lost to Auburn in a game that did not matter.
We can argue the Iron Bowl all day but those are two clear things that did not matter
I much prefer the college football model, where despite the protests of some here, does require much more attention to every regular season game than the pro version. The 12-6 2007 NY Giants are the legitimate NFL champions because they played by the established rules and won. But I would prefer that the system would have rewarded the 18-0 NE Patriots, but too bad for me, that's not the NFL system. Does that mean that NE was definitely the better team or even deserved it more? No. But it is much more likely so. And that's the most you can hope for. Determining who is the most deserving or best is usually extremely difficult. But you set the parameters and method and go with it and everyone should accept the outcome. The 1945 and 66 Bama teams were 2 of its greatest, probably better or more deserving than a few who won NCs, but they did not win the wire service polls and thus IMO, should not claim NCs, and to their credit, they do not. (Oh, that they would abandon evil 1941 .)
Well:
1) The CFP is not a real playoff model to begin with. Its just a plus 1 concept. The problem is that it will inevitablly expand.
2) The Patriots were rewarded in 2007 by getting every game in the playoffs at home. Have you ever been to Boston in January? Im betting Jacksonville and San Diego found 3 Degrees and -5 degrees Celsius a little problematic added with the crazy drunk Boston hooligans yelling the top of their lungs. NYG on the otherhand played 3 GAMES ON THE ROAD. Do you really believe NYG had it easier than the NE Patriots?
3)Actually there are polls that list us as champs in 45 and 66. We will never claim 45 out of respect for Army
Back to CFB, I dislike the automatic qualifiers because of the great disparity between leagues, even the P5 leagues. Of course the Committee is not assured of making the best decision, but IMO, they have done a very good job to this point. Probably more than we could have even hoped. A strong argument can be made for all 16 teams that have made it even though arguments could have been made for a few other teams as well.
The problem is that Disney is going to get money wise and see that the SEC and ACC dominating is not a good thing for western geographic markets, and they will expand. Having AQs with WCs prevents the need to continue to expand. I dont like AQs but its a more preferable system than the tournament system.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
The most brain-dead argument in the entire complaint (not voiced by anyone here) goes like this:

"Alabama didn't even win their conference, we need an eight-team playoff."

Uh, an eight-team playoff tells me you are either a card-carrying zilcheroo logically or you don't REALLY care about winning the conference.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Here is what I find funny. A lot on here are saying Alabama deserved the 4th spot and how good this plus 1 system is, but if we rewind to championship week threads we get posts like these
https://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292756&highlight=peach+bowl
https://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292749&highlight=peach+bowl

Y’all interested in that? I’m not. That’s what it looks like. Bama has no shot at the playoff nor does it deserve it. Curious if Bama plays UCF what happens
When you lose by 2 TDs to the best team you play you don’t deserve to make the playoff, especially when you don’t win your division and the team that does is 10-2 (not 12-0).
Bama does not deserve a playoff spot over Oklahoma or Clemson if they win out.
Teams that deserve the playoff if they win out:
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Clemson
Miami
Georgia
Auburn
Teams that may make it but have warts:
Alabama
Ohio State
Ohio State made in last year despite not winning their division and the team that did win their division not getting in either. They proceeded to get crushed 31-0.
That may mean something come next week.
Actually, I don’t care. We lost to Auburn.
No, and we don't deserve to either.
Not a chance. Bama doesn’t deserve to be in the playoffs. Losing. By 2 TDs to the best team you play is a disqualifier in my book
If the committee puts any stock in the "eye test", then your answer is NO.
I don't think it matters with Daboll calling plays.
I kept thinking MAYBE we were sandbagging and experimenting with different things on offense.
But no... he's really just as incompetent as I thought he was for months now.
I think the Wisconsin is the team most likely to lose and the committee would maybe put us at #4 instead of tOSU. They have a BAD....very BAD loss to Iowa where they got BLOWN OUT.
But Oklahoma will probably be #1. We don't want ANY of them with Daboll on the sideline. We would get MURDERED.
I have no desire to see us get boat raced by 30 points with Baker Mayfield antics on top of it with Daboll nose deep in his play chart calling 'Shotgun All Verticals' like the idiot he is.
It's honestly probably better for us to play in a lower profile bowl game at this point.
NO. We are NOT a top 4 team.
Yall are setting yourself up big time thinking we get in. It will not happen.
If we do get in.
I volunteer to receive a barn avatar for all of 2018. Its not going to happen
This is an intresting one that is coming from someone that is defending the playoff now. Not an eeyore or down in the dumps like the above, but its intresting who said it.
And this is where I lose respect for KH - it should be the best four teams, period. Anything else is a popularity contest, a beauty pageant. Admitting another team is better but shouldn't be in the playoff is a farce.
And just for a second, let me remind all you playoff proponents - I TOLD YOU THIS CRAP WOULD HAPPEN...
Many of us told you over and over that the BCS was fine, that the computers, while only 1/3 of the calculation, helped tame the silly humans, yet most of you clamored for this and here we are. EVERYONE who watches football knows Bama is one of the four best teams in the country, yet, here we sit hoping for a shot.
It's ridiculous, and it's the fault of all those who wanted a stupid playoff.
Thanks.
RTR
Then for a non eeyore or defeatist post that I find intresting
My problem with this committee is that they seem to ignore losses in Sept. and Oct. Losing and who you lose to should matter just as much as who you beat. I was saying the same thing last year when arguing in favor of OSU getting in over a 2 loss conference champ. Now I get to make the same argument for Bama.
I don’t think a 2 loss team should ever get in unless there are less than 4 undefeated/1 loss teams left. This includes AU IMO.
Last year PSU beat OSU and won there conference but, OSU got in instead because they only had 1 loss. No way a 2 loss OSU gets in over a 1 loss Bama and IMO a 2 loss barn shouldn’t get in over a 1 loss Bama.
Clemson, Oklahoma and OSU all have lost to unranked teams. That has to hurt them more then Bama losing to #6. If this committee wants to be fair at all then Bama has to get in if OSU or TCU wins next week.

