Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

Quicksilver

1st Team
Mar 13, 2010
392
30
43
Ellicott City, MD
It is nearly impossible to overlook the fact that the method by which college football chooses a national champion is about to change once again in response to a Crimson Tide related event. Historians of the program will note that in 1964, both the AP and UPI picked Alabama as national champion, before the bowl games, then Alabama went on to lose to Texas in the Orange Bowl. By the rules then in place, Alabama still won the NC. This annoyed the national sports press and so they changed the rules for 1965 so that the national championship voting would happen after the bowl games. Following the 1965 regular season, an improbable string of bowl losses by teams ranked ahead of Alabama resulted in Alabama winning the 1965 AP NC, despite their having lost one game (Georgia) and tied another (Tennessee) during the regular season. Of course, in 1966 the voters decided that they weren't going to pick the Tide #1 regardless. (For details, see "The Missing Ring" by Keith Dunnavant.)

Now, some 47 years later, the key decision makers in college football - primarily the conference commissioners, egged on by the national sports media - are about to make another significant change in the way that the college football national championship is awarded - the adoption of a "plus-one" style playoff system to augment the existing BCS bowl system. Money has something to do with this impending change, but the main driver is the embarrassment and irritation experienced by high profile sportswriters and commentators, such as Dennis Dodd, Gregg Doyel, Matt Hayes, and Steve Greenberg over Alabama's defeat of LSU. The supercilious pundits had the narrative all written in advance. LSU was supposed to win the 2011 BCS NC game. LSU had the Mad Hatter/Riverboat Gambler as coach; the most athletic speed; the most wins over top ten teams; the resilience to overcome off-the-field distractions, and, of course, the invincible "honey badger." What a farce all of this turned out to be. But, the malcontents had to do something with their residual "rematch" angst and with the dramatic undoing of their aborted LSU coronation, so they used their influence to support a modification to the NC selection method that is ostensibly for the purpose of promoting greater fairness in the crowning of a college football champion but is actually directed at thwarting a continuation of Alabama's epic dominance of the sport.
 
Last edited:

MOAN

All-American
Aug 30, 2010
2,375
130
78
Swearengin, Alabama, United States
They haven't done it, yet. But the only way the plus one would have hurt Bama this year is if the final four had to be conference champions. Now that is what some, even our former SEC commissioner is drumming for, but hopefully the current commissioner and presidents will see how ridicules that would be and what a big cans of worms it would open up down the road. ;)
 

Quicksilver

1st Team
Mar 13, 2010
392
30
43
Ellicott City, MD
@ GreyTide. Maybe, but that wouldn't account for the sports pundits' adoration for LSU prior to their collapse in the BCS NC game. This year, I found it difficult to seperate out the Nick Saban hate from the Alabama-specific hate. As much as people outside of the southeast are tired of SEC dominance, I do not think that you would see the current level of support for a modified playoff system absent Alabama's defeat of LSU.
 

GoBama#1

All-SEC
May 4, 2005
1,499
0
0
40
Midlothian, Virginia
They haven't done it, yet. But the only way the plus one would have hurt Bama this year is if the final four had to be conference champions. Now that is what some, even our former SEC commissioner is drumming for, but hopefully the current commissioner and presidents will see how ridicules that would be and what a big cans of worms it would open up down the road. ;)
Yes, because that would have hurt Stanford and Alabama. It takes away, not adds to, the value of the regular season. Are people saying that two loss Oregon and Wisconsin or Clemson with 2 plus losses were more worthy than Alabama because they won their conference? Absurd!

With Basketball, they conferences are not treated equally. Remember when 11/16 Big East teams got in the tournament last year but what was it, only 5 from the SEC (UF, UK, Vandy, UT and UGA?)

The SEC would have gotten two teams in a fair plus one because those two teams were the best two teams in America and from the strongest conference in the sport right now.
 

bnhonest

All-SEC
May 28, 2003
1,088
4
0
Vestavia Hills, Al, USA
The BCS contract is up in 2013, so the discussion would have likely been on the table any way. But for the many years weve had this BCS deal, weve been having this discussion. Now the willingness to change the system is a result of us winning the BCS the way we did, at least as I see it. I do think that that this is walking down a slippery, undeniable slope and actually plays right into the hands of the SEC. How often are we going to see half of the top four being SEC teams? So what are they going to do then? Expand it to eight? Even then, the likelyhood of the SEC filling three or four of those eight slots is a likely proposition.

I welcome the change. But i dont think it will have the desired effect the BCS is hoping for.
 

Lady Crimson

Suspended
Oct 13, 2011
474
0
0
This reminds me of when Tiger Woods first burst on the scene in the PGA, there were some changes made to some golf courses that were claimed to be an effort to make them "Tiger proof".

