Toggle sidebar

Link: Future Play-Off System

alwayshavebeen

alwayshavebeen

All-SEC
Sep 22, 2013
1,231
146
87
North Carolina
I know this is a Big Game Week and that is way more important right now, but having read this article and just based on what it says, I have serious concerns in terms of how this will effect the SEC. There is plenty left to be determined but on the surface I just wonder after strengthening schedules combined with the already brutal conference how this is going to play out. Going undefeated in the SEC is near impossible, but not so in other conferences (or for our Independent friends who play part time in the mighty acc) If it were a 8-team playoff I would be far more comfortable that the SEC would not be hurt by "beating ourselves up". The BCS isn't perfect but it did a pretty decent job of picking the top 2 teams imo http://espn.go.com/college-football...-committee-expected-finalized-end-2013-season
 
Unless Jim Delany ends up on the committee, I don't think this will hurt the SEC as much as you'd think.

I doubt scheduling changes much. Most other BCS conference teams aren't going to rush to add difficult games for the reason you mention - its already difficult enough to go undefeated; why make it harder? They also value the extra home game that scheduling a patsy provides them.

Until the rest of the college football world can beat them, the SEC will continue to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to play-off participation.

I will be interested to see the make-up of the selection committee though. And I'd like to see them make their individual votes public the 3 to 5 five times a year they release rankings.
 
ALA2262 said:
If that concerns you, then don't read this.

"The selection committee will receive a "jury charge" from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players."


http://espn.go.com/college-football...off-selection-committee-consist-14-20-members
Click to expand...

That "lost because of injuries" garbage is ridiculous. HOW DO YOU KNOW if a team lost because of injuries? Wouldn't it make more sense to say "lost because of horrible officiating?"

The Colt McCoy Clause is ludicrous and is among many things that need to be dropped.
 
tidefanbeezer said:
Unless Jim Delany ends up on the committee, I don't think this will hurt the SEC as much as you'd think.

I doubt scheduling changes much. Most other BCS conference teams aren't going to rush to add difficult games for the reason you mention - its already difficult enough to go undefeated; why make it harder? They also value the extra home game that scheduling a patsy provides them.

Until the rest of the college football world can beat them, the SEC will continue to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to play-off participation.

I will be interested to see the make-up of the selection committee though. And I'd like to see them make their individual votes public the 3 to 5 five times a year they release rankings.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt the SEC Champ is in no matter what. It's the 2,3, 4 spots I think we could be left out of even if we have a team that truly is one of the four best in the country. JMO
 
Message from the PAC 12: we are tired of playing the champion from the Big 10 conference. That conference has become steadily weaker over the years. The conference had to play unsatisfying games against overmatched Wisconsin teams in the Rose Bowl the past 2 years. Much rather face the SEC. Better yet, get rid of the 'contract' bowls. I think people would rather see top 10 teams face off against each other in the other bowl games rather than the conference champions, as the conference champions from some of the conferences may be ranked #18, #23, maybe even not ranked at all.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, we're as tired of our best bowls being against nothing but the ACC and Big Ten too. I've been wanting to play more PAC-12 teams.
 
oregonbltzkrieg;2232117. Better yet said:
Totally agree with this part of your comment. Do away with all tie-ins between conferences and bowls. Let the best teams play in the bowls regardless of conference. For example, after the 4 teams are picked for the so called playoff then have #5 play #6, #7 play # 8 etc.
Click to expand...
 
Have to agree on discontinuing the tie-ins. I would much rather see top ten schools playing each other with complete disregard for geographical boundaries or conference affiliations. Say the runner up of the SEC could play the runner up of the PAC12 if they are both in the top ten*. It would certainly be a better game than some over-hyped Big 10 team or ND.


*Of course I am assuming the winner of the SEC would be playing in the playoff.
 
My biggest concern is with the SEC playing a Championship game. That pretty much puts the best 2 teams in the SEC
up against each other. To me that pretty much makes sure that the SEC will never have 2 teams in the 4 team playoff.
This is the reason The Big 12 has said they will not play a championship game ever again. Why beat yourself out of
having 2 teams in the playoff and you also 2 big paychecks. This entire 4 team playoff is nothing more than a FIX by the
Big 12 , PAC 12 , Big 10 and others . They were so tired of the SEC getting the NC's plus the money. If you remember all of this started when it was Alabama and LSU for the BCSNC. The rest of the country was up in arms over it.
When the BCS system big what it was suppose to do, put the 2 best teams in the nation up against each other.
With the SEC playing a Championship game you will never see 2 SEC teams in the 4 team playoff. And they have a built in excuse as to why. Just set back and watch and this will all come true in 2014. It was all part of plan to begin with.
Plus the SEC agreed to it before ever knowing much about it, that just blew me away. That the SEC would go for this 4 team deal and not even know how the teams would picked or nothing. And it may very well come back and bite us in the backsides for sure. It all boils down to money and the SEC football teams have been bringing in the money for sure.
And the rest of the football conferences were not so happy about it at all. Some people may disagree with me on this issue and it is your right to do so. But you can't disagree with the fact that the #1 team in the SEC and the #2 team in the SEC will beat one of each other for sure. And the looser of the SECCG will be knocked out of the 4 team playoff. And that the conference that does not play a CG will have a huge advantage other those that do. The human committe that will make the team selections will be just that Human. And we as Bama fans know how that has turned out for us in the past.
Just how I see it working out for Bama and the entire SEC as a whole.
 
RollTide4Ever said:
My biggest concern is with the SEC playing a Championship game. That pretty much puts the best 2 teams in the SEC
up against each other. To me that pretty much makes sure that the SEC will never have 2 teams in the 4 team playoff.
This is the reason The Big 12 has said they will not play a championship game ever again. Why beat yourself out of
having 2 teams in the playoff and you also 2 big paychecks. This entire 4 team playoff is nothing more than a FIX by the
Big 12 , PAC 12 , Big 10 and others . They were so tired of the SEC getting the NC's plus the money. If you remember all of this started when it was Alabama and LSU for the BCSNC. The rest of the country was up in arms over it.
When the BCS system big what it was suppose to do, put the 2 best teams in the nation up against each other.
With the SEC playing a Championship game you will never see 2 SEC teams in the 4 team playoff. And they have a built in excuse as to why. Just set back and watch and this will all come true in 2014. It was all part of plan to begin with.
Plus the SEC agreed to it before ever knowing much about it, that just blew me away. That the SEC would go for this 4 team deal and not even know how the teams would picked or nothing. And it may very well come back and bite us in the backsides for sure. It all boils down to money and the SEC football teams have been bringing in the money for sure.
And the rest of the football conferences were not so happy about it at all. Some people may disagree with me on this issue and it is your right to do so. But you can't disagree with the fact that the #1 team in the SEC and the #2 team in the SEC will beat one of each other for sure. And the looser of the SECCG will be knocked out of the 4 team playoff. And that the conference that does not play a CG will have a huge advantage other those that do. The human committe that will make the team selections will be just that Human. And we as Bama fans know how that has turned out for us in the past.
Just how I see it working out for Bama and the entire SEC as a whole.
Click to expand...

No conference, whether it be the SEC or otherwise, should expect 2 of their teams to always be in every 4 team play-off tournament. It's just as hard for the SEC as it is for other conferences that play championship games. Conferences that don't play championship games should be 'punished' in the form of making more hurdles for their teams to gain entry to the play-off. An undefeated Ohio state that has avoided paying a conference championship game should be dinged (for example) and should not be favored over a 1 loss team that played a much tougher schedule. Also there are scenarios where 2 SEC teams do make it. For example, 1 team in the SEC west is unbeaten and ranked #1. Another SEC team in the SEC west conference has 1 loss, and it's only loss was to the said unbeaten SEC team. In all likelihood that team will be ranked in the top 4 at the end of the season and will also gain a berth. Besides the tough schedule of the SEC is already taken into account in the rankings. A look at the polls will often show many 1 or 2 loss SEC teams ranked higher than 0-1 loss teams from other conferences with weaker schedules.
 
Last edited:
The winners in this are the teams from really weak conferences. All they have to do is go undefeated.
 
B1GTide said:
The winners in this are the teams from really weak conferences. All they have to do is go undefeated.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, this was the ultimate goal of the playoff. You only have to look at when the other major conferences got on board with the idea of a playoff to see that fact. Alabama and LSU had played for the title a few months prior. The aim is to limit the recent SEC hegemony in championship football over the last decade.

I think the system will inevitably be slanted towards inclusion over taking the four best teams regardless of affiliation. It might not be what is stated on the selection rules guide but it will likely be what happens in practice.
 
Last edited:
The selection committee is what got everybody on board. I'm sure Delaney has delusions of getting a four-loss Big Ten team voted in because "they won their conference," which doesn't mean jack if your conference isn't any good.

A four-team playoff among the top four ranked teams would have been sufficient. That's pretty much what everyone was arguing two years ago who had a problem with the rematch. They instead have adopted a potential case of a committee putting a sixteenth-ranked unbeaten into the playoff and excluding a one-loss SEC (or for that matter whoever) team that played the toughest schedule in the nation merely because that team didn't win its conference.
 
selmaborntidefan said:
The selection committee is what got everybody on board. I'm sure Delaney has delusions of getting a four-loss Big Ten team voted in because "they won their conference,"...
Click to expand...

I don't see this happening in a 4 team playoff, but I could see it leading to a discussion of expanding the playoff.
 
My question is why not keep the existing/or modified BCS formula and go to 4 teams? I agree with most that the SEC chances getting 2 teams under the new format are slim to none even if they are deserving, and you can bet the loser of the SECCG is cooked. With all the anti-SEC sentiment nationally we will get screwed. An 8 team playoff would diminsish that concern but who knows if that will happen and in my opinion is too much because teams that play a conference championship will wind up with 16 games. Can you imagine the injury situation and/or general fatique by that point in time?
 
bama119 said:
Totally agree with this part of your comment. Do away with all tie-ins between conferences and bowls. Let the best teams play in the bowls regardless of conference. For example, after the 4 teams are picked for the so called playoff then have #5 play #6, #7 play # 8 etc.
Click to expand...

You are expecting the little tail to wag the big dog. The big dog is the Bowls. And they are in it to make a profit. They are not going to let a little tail tell them they have to select a team they do not think will give them that profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back