Why I Think A Six-Team Playoff Is Inevitable

bamaga

Hall of Fame
Apr 29, 2002
13,378
8,238
282
JAWJA
I'm curious - how many times have you ever seen a game where ONE TEAM played an opponent and had a perfect field while the OTHER TEAM at the EXACT SAME TIME is playing in a quagmire.
That’s a ridiculous comment. Horrible conditions make for a survivalist game. A mistake can be made that could cost the game. I will give you an example. 1979 Alabama , the most dominant team in college football that year , almost lost to a mediocre LSU team in a downpour in Baton Rouge. One better, how about a blown call. The so called game of the century, 2011 BAMA -LSU . Alabama lost because of a horrible 4th quarter blown call and replay call that the replay official was suspended and ultimately lost his job. Under the rules of automatic qualifiers for conference champions, Alabama would have no recourse, even though they were clearly the best team of 2011
 

CrimsonProf

Hall of Fame
Dec 30, 2006
5,716
69
67
Birmingham, Alabama
I can't speak for others, but I can give you my opinion on the matter. If we go to eight teams, yes, I believe we should have the five major conference winners get automatic bids. Why? They won their conferences on the field. People didn't just look at how many great athletes they had on their team and proclaim them to be great like so many tried to do with UGA this season. Winning a conference championship on the field still means something to a lot of folks, including me. So, where you wonder why people think conference champions should be included, I wonder why people like to proclaim how good a team is on paper based on the eye test or number of athletes. It is simply a difference in opinion, but I will always take on field results over eye tests or number of four and five star athletes or who Vegas thinks might win.
If we used this year's final playoff rankings as an example, we could have
1. Bama v. 8. Washington; 2. Clemson v. 7. Central Florida; 3. Notre Dame v. 6. Ohio St.; 4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia. The only team that would be ticked is the playoff number 7 Michigan who would say that they are just as good as two loss UGA. As others have said, though, there will always be someone who is left out who complains whether you have 2, 4, 8, or 16 teams.
I will watch whether they return to a straight poll champion, BCS style 1-2 matchup, the current playoff, or the expanded playoff. I do, however, think they should have conference champions if they expand to eight teams.
As I said, I can't speak for others, but I hope this explains my point. Have a great sunny Sunday. Well, it is sunny here in North Alabama anyway.
But winning your conference is an arbitrary metric!

Kansas State beat OU in 2003 - in what universe would they be deserving of a chance to win the NC? In 2010, South Carolina played Auburn in the SECGC - would they have been worthy based on their resume, had they won that one game? It's an absurd metric.
 

Gallowglas

All-SEC
Jan 6, 2008
1,247
212
82
Hendersonville, TN
I guess I have a problem with it just being the conference champs. I mean, was there ANY ambiguity that when we played LSU or Georgia that those were the second best teams out there? It wouldn't have even been close those years with anyone else we might have played. Now, were each conference to schedule rotating regular season games with the other power conferences, then maybe. I do think that teams like ND should have to "conference up". I also like the idea of a 6-team playoff much better than an 8-team playoff just because it offers #1 and #2 an extra bye. All that said, just because a team wins its conference championship doesn't mean it's necessarily one of the best teams in the nations. There have been years when various conferences have been awful from top to bottom. I mean think about it: why would it make sense to put a three-loss conference champion in over a team whose only loss was their conference championship? That could happen in an automatic bid situation.
 
Last edited:

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
The problem I think most Bama fans have with auto bids: 2011 and 2017. We would have been out. Does anyone believe that 2017 was not the matchup between the 2 best teams? I think even the PAC12 homers would have to agree. How about 2011?
 

TrampLineman

Hall of Fame
Jul 21, 2010
7,287
6
57
Alabama
I've always wanted 8 from the start, it's the best number IMHO but the conferences won't allow us to go to 8 unless every conference champ is included (the P5 champs). That would give us 5 spots with 3 at-large teams added. We would have to do away with the conference title games though which I wouldn't mind at all.
 

