Link: It's hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
23,850
7,439
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Well, I'm sorta willing to concede we "got away with one" in 1973 save for the fact we won it WITHIN THE RULES. Sure, they were stupid rules, but so was the time when Notre Dame got one knowing the bowl games wouldn't count and played for a tie.

The issue with the BCS was always when there was a potential "third team." The CFP removes that one issue. If you're number five, you're out. The end.
I agree with your take. I won't budge an inch on that 1973 championship. It's legit as any other. I'm just saying if you consider how the parameters changed, it's one that worked out in a fortunate way for us due to the times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
5,187
4,170
287
70
Charleston, South Carolina
I think what helps in my particular case is all of those exegetical papers I had to write at my evangelical seminary for so many years. The difference there, of course, is that I had to cover the material within prescribed page limits, which was nearly impossible. We once had a paper on a particular word (and it's semantic meaning) in Ephesians 2, and I had to cover ALL SIX MAJOR PROPOSED interpretations of it (succinctly but fully), and come to my own conclusions on "the most probable is X because" and then defend the position, all while footnoting virtually every sentence with multiple references. Even then, my paper usually had a lot of red markings on it, heh heh, because the grader was some intern trying to earn his/her PhD, and they were always far better read on the subject than it was possible for me to be in a compressed time frame.


As to how this relates to college football, it is important to me for two standards to be met:
1) historical accuracy
2) factual accuracy

I don't mind if someone disagrees with me regarding the CONCLUSION of something so long as we agree upon the facts in evidence. But if we are logical thinkers then most of the time, of course, the facts in evidence will lead us to the same conclusion if we'll set aside our emotional attachment to certain outcomes. Many times I have held an opinion about something (not just CFB but for the sake of this post let's limit it) and then gotten out my Excel documents and Word sheets and papers strewn all over the place running data and taken a very close look at it and then concluded the exact opposite of what I once held to be correct. I had an emotional investment in Georgia Tech winning the 1990 national championship - CU's Fifth Down, my grandfather being recruited to play there back in the late 20s in the Bill Alexander era, the fact Tech is geographically in the south, they were the only unbeaten - and my emotion influenced my conclusion. Having looked closely at the situation, it's very difficult for me to say that Tech was even among the three best teams in the nation that year, and their record in the years before and after that (while not available in 1990 obviously) proves it conclusively. Tech's ascent was very similar to BYU's in 1984 and for the same reason, although to be fair Tech did play a much tougher schedule than BYU did. But it was a fluke year all the way around for them, and Tech basically won because people were upset about the Fifth Down controversy. In retrospect with some watching of games as well as statistical analysis, Colorado was so much better than Tech that the game would likely have been a mauling, and I think Notre Dame and Miami and Washington (at a minimum) would have beaten Tech as well. I don't begrudge them the national title under the circumstances, but they weren't "that" good of a team.

To give one more example (and be done with it), we have to consider what a football coach would be like if you flipped situations. It is ENTIRELY possible that someone like Matt Campbell is actually a better coach than Lincoln Riley or Ryan Day or even (for that matter) Dan Mullen. Not to take anything away from those men but put them in Ames and put Campbell with Blue Blood advantages and what would happen? (Note: I am NOT saying Campbell is better - I'm saying we have to be open to the idea he MIGHT be and consider parallels etc). And I'm just using a name at the moment. This is why I think Don James is a much better coach than a lot of people realize while I'm still willing to say Tom Osborne is at least a little bit overrated, and I think John McKay was substantially overrated, which wouldn't set well (I know) with Coach Bryant, but McKay won his titles in an 8-team conference where he had all the advantages when the game was the most slanted it's ever been. Coach Bryant substantiated his greatness at Maryland AND at Kentucky AND at ATM, where he wasn't the biggest fish in the pond; McKay never did that, which isn't to say he couldn't have, but the fact is for all his advantages, go look at the fact McKay followed three straight top ten seasons with consecutive 6-4-1 years; he followed his first national title with four straight 7-win seasons. Again, this despite coaching in the easiest to recruit school in a non-competitive conference. I'm not saying McKay wasn't a good coach, but he wasn't in the same universe as Bryant, Saban, Meyer, or some others.