I also agree that there may be an effort to make changes made by some schools and conferences that could be aimed at making the BCS "Alabama proof"...
 
Last edited:

Black Warrior

Suspended
Mar 30, 2010
2,236
0
0
........and commentators, such as Dennis Dodd, Gregg Doyel, Matt Hayes, and Steve Greenberg over Alabama's defeat of LSU. The supercilious pundits had the narrative all written in advance. LSU was supposed to win the 2011 BCS NC game. LSU had the Mad Hatter/Riverboat Gambler as coach; the most athletic speed; the most wins over top ten teams; the resilience to overcome off-the-field distractions, and, of course, the invincible "honey badger." What a farce all of this turned out to be.......
They had History all planned out didn't they? Sorta like the guys at The Chicago Daily Tribune" did back in 1944....

 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
14,556
3,327
178
I think if we had lost the BCSCG, they would have kept the two team setup, but tried to find a way to tweak it so you didn't have two teams from the same league in the game.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
17,280
2,512
178
Greenbow, Alabama
IMO, like Cajun said above a +1 does not hurt the SEC, but limiting the +1 format to conference champions is an obvious attempt to limit the SEC to only one team. And I do agree that a proposed change is aimed at preventing what happened this year from happening again.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,419
1,077
178
40
www.myspace.com
Any changes to the BCS will ultimately hurt the SEC because of the simple fact that it will lead down to the path of inclusiveness. The fact is that the conference champs thing is probably the worst part of the BCS. Slive has to stand firm on the conference champs issue, but simply allowing the +1 is a step in the wrong direction. Doesn't the SEC pay attention to how many worthy teams are left out of the NCAA tournament because of silly automatic entrants? Or, now that the NCAA took over the NIT as well?

Also, for those saying that a +1 won't hurt the SEC, the Big-12 doesn't have a championship game, and in reality no conference has a schedule as difficult as the SEC. Piling more games on top of an already murderous SEC schedule is not equal to say, adding one more for the Big 12 or PAC 12.
 

willie52

All-American
Jan 25, 2008
2,120
70
63
Arab, AL
I don't think Notre Dame is going to like the conference champion rule. Get the towels ready because old Lou is going to sprinkle a lot of camera lens. If that comes to pass, there's going to be more than a few teams that will object.
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
7,336
1,022
178
Gadsden, Al.
Don't think it is aimed at Alabama, but the SEC.
:iagree:

This year was clearly a case of the SEC - Big Two, verses the rest of college football.
Other teams kinda eliminated themselves and the pundits weren't happy with what they saw as another SEC slug fest.
Previous years the SEC dominated whoever they played.
SO...
The Talking Heads and the Ink Guys decided to back another system to allow other teams to contend.
The problem with their reasoning is that the SEC will still have a chance to dominate.

If we had a playoff in 2009, Alabama would have won. :BigA:
If we had a playoff in 2010, Auburn would have won. (I don't have an upside down 'A')
We had a playoff this year... between Alabama and LSU, and ALABAMA WON. :BigA:
 
Last edited:

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,829
208
73
Cumming, GA
Solution. Win the SEC and don't get left out.

Question. What will they do at the end of the 2014 season after Bama has just won their 46th straight game and 4th straight NC? Oh wait, with a plus one in 2014, that will be 47 straight. How much sweeter would it be if that game was against OU, who holds the 47 straight record?
 
Last edited:

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,829
208
73
Cumming, GA
I

It's On A Slab

Guest
If it is aimed at Bama, I don't have a problem with it.

The BCS system we currently have is a sham system. At least with a Plus One arrangement, finishing #3 or #4 actually means something...unlike now, when it's just a consolation game of no importance. It is harder for a #5 team to argue that they should be included in the dance. But a #3 team is often undefeated(Auburn in 2003), and has a very strong case for inclusion.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,419
1,077
178
40
www.myspace.com
Solution. Win the SEC and don't get left out.
Honestly that's a ridiculous statement regarding a ridiculous proposal. The issue is two fold. A: What if the two best teams in the country are in the same conference? B: What if the best team in the country loses in a conference championship game?

First, the NCAA basketball tournament used to have a conference champs only system... until the #2 ranked team was left out. Repeating this lunacy is absurd. So, this year we would have seen LSU, one loss Okie St., two loss Oregon and one loss Boise St.
For those of you paying attention, here's your Roy Kramer +1 playoff:
#1 LSU vs #7 Boise St.
#3 Oklahoma St. vs #5 Oregon


For anyone that believes this is actually better than 1 vs 2, you are too stupid to participate further in the discussion. I'm sorry if that offends anyone (ok, no I'm not) but the suggestion of a prime numbers playoff is pretty much fighting words to me.