Those of you saying Bama doesn’t deserve to go, what kind of Bama fan are you? I don’t care if Bama is 0-12, I would still wish for a miracle playoff birth. We are not AU, we do not live or die with the IB.

FWIW these (with the exception of the last two) were just the worst of the worst I was willing to go through, but there are more out there. I just think its funny at how us winning the CFPNCG last year has changed many of these shared opinions amongst Alabama fans
 
Last edited:

RollTide_HTTR

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2017
8,774
6,540
187

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Lets look at 2017...
Going into championship week Auburn was ranked #2 with 2 losses over 1 loss Oklahoma and an undefeated Wisconsin. Effectively the LSU loss did not matter at all.
UGA lost to Auburn in a game that did not matter.
We can argue the Iron Bowl all day but those are two clear things that did not matter

Well:
1) The CFP is not a real playoff model to begin with. Its just a plus 1 concept. The problem is that it will inevitablly expand.
2) The Patriots were rewarded in 2007 by getting every game in the playoffs at home. Have you ever been to Boston in January? Im betting Jacksonville and San Diego found 3 Degrees and -5 degrees Celsius a little problematic added with the crazy drunk Boston hooligans yelling the top of their lungs. NYG on the otherhand played 3 GAMES ON THE ROAD. Do you really believe NYG had it easier than the NE Patriots?
3)Actually there are polls that list us as champs in 45 and 66. We will never claim 45 out of respect for Army

The problem is that Disney is going to get money wise and see that the SEC and ACC dominating is not a good thing for western geographic markets, and they will expand. Having AQs with WCs prevents the need to continue to expand. I dont like AQs but its a more preferable system than the tournament system.
You missed the point entirely. I don't know what to say. We just have a tough time communicating. We've disagreed before and it seems that we end up talking past each other. So, I'm not going to address your counterpoints regarding my point about "the regular season matters" or "every game matters". You just missed what I am saying.


1) The CFP is not a real playoff model to begin with. Its just a plus 1 concept. The problem is that it will inevitablly expand.


2) The Patriots were rewarded in 2007 by getting every game in the playoffs at home. Have you ever been to Boston in January? Im betting Jacksonville and San Diego found 3 Degrees and -5 degrees Celsius a little problematic added with the crazy drunk Boston hooligans yelling the top of their lungs. NYG on the other hand played 3 GAMES ON THE ROAD. Do you really believe NYG had it easier than the NE Patriots?


3)Actually there are polls that list us as champs in 45 and 66. We will never claim 45 out of respect for Army


1) I was not addressing the issue of whether the CFP is a "true" playoff, but just calling it by the name currently used.
2) Where did I say that the Giants had it easier? I did indicate that their record was not as good, and while that did not prove that they were not the more deserving or better team, it is more likely that they were not. But I stated I do not begrudge the Giants their championship. They won it by the agreed upon rules, thus the NY Giants are the champs and the once 18-0 Patriots are not.
3) I did not say there were not selectors who chose Bama as NC in those years, in fact, I knew quite well that there were, but the only wire service at the time, the AP, did not choose them. That is how I reckon NCs, by the AP from 1936 forward and/or the Coaches poll (UPI, USA Today, etc.) from 1950 forward - right or wrong. Again, I don't know how you interpret what I say like you do. IMO, the reason we don't claim 1945 is not because of Army but because the AP, the only wire service at the time, chose them. The only non-wire service NC Bama claims from 1936 forward in the ridiculous 1941, though there are selectors who have chosen them in 26 years post 1936, though Bama only claims 13 of the 26. I claim the 12 AP/Coaches/BCS/CFP titles.

The problem is that Disney is going to get money wise and see that the SEC and ACC dominating is not a good thing for western geographic markets, and they will expand. Having AQs with WCs prevents the need to continue to expand. I dont like AQs but its a more preferable system than the tournament system.
You may be right that the CFP will expand, but I hope not. I think and hope there is enough wisdom in the right places that there is a reasonable chance that the "inevitable" expansion will not take place any time soon. TV does not have kind of control over this issue that some think. Believe me Disney is already "money wise" and "sees" the potential for more revenue. But they do not have the power to get what they want. Influence yes, ultimate power, no.

I disagree that AQs are the more preferable system primarily because of the disparity in conferences. Thus far, IMO, the "tournament system" as you call it has been superior, including last year.
 

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.