Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

[GP for Bama]

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.

The Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to strongly push for a Plus One format that only lets the 4 highest ranked conference champions play.

 

[HitMan54]

It's time for a change any way you look at it. Too many schools have been left out of this broken system.

Politics and popularity mixed with opinion has no place in sports. Voters and the mystery BCS computers shouldn't get to decide who goes where.

Yes some regular season games will not matter AS much but pretty much the same.

Poor aub was left out in 2004 because of the LA media monster. Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams would given uSC a run for their money. But we'll never know.

Let's just do something besides what is being used.

 

[crimsonbleeder]

Krazy...ty so much for your thoughtful post.

I'm tired of the kneejerk looneys trying to argue for a playoff over and over and over. Thanks for being perfect in your reply.

 

[BamaPride1979]

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.

My only thing is if they going to have it where they are conference champions in the top four they need to make sure every conference has a Championship game so that it will be fair for the conferences that do have a conference title game. Prime example had people say that Oklahoma State should have went this year over Bama cause we did not win our conference game. Last I checked their record was identical to ours and they do not have conference title game. Just Saying

 

[GoBama#1]

The Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to strongly push for a Plus One format that only lets the 4 highest ranked conference champions play.

That would be very short sighted of them. Back in 06 the Big 10 would have had two teams in a plus one, OSU and Michigan. In an attempt to screw the SEC they will one day screw themselves.

That system is extremely flawed. What if UGA had upset LSU. Then Alabama, Stanford, LSU and Arkansas all would have been left out but Oregon, Boise and Wisconsin would have been in.

You realize that under that situation, LSU, Alabama and Arkansas still may have been three of the top 5 ranked teams in America and all on the outside looking in.

Sorry but I see this as a really bad knee jerk reaction to a one time situation if they only allow conference champions.

 

[Crimson1967]

In 2004 USC and Oklahoma began the season as 1-2 and each won every game. API was back in the pack to start the year. That's why they were left out and were only #3 at the end.

 

[KrAzY3]

In 2004 USC and Oklahoma began the season as 1-2 and each won every game. API was back in the pack to start the year. That's why they were left out and were only #3 at the end.

I can't believe I saw "poor aub" on this forum...
They scheduled a WAC team, a FCS team, and a Sun Belt team. This wasn't scheduling Michigan on a down year, this was intentionally scheduling cupcakes. Yes, they won them all but it didn't mean as much. Those mystery computers would have rewarded Auburn had they increased their SoS, they didn't. They had an SoS of 60, that's not some mystery thing, that's a pretty straight forward formula that tells you they played a weak schedule. USC had a 7, and Oklahoma had a 13.

So, while I will readily admit that Auburn is the exception as a team that did have somewhat of an argument... I do not feel sorry for them, and I do feel they took the easy route to going undefeated (just like Boise St. has for years) and in doing so gave themselves a fairly meaningless undefeated system. I certainly wouldn't change the system just because Auburn decided to schedule Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech, on a year they already had Kentucky on their schedule along with home games against Arkansas and LSU (their toughest test/game, which they won in an unconvincing 10-9 fashion).

For the sake of being reasonable, I will agree Auburn was pretty much the exception, the best argument for a +1. I will agree they had some sort of an argument for being included. However, while the best example, it's still not a very good one and I certainly won't stoop so low as to feel pity for a team that obviously designed that schedule to give them the best chance at going undefeated... not of proving themselves championship worthy. There's a big difference, or at least should be.

 

[MOAN]

If only conference champions are allowed in a playoff then it will go against every other playoff system I've ever heard of in any sport amateur or pro. Maybe there is one and I am sure someone will point it out if there is. Then comes the problem of deciding which 4 conferences is the best, which comes right back to subjective opinions which we already have with the current BCS system. The madness would not stop until we have a full blown 16 or 32 team playoff.

 

[mittman]

If only conference champions are allowed in a playoff then it will go against every other playoff system I've ever heard of in any sport amateur or pro. Maybe there is one and I am sure someone will point it out if there is. Then comes the problem of deciding which 4 conferences is the best, which comes right back to subjective opinions which we already have with the current BCS system. The madness would not stop until we have a full blown 16 or 32 team playoff.

I believe any effort to put a conference champion limitation is an effort to do exactly that, force an eventual expansion beyond a +1.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

The conference champions only rule is an arbitrary standard and allows those trenching towards the foundation of the BCS on antitrust grounds to dig ever so closer.

If this weren't a serious issue, the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Tournaments would never have expanded to include "at-large" bids.

It will not happen and if it does, expect the whole system to come crashing down before a US District Judge.

 

[KrAzY3]

If this weren't a serious issue, the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Tournaments would never have expanded to include "at-large" bids.

I already addressed it. They changed things to address #2 USC being left out of the NCAA basketball tournament. Of course it's a serious issue, but stupidity is common or else they never would have had the system in the first place, and Kramer wouldn't be suggesting 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 to determine a champion.

Do not give them too much credit or expect too much. If they change things, it's likely going to make things worse, if not immediately in the future. See the MLB one game playoff they just introduced if you don't think that's the case. I doubt they can ram it down our throats this round, I think we'll gleefully go for a top 4 plus one and one day realize we're seeing a #20 something ranked Big East team playing in a post season playoff and wondering how things got this bad...

 

[GulfCoastTider]

Do not give them too much credit or expect too much. If they change things, it's likely going to make things worse, if not immediately in the future. See the MLB one game playoff they just introduced if you don't think that's the case. I doubt they can ram it down our throats this round, I think we'll gleefully go for a top 4 plus one and one day realize we're seeing a #20 something ranked Big East team playing in a post season playoff and wondering how things got this bad...

I don't think we'll ever see things get beyond a Final Four. Absolutely no one who makes these decisions favors expanding to 8 or 16 teams.

I believe it will go to a Final Four, and there will be a pitched battle over whether the mini-bracket should exclude those who didn't win their conference. I am hopeful that the lawyers who are helping the BCS commissioners protect their anti-trust exemption will point out that they cannot arbitrarily set such a standard for participation in an activity that enjoys exemption from federal taxation.

 

[GP for Bama]

That would be very short sighted of them. Back in 06 the Big 10 would have had two teams in a plus one, OSU and Michigan. In an attempt to screw the SEC they will one day screw themselves.

That system is extremely flawed. What if UGA had upset LSU. Then Alabama, Stanford, LSU and Arkansas all would have been left out but Oregon, Boise and Wisconsin would have been in.

You realize that under that situation, LSU, Alabama and Arkansas still may have been three of the top 5 ranked teams in America and all on the outside looking in.

Sorry but I see this as a really bad knee jerk reaction to a one time situation if they only allow conference champions.

I agree with you, but expect the Pac 12, Big Ten and probably the Big 12 to support a conference champion only format. To make matters worse they will probably include a "Notre Dame Exception" where the Irish get to go if they are ranked ahead of a conference champion.

 

[Gallowglas]

I'm all for a plus-one, but the conference championship requirement is just silly. First, it punishes conferences like the SEC that are loaded with talented teams, but it also favors smaller conferences, which is entirely counter-point to recent conference realignments and also, again, punishes the SEC. Frankly, I think it takes us a step backwards instead of a step forward like I think a normal, unvarnished, BCS-ranking plus-one would give us.

 

[KrAzY3]

I don't think we'll ever see things get beyond a Final Four. Absolutely no one who makes these decisions favors expanding to 8 or 16 teams.

In 1991, do you think anyone really imagined a 4 team playoff? If they go towards a 4 team playoff you are right in that it will likely end up with just the top four (but they'll probably sneak in a no 3 from one conference rule). But, once the major conferences start to see they are regularly left out, the pressure (which already exists in great deal, I've seen and heard many people here, on ESPN, etc... state their ultimate goal is 8 or more) to expand further will set in. It happened to the MLB, NCAA, NFL, etc... it will happen to college football if this line is crossed.

You can't unring this bell. If there's a playoff, college football will no longer be different from the other major sports. And, ultimately it will place the things that make it so different (generally crowning the best team champion, bowls, polls, etc...) on the path to extinction. I've heard so many times about how everyone else has a playoff. Well, guess what? Everyone else has a system that includes conference/division champs. If you think the two can remain apart forever you're being quite unrealistic.

The only way to prevent this from happening ultimately, is for more people to put their foot down and say, I want to preserve the bowl games, I want the regular season to matter, and I want the most worthy teams to play for a championship. What can't happen, is this kneejerk support for a playoff and this manipulated anti-BCS lunacy the AP is spreading (which gives a rubber stamp to the NCAA basketball playoffs) be allowed to prevail. I'm not completely anti-plus one. I just know what it will really become, and what people really intend for it to be. It's for the sake of inclusion, not excellence and in practice it will not do a better job of crowning a deserving champion. All it will do, is put us one small step away from destroying what's best about college football.

The ultimate goal for many, is to make it less about excellence and more about inclusion. Study over what has happened to all the other playoffs and show me where I'm wrong. It's ultimately an ideal, a belief system which says more should have a chance and that being great shouldn't mean so much.

 

[CajunCrimson]

The Conference Champion only argument will end when the Big 10 or Pac 10 ends the season #1 and #2, and #5 Bama gets bumped up into the Top 4 -- then they will want to change it again.....

 

[Crimson1967]

I can't believe I saw "poor aub" on this forum...
They scheduled a WAC team, a FCS team, and a Sun Belt team. This wasn't scheduling Michigan on a down year, this was intentionally scheduling cupcakes. Yes, they won them all but it didn't mean as much. Those mystery computers would have rewarded Auburn had they increased their SoS, they didn't. They had an SoS of 60, that's not some mystery thing, that's a pretty straight forward formula that tells you they played a weak schedule. USC had a 7, and Oklahoma had a 13.

So, while I will readily admit that Auburn is the exception as a team that did have somewhat of an argument... I do not feel sorry for them, and I do feel they took the easy route to going undefeated (just like Boise St. has for years) and in doing so gave themselves a fairly meaningless undefeated system. I certainly wouldn't change the system just because Auburn decided to schedule Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech, on a year they already had Kentucky on their schedule along with home games against Arkansas and LSU (their toughest test/game, which they won in an unconvincing 10-9 fashion).

For the sake of being reasonable, I will agree Auburn was pretty much the exception, the best argument for a +1. I will agree they had some sort of an argument for being included. However, while the best example, it's still not a very good one and I certainly won't stoop so low as to feel pity for a team that obviously designed that schedule to give them the best chance at going undefeated... not of proving themselves championship worthy. There's a big difference, or at least should be.

I wasn't bemoaning their fate, I actually got a chuckle from it and still do whenever I read Scarbo whining about it. My point is a team that starts out ranked #17 (or whatever they were) is unlikely to pass undefeated teams that start out in the top two. Yes, their schedule hurt them, but they were unlikely to pass USC or Oklahoma if with a decent non-conference opponent.

 

[thunderz7]

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 Cotton Bowl.


After the 64 season we played Texas in the Orange Bowl.
I knew then and still know now, Joe Willie scored.

 

[Quicksilver]

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 Cotton Bowl.


After the 64 season we played Texas in the Orange Bowl.
I knew then and still know now, Joe Willie scored.

Thanks for the correction. I went back and made the bowl name change. Namath wouldn't have said he scored if he didn't. I'll always believe him too.

 

[BayouBama75]

Actually I think UPI changed theirs in 1973 after Bama won their Nat Championship and the lost to ND in the Sugar Bowl. The next year the UPI champ was crowned after the bowl