The BCS's conference rules have already been dragging it down. #6 Arkansas wasn't able to play in a BCS game, but #23 West Virginia and #15 Clemson were. This lead to the lowest rated BCS game ever! Dump the crap conferences (WAC, Sun Belt, and MAC), break the BCS title game away from the rest of the bowls, move the focus back towards the first, and you'll have renewed interest in bowl season. Do not expand on what is already wrong with the BCS! Don't double down on stupid... Sadly, any +1 is going to march us in this direction eventually, as it's all about inclusion and if you open the box, every conference is going to want inclusion.

Not all of this is directed at you, obviously... but the whole just win your conference thing, coupled with the +1 is horrendous. It's like fixing a leaky roof by tearing the whole thing off and saying: "There, your roof doesn't leak anymore". Logically, LSU was the only team worthy of a championship in the regular season of 2011. Everyone else lost, and considering the fact that LSU beat two conference champs along the way (along with the #2 and #6 teams), their resume was excellent. But, we have the BCS and the title game is played for a reason, as we saw this year. To say that because Alabama lost to the #1 team, they should be excluded, but OSU's loss to 7 loss team was ok, is absurd. If we're not going to just give the trophy to LSU, we do have to insure that the way to decide things is the best possible.

The BCS pitted #1 vs #2 and it got things right. This Kramer +1 would have been wrong, horribly wrong, because as we know the best team in the country would have been excluded. Heck, the third best team in the country (arguably) would have been excluded to. So, it's easy to be flippant and say "just win your conference", but I can as easily say "just win all your games". If Stanford, Oklahoma St., and so on would have done that they would have played in the game instead. They didn't, and the system we have got it right.

I look at Sagarin's rankings and you know what I see?
I see I Alabama #1, LSU #2, and Oklahoma St #3.
I go over to the NFL and I see New England at #1 and New Orleans at #2 (they blew out the Giants by 25 points).
I go to college basketball and I see Ohio St #1, Kansas #2 and Duke #3 (Uconn beat none of those)

Why are we in such a hurry to ruin the championship process that works the best of all the major sports? What kind of lunacy are we possessed with that tells some of us that a four team playoff with #1, #3, #5 and #7 is better than 1 vs 2, or that a system that worked perfectly this year and has most consistently given us the best team as champion is the most flawed while they crown mediocrity as champion in other sports? The reason is simple, we want inclusion for everyone, not just the southeast. We want more teams, even unworthy teams, involved and most playoff advocates want conference champs since this means the undeserving teams just have to beat a collection of nobodies to participate in their dream post season.

The bottom line is this, ANY post season that mandates automatic entrants based on winning a division or conference, or uses that as the sole criteria is flawed. The Seahawks has a losing record in 2010, yet they hosted a home game playoff! Yet, 10-6 Tampa Bay, who beat the Seahawks by 23 points and had the same record as eventual Super Bowl champs Green Bay, was left out of the playoffs. I could give numerous examples, but if you want to improve things, you start by releasing the conference champions/divisional winners obligations, you do not make more of them! Finally, the logic that this improves value of the regular season is flawed. No it doesn't. What did the Seahawks regular season in 2010 ultimately mean? It meant you could lose more than you won and still make the playoffs. Kramer's +1 would be similarly stupid. Telling us that you could lose twice, or to a 7 loss team but you still get your shot at a championship. Nope, that doesn't enhance the regular season, it turns it into a farce.

Edit:
The BCS system we currently have is a sham system. At least with a Plus One arrangement, finishing #3 or #4 actually means something...unlike now, when it's just a consolation game of no importance. It is harder for a #5 team to argue that they should be included in the dance. But a #3 team is often undefeated(Auburn in 2003), and has a very strong case for inclusion. .
Given your leanings on the non-sports part of the forum, I get why you'd be for inclusion. However, this statement isn't really true. Auburn was the exception to the rule and it's actually rather uncommon to see an undefeated #3 leading up to the BCS title game. Of the instances that happened, they rarely stay unbeaten (like Cincy in 2009 who got slaughtered by Florida). Generally, it's the resting place of one loss very good teams or undefeated cupcake conference teams. You basically named the only instance in BCS history in which a team had a completely legit argument all the way through but was denied their chance. However, they scheduled a FCS, Sun Belt and WAC team as OCC so it was their own fault. Much more often, a +1 would mean inclusion for completely unworthy teams and you'd still have teams like Utah in 2008 left out anyway...
 
Last edited:

TF Shop : NATIONAL CHAMP GEAR!

TideFans.Shop up to 60% off!!

TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!
TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!
TideFans.Shop - Get your Bama Championship gear here!

Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads