Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

[MOAN]

The South is not really that far removed from the Civil War, slavery and the Civil Rights era's to not still feel the prejudices of the North, Big 10/11/12 influences. Now that the SEC is dominating, the jealousy is becoming more obvious. The 60,70,80,90 year old men in charge today who were influenced by their 60,70,80,90 year old fathers who were influenced by their 60,70,80,90 year old fathers who lived during the Civil War and slavery, still have biases against the South even if they deny it. They think they are better than us as a people plain and simple.

If Alabama and the SEC is down they have no beef with the rules. Just go back to when the Rose bowl made their rules to keep Southern teams out. Its our history haunting us again. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis16.html

 

[Quicksilver]

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.

I'm going to laugh if they make a rule that allows only conference champions to play in the title game and that rule ends up costing Notre Dame an opportunity to compete for a national championship. Of course, that scenario could only unfold if Notre Dame ever again fields a team worthy of NC consideration, but I digress.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Hi Pride, thanks for replying.

While I agree with most of your points, the fact that it was the SEC and Alabama that benefited from the current system is part of what has everybody on board for the +1 all of a sudden.

But here - to me - has to be the absolutely FUNNIEST part - when the SEC invoked the conference title game in 1992, there were warnings all over the place. "Don't do it - it will make an already extremely difficult task impossible." Keep in mind that Alabama was tied with a four-loss Florida team with a little over 3 minutes to go in that game. The other conferences were kinda laughing because it was going to put us in a fix. Now we all know, of course, that the difference from first to last in the SEC divisions is really NOT that far.

Here's some proof:

1995 - Arkansas won West, last in 1996
1996 - Alabama won West, last in 1997
1997 - Auburn won West, last in 1998
1999 - Alabama won West, last in 2000

While the argument can be made, "Well, those teams lost a bunch of seniors," that should not turn you from a 9-win team into a 3-win team.

So the conference title was going to hurt us. But then something happened - in the first 20 years of its existence there has only been ONE REAL UPSET in the SEC title game, LSU over Tennessee in 2001. The cream has risen to the top.

Remember, Slive introduce this 4-5 years ago and the only other commissioner that was in favor of it was the ACC. The Big 12 was adamantly against it. At the time, the PTB in the Big 12 could not foresee the almost demise of their conference and then a year later Ok State being the bell cow of the conference. They believed that either Texas or Oklahoma would be the conference champ most years.

All that is true. The Big XII would STILL be against it had nobody come close for them last year - because neither Texas nor OU wants to risk that extra game (insert 2001 Colorado upset over UT here). But they're on board now. To say it's a Bama thing is kinda crazy (not that you were).

Now - is there some "stop the SEC" to it? Sure.

You know what's funny? There's an EASIER way to do it. Simply schedule home and home games with the SEC and then BEAT THEM!!! I mean, you have to beat them anyway, so why not schedule them and take them out of the running by hoping you get them on an off day?

If this past season had played out basically the same way with Texas and Oklahoma as #1 and #2 and say Miss St at #3 having only one loss to Vandy (of course Bama, LSU, and Arky would have to have a down year), the outrage would have mostly come from SEC fans. Also, those that were so firmly against a rematch of LSU-Alabama (because Alabama already had their shot at the #1 team) would not have batted an eye if the rematch had been between LSU and a one-loss Oregon team that had already had their shot at the #1 team. Many of the sports media were actively promoting this match-up until 11/19.

Yeah, and you know the funny thing about that? They were touting that and then the moment Oregon lost they shifted gears and said, "no rematches." After talking non-stop about it for two weeks.

I think there has been enough commentary from other schools, conferences, boosters and national sports media to support the notion that the success of the SEC (and Alabama) and the fact that it doesn't look like its going to stop anytime soon have galvanized the college football world to ensure that this does not happen again.

I agree they're trying to stop the SEC, but let's not turn it into an anti-Bama thing.

 

[Quicksilver]

That said - this is NOT a "stop Alabama" thing. It is - to a degree - a "stop the SEC" thing. Alabama was not on anybody's radar until four years ago. This is MOSTLY Big XII driven.

I do believe strongly that the current wave of support for a Plus One playoff system is an anti-Alabama/anti-Nick Saban thing. Certainly the debate is not new, but the fact that conference commissioners who have historically been opposed to any kind of playoff for college football have come out in favor of a post-BCS bowl season championship game indicates to me that that the national conversation has reached a tipping point. Would that tipping point have arrived without Alabama being the team that "double dipped" against LSU and won the NC? My answer is no. Consider the scenario described by CrimsonPride in post # 48. Alabama beats LSU in the regular season; Alabama goes to the SEC CG, and wins; LSU wins the remainder of their regular season games and is voted under the BCS formula as Alabama's opponent in the BSC NC game. Then LSU beats Alabama for the national title. Does anyone really think that, in that case, the same hue and cry would have gone up to make 2012 "the year" for a Plus One game? Not a chance. Gary Danielson, Brent Musburger, and the ESPN talking heads would have considered themselves vindicated in all their "Honey Badger" adulation and, while there would have been the usual grumbling about SEC dominance, the BCS system would continued as before.

 

[ALA2262]

I do believe strongly that the current wave of support for a Plus One playoff system is an anti-Alabama/anti-Nick Saban thing. Certainly the debate is not new, but the fact that conference commissioners who have historically been opposed to any kind of playoff for college football have come out in favor of a post-BCS bowl season championship game indicates to me that that the national conversation has reached a tipping point. Would that tipping point have arrived without Alabama being the team that "double dipped" against LSU and won the NC? My answer is no. Consider the scenario described by CrimsonPride in post # 48. Alabama beats LSU in the regular season; Alabama goes to the SEC CG, and wins; LSU wins the remainder of their regular season games and is voted under the BCS formula as Alabama's opponent in the BSC NC game. Then LSU beats Alabama for the national title. Does anyone really think that, in that case, the same hue and cry would have gone up to make 2012 "the year" for a Plus One game? Not a chance. Gary Danielson, Brent Musburger, and the ESPN talking heads would have considered themselves vindicated in all their "Honey Badger" adulation and, while there would have been the usual grumbling about SEC dominance, the BCS system would continued as before.

You are exactly correct IMO and to further emphasize your point let's don't forget about the rematch talk. All of that started out positive BEFORE the 11/5 game because they all thought LSU was going to lose. It immediately turned negative as soon as LSU kicked the FG to win in OT.

 

[dadleyblane5]

I agree , whole heartedly Quicksilver.

 

[GrayTide]

I do believe strongly that the current wave of support for a Plus One playoff system is an anti-Alabama/anti-Nick Saban thing. Certainly the debate is not new, but the fact that conference commissioners who have historically been opposed to any kind of playoff for college football have come out in favor of a post-BCS bowl season championship game indicates to me that that the national conversation has reached a tipping point. Would that tipping point have arrived without Alabama being the team that "double dipped" against LSU and won the NC? My answer is no. Consider the scenario described by CrimsonPride in post # 48. Alabama beats LSU in the regular season; Alabama goes to the SEC CG, and wins; LSU wins the remainder of their regular season games and is voted under the BCS formula as Alabama's opponent in the BSC NC game. Then LSU beats Alabama for the national title. Does anyone really think that, in that case, the same hue and cry would have gone up to make 2012 "the year" for a Plus One game? Not a chance. Gary Danielson, Brent Musburger, and the ESPN talking heads would have considered themselves vindicated in all their "Honey Badger" adulation and, while there would have been the usual grumbling about SEC dominance, the BCS system would continued as before.

I agree with this to the point that it reinforces the other BCS conferences jealousy of the SEC in general and Alabama in particular. I still envision a plan to limit the number of conference represenatives in a +1 scenario to insure what happened last year doesn't happen again. As for Notre Dame, I would bet on some loophole that would get them into the +1.

 

[ALA2262]

I agree with this to the point that it reinforces the other BCS conferences jealousy of the SEC in general and Alabama in particular. I still envision a plan to limit the number of conference represenatives in a +1 scenario to insure what happened last year doesn't happen again. As for Notre Dame, I would bet on some loophole that would get them into the +1.

If ND is ranked in the Top 12, they will be in the Plus One. Bank on it!

 

[GP for Bama]

If ND is ranked in the Top 12, they will be in the Plus One. Bank on it!

This is a sad fact. I can only hope they make Notre Dame join a conference. Notre Dame should never be allowed into a plus-one if any other at-large(not conference champion) team is ranked higher.
However, I fully expect there to be a "Notre Dame Exception":mad2:

 

[GulfCoastTider]

This is a sad fact. I can only hope they make Notre Dame join a conference. Notre Dame should never be allowed into a plus-one if any other at-large(not conference champion) team is ranked higher.
However, I fully expect there to be a "Notre Dame Exception":mad2:

I think the Notre Dame situation is another nail in the coffin for the conference champions only rule.

If Notre Dame is not in a conference, then by definition they cannot be a conference champion and would be ineligible for inclusion in the four team bracket. If they make an exception to the rule for Notre Dame, then one school gets a benefit that schools from all other conferences don't. That's going nowhere.

I still think that the arbitrary nature of the conference champions only rule is what will do it in. That is such an arbitrary standard that it only makes people like the Utah Attorney General more eager to sue on antitrust grounds. The BCS is vulnerable to antitrust litigation because it arbitrarily limits competition. Further limiting competition through yet another arbitrary rule makes their condition worse, not better.

There's a big difference between "winning the case" and "not getting sued," and the BCS decision-makers are (hopefully) will be counseled to avoid the risk of the former by simply avoiding the latter altogether.

 

[crimsonbleeder]

i missed stewart mandel's article in SI yesterday, but he stresses a lot of the points that Krazy and many of us anti-playoff folks are worried about:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/28/conference-champion-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

 

[CrimsonPride]

This is a sad fact. I can only hope they make Notre Dame join a conference. Notre Dame should never be allowed into a plus-one if any other at-large(not conference champion) team is ranked higher.
However, I fully expect there to be a "Notre Dame Exception":mad2:

I agree with you, but it will never happens as long as conferences like the Big East allows Notre Dame's other sports to have conference affiliations. With their other sports taken care of, their football program can sustain on its own. The only leverage to use against them would to be for their other sports to have no where to go.

 

[CrimsonPride]

I think the Notre Dame situation is another nail in the coffin for the conference champions only rule.

If Notre Dame is not in a conference, then by definition they cannot be a conference champion and would be ineligible for inclusion in the four team bracket. If they make an exception to the rule for Notre Dame, then one school gets a benefit that schools from all other conferences don't. That's going nowhere.

Very good point. I hope Slive and the other commissioners realized and stand firm on this. They should be advocates for their member schools above all else and regardless of the prestige, Notre Dame is not one.

The fact that ND is even included in the BCS meetings on this tells me that they are not going to left out of the four team bracket. They will get a special exception like they always do.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I do believe strongly that the current wave of support for a Plus One playoff system is an anti-Alabama/anti-Nick Saban thing.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think evidence for this is lacking.

Certainly the debate is not new, but the fact that conference commissioners who have historically been opposed to any kind of playoff for college football have come out in favor of a post-BCS bowl season championship game indicates to me that that the national conversation has reached a tipping point.

But you have to take the following things into account:
1) The Big XII commissioner is not the same guy.
2) The Big Ten-Pac 12 cartel figures this will lock down their precious Rose Bowl forever.
3) You had more conferences involved in the carnage this go around who feel they have
legitimate gripes. (Whether or not they do in reality is beside the point).

Would that tipping point have arrived without Alabama being the team that "double dipped" against LSU and won the NC?

Absolutely.

My answer is no. Consider the scenario described by CrimsonPride in post # 48. Alabama beats LSU in the regular season; Alabama goes to the SEC CG, and wins; LSU wins the remainder of their regular season games and is voted under the BCS formula as Alabama's opponent in the BSC NC game. Then LSU beats Alabama for the national title. Does anyone really think that, in that case, the same hue and cry would have gone up to make 2012 "the year" for a Plus One game?

Absolutely.

You seriously think for even a moment that anyone in Stillwater or Stanford would have been ok
with LSU getting in ahead of them?

Not a chance. Gary Danielson, Brent Musburger, and the ESPN talking heads would have considered themselves vindicated in all their "Honey Badger" adulation and, while there would have been the usual grumbling about SEC dominance, the BCS system would continued as before.

These are two different groups of people that you're treating as one.

Honey Badger is the most overrated POS to ever play college football. Folks, he's not that good. He is living proof that if you hype somebody long enough they will do well in the Heisman vote.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

i missed stewart mandel's article in SI yesterday, but he stresses a lot of the points that Krazy and many of us anti-playoff folks are worried about:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

Great read! Thanks...

 

[GulfCoastTider]

Great read! Thanks...

It was a great read and I like Mandel. He is much more reasonable and much more conservative when it comes to advocating a playoff. I do NOT like the way Wetzel and Staples have become playoff zealots.

Krazy, Crimsonbleeder and others sharing their view need to be listened to. The stakes involved could not be greater, and these guys have articulated several concerns that need to be dealt with. Given the stakes and given the hysteria out there, you can't underestimate the potential to screw this up and ruin our favorite sport.

Mandel likes baby steps. Careful, well planned baby steps. I like that, too.

 

[Quicksilver]

@Selmaborntidefan. Just acouple of additional points. I have no idea what any disgruntlement at Oklahoma or Stanford (hypothetical or actual) has to do with the subject under discussion. Nothing that the fans at either of those two schools might have said or done would have moved the needle on BCS reform the way Alabama did with their thrashing of LSU. I am saying in my initial post - and elsewhere in this thread – two things. First, that the Plus One idea has finally gained traction after decades of debate. Second, that it has gained traction specifically because Alabama was the team that took a "special path" to get to the 2011 NC game, and Alabama that ended up embarrassing the national sports media. No other team, historically or presently, galls the self-appointed college football “opinion makers” like Alabama.

As for treating "two different groups of people as one," I quite intended to do exactly that, your pedantic reproof notwithstanding. With a couple of exceptions, the CBS broadcasters and the ESPN writers were, in fact, all of the same ilk regarding the supposed superiority of the 2011 LSU team and deserve to be lumped together.

 

[GrayTide]

This entire matter can be resolved simply by having the top 4 ranked teams in the final BCS poll be the +1 participants with no caveats or loop holes. My only complaint is that the overall conference strength should be included in the formula together with the individual team's strength of schedule.

 

[capnfrog]

This entire matter can be resolved simply by having the top 4 ranked teams in the final BCS poll be the +1 participants with no caveats or loop holes. My only complaint is that the overall conference strength should be included in the formula together with the individual team's strength of schedule.

I agree, and let it end there. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Quit worrying about who won their conference or if Notre Dame should be treated special. Ranked accordingly with their SOS, the top four teams in the final BCS poll.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

No other team, historically or presently, galls the self-appointed college football “opinion makers” like Alabama.

That is the Statement of the Year™©®

I would also add that no other coach galls the self-appointed opinion makers more than Nick Saban.

Alabama and Nick Saban together have the capability of igniting head explosions unlike any I've ever seen.