Pilot172000

1st Team
Sep 25, 2017
455
10
37
Winnsboro, LA
I think 8 is too much and 6 would be tolerable. It would give us another weekend of Good football. A 3 vs 6 seed should be a lot more competitive than a 1 vs 4 seed because they would be putting both the ones that are good enough (UGA) and the one that have a resume (ND). Plus force the top two teams to risk injuries.
 

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,571
2,329
282
cullman, al, usa
But winning your conference is an arbitrary metric!

Kansas State beat OU in 2003 - in what universe would they be deserving of a chance to win the NC? In 2010, South Carolina played Auburn in the SECGC - would they have been worthy based on their resume, had they won that one game? It's an absurd metric.
Upsets happen. Arbitrary? Are on field results more arbitrary than "eye tests" and statistics that are created when playing against non-common opponents? To answer your first question, I would say our universe is the answer since many of us think on field results are the most important factor. Your choice of the word absurd is only opinion. I would choose on field results over the ten or fifteen other "metrics" or "eye tests" that some would want to use to choose the "best" teams. Conferences may decide to change how they select their champions, but winning a conference championship is a solid metric to me. The championship games are basically an extended round of the playoffs. If you choke and lose, you go home. If you take care of business and win, you move on. That seems simple to me instead of trying to randomly use metrics and opinions to select who the "best" teams are. We all have our opinions, but I won't call yours absurd.
 

Snuffy Smith

All-American
Sep 12, 2012
3,539
641
162
Huntsville, AL
So this year you would have gotten

ND vs OSU
OU bs UGA

My guess is that the lower seed would have won both of those games setting up

Alabama vs OSU
Clemson vs UGA

I think 6 teams this year would have produced a much different play off picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
Upsets happen. Arbitrary? Are on field results more arbitrary than "eye tests" and statistics that are created when playing against non-common opponents? To answer your first question, I would say our universe is the answer since many of us think on field results are the most important factor. Your choice of the word absurd is only opinion. I would choose on field results over the ten or fifteen other "metrics" or "eye tests" that some would want to use to choose the "best" teams. Conferences may decide to change how they select their champions, but winning a conference championship is a solid metric to me. The championship games are basically an extended round of the playoffs. If you choke and lose, you go home. If you take care of business and win, you move on. That seems simple to me instead of trying to randomly use metrics and opinions to select who the "best" teams are. We all have our opinions, but I won't call yours absurd.
The problem is that a flukey upset doesn't make the winner a better team than the loser. When deciding who is the better team, a matchup between a 12-0 team and an 8-4 team should not be "winner takes all." To believe otherwise is to invite logical inconsistency because A can beat B, who beat C, who beat A.
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
But I'm totally for 4 if they make being #1 seed something more than picking venue and jersey color. All we have now is a MLB playoff in which the #1 almost always draws the hardest possible team while the #2 team almost always coasts to a title bout.
Yup. It’s nuts. I’m a tennis fan and they have the same thing in Grand Slams. The #1 seed plays #3 instead of #4. Makes zero sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
My #1 wish is that the human element is completely eliminated. I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game. The 3 at-large would be selected on the metrics similar to the old BCS. The qtr. finals would be played on the home field of the higher seed. The metrics could very well put 3 SEC teams in, or 2 SEC and one more Big 10 or ACC team, etc. Whether this year's semis were mismatches is not as much of an issue as making sure through a playoff system that the final 4 are the 4 best teams. Now, given the current gap between 1,2 & everyone else an expanded playoff went help but it's not always going to be this way. Runs like Alabama is having don't last forever, although until CS retires it would seem an end is not in sight.
Humans make the metrics so they’ll still be involved;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
One thing about it is that if there is expansion it’s because they want to guarantee the PAC 12 and Big 10 don’t get left out. Let’s not really entertain the idea that this is to be “fair” to the UCF’s of the world. Sorry Knights. They don’t give a crap about y’all. Charge That!!! [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.