Anyway, I have a job interview online in five minutes to I'll see y'all later.
Totally agree on the seminary ...the best paper I did in Master's program was slammed by an prof's assistant who did not understand. Later I finished my Phd. and he never did....I once could remember things well...not anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ols

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
2,944
536
137
Lancaster, PA
Well, here y'all go. It will expand. It will likely water down the sport even more. But oh that money; they are going to rake in the dough.

Will the CFP expand? Probably.
For any Bama fans that favor expansion I think they will quickly change their minds if we're the #1 seed, get our starting QB injured while defeating the #16 seed and subsequently lose our next playoff game.
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
23,850
7,439
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
For any Bama fans that favor expansion I think they will quickly change their minds if we're the #1 seed, get our starting QB injured while defeating the #16 seed and subsequently lose our next playoff game.
And beyond that, Coastal Carolina doesn’t deserve a spot. Someone logically explain to me why a Sun Belt or Conference USA team deserves to be associated with the Power 5’s championship?

I do not care what other sports do. And why should I have any sympathy for the PAC 12’s failure to accomplish anything of substance in the CFP era?

The answer is contraction, not expansion. Separate the power 5 from the rest into another division, then do your 8 team playoff.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,078
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
For any Bama fans that favor expansion I think they will quickly change their minds if we're the #1 seed, get our starting QB injured while defeating the #16 seed and subsequently lose our next playoff game.
That's a possible scenario, true.

Not sure it's even as likely as losing one in the SEC title game, but okay.

But the MORE LIKELY scenario? The Blue Bloods win EVEN MORE championships, the exact opposite of what is intended.

Btw - truly hilarious to be alive for this after all that crap they kept throwing against the window for years about "we can't have a playoff because kids and school." We could go from 10-game to 15-game seasons and move the start from September 24 to August 24, the end of the season from November 20 to December 7, and the end of the bowl season from January 2 at the worst to January 12.

NOW.....we can do this because reasons, all of them starting with the letter "d."

I just wish they'd come right out and say, "There's a truckload of money to be made, and we want it." I mean, just admit you're the prostitute and like the money, no harm done. It's honest.
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
16,044
2,037
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
Since there ARE members of the media who comb these websites looking for juvenile points to score on radio and podcast, here's your mantra:

"Increasing the size of the playoff will INCREASE the number of teams given a perceived chance but decrease the number of actual new champions."

When Ohio State or Alabama with their talent gap can get in as an eight seed, they will win more championships and likely be helped by someone knocking the other team out because of the three games that have to be played.
The old adage DEFINITELY applies here....Be Careful What You Wish For.

I can already hear the teams that draw a Bama, tOSU, or Clemson as a lower seed saying how they were jobbed by the committee.
 

UAinAthens

Scout Team
Jul 5, 2001
110
47
47
gmail.com
For fans, I believe there are two schools of thought, and both have valid arguments. Group 1 would prefer to never have a team that deserves the chance be left out. Group 2 doesn't want a team that doesn't deserve a chance to be allowed in. You cannot have both. Any framework that accommodates one will mitigate the other.

My preference is the former. While I agree there are risks in playing more games, I also agree that the bigger the field the less likely Alabama misses out. Realistically, there is almost no option in the past 10 years where we would not have been included in a 8 team playoff. The only possible one would be 2010, and I think we'd have had a case.

As far as the SEC goes, in a 8 team playoff, we likely get 3 teams in most years, and 2 every year.

I do not agree with the "relevance of the bowls" argument. Once the BCS started, no one has really cared about any of the other bowls beyond how their team did. Even before, if it didn't have direct NC implications, it didn't matter. I do agree that the regular season's importance is reduced when you are going to pull in 1 loss or even 2 loss teams with an eight team playoff. But that being said, its always bugged me that an SEC team with one loss is penalized compared to a ACC champ that played one or fewer significant opponents in conference and is undefeated.

Now the real reason we are getting expansion is money and has nothing to do with any of the above options. But I'm okay with it because I believe it means more championships. Not to start a different argument, but i believe that CBB would have had a few more if there had been a playoff in his days.
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB)
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
20,996
4,525
337
Breaux Bridge, La
In an 8 team world the SECCG becomes much less important.

As both teams are likely in - win or lose. In fact I would imagine that it almost assures 3 SEC teams get in. Because the second place in the West likely has a shot as well most years.
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB)
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
20,996
4,525
337
Breaux Bridge, La
That's a possible scenario, true.

Not sure it's even as likely as losing one in the SEC title game, but okay.

But the MORE LIKELY scenario? The Blue Bloods win EVEN MORE championships, the exact opposite of what is intended.

Btw - truly hilarious to be alive for this after all that crap they kept throwing against the window for years about "we can't have a playoff because kids and school." We could go from 10-game to 15-game seasons and move the start from September 24 to August 24, the end of the season from November 20 to December 7, and the end of the bowl season from January 2 at the worst to January 12.

NOW.....we can do this because reasons, all of them starting with the letter "d."

I just wish they'd come right out and say, "There's a truckload of money to be made, and we want it." I mean, just admit you're the prostitute and like the money, no harm done. It's honest.
Think of it this way.

Minimum wage went up and now they must raise their prices to offset.

The customers (networks) will pony up more cash for the extra games.

So the NCAA and the P5 schools can offset the losses of revenue to continue their reign.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,788
24,453
187
In an 8 team world the SECCG becomes much less important.

As both teams are likely in - win or lose. In fact I would imagine that it almost assures 3 SEC teams get in. Because the second place in the West likely has a shot as well most years.
Unless there is a home game for the higher seeded teams. Teams playing at home would have a decided advantage in round 1, and that makes every game important again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Con and Padreruf

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,078
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I would hope they don’t allow for home games. But who knows.
"Let's add teams, that will end the controversy"

Uh, yeah, and cause a different one.

6-team playoff - "but it's NOT FAY-UH that that team got a bye"
8-team playoff - #5 is gonna complain they have to play at #4 and have a better record and better SoS
16-team playoff - home field? you're gonna wind up with a game in a blinding snowstorm somewhere up north and someone's playoff hopes will die thanks to an injury

ANY expansion at this point will dilute the regular season from "almost meaningless" to "totally meaningless." It will also lower the economic value of the SEC title game, which has been the one ca$h cow in the plethora of conference title games.
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
23,850
7,439
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
For fans, I believe there are two schools of thought, and both have valid arguments. Group 1 would prefer to never have a team that deserves the chance be left out. Group 2 doesn't want a team that doesn't deserve a chance to be allowed in. You cannot have both. Any framework that accommodates one will mitigate the other.

My preference is the former. While I agree there are risks in playing more games, I also agree that the bigger the field the less likely Alabama misses out. Realistically, there is almost no option in the past 10 years where we would not have been included in a 8 team playoff. The only possible one would be 2010, and I think we'd have had a case.

As far as the SEC goes, in a 8 team playoff, we likely get 3 teams in most years, and 2 every year.

I do not agree with the "relevance of the bowls" argument. Once the BCS started, no one has really cared about any of the other bowls beyond how their team did. Even before, if it didn't have direct NC implications, it didn't matter. I do agree that the regular season's importance is reduced when you are going to pull in 1 loss or even 2 loss teams with an eight team playoff. But that being said, its always bugged me that an SEC team with one loss is penalized compared to a ACC champ that played one or fewer significant opponents in conference and is undefeated.

Now the real reason we are getting expansion is money and has nothing to do with any of the above options. But I'm okay with it because I believe it means more championships. Not to start a different argument, but i believe that CBB would have had a few more if there had been a playoff in his days.
It depends upon the mechanism they use to grant bids, I think, as far as 2010 and 2019 are concerned. Our ranking following 2019 was complete made up bull crap to keep us out of the NY6 bowl arrangement. Does this occur in an 8 team playoff scenario? Chances are very good, I think.

We had 3 losses in 2010 and I think our ranking was a bit more justified. We were one of the 8 best teams by far, though. Again it comes down to how are they going to pick these bids? Power 5 conference champs get an auto-bid and then 3 at-large picks? If that is the case, then our "off" years will be jeopardized as far as playoffs go, I'm afraid.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,706
13,109
187
South Alabama
In an 8 team world the SECCG becomes much less important.

As both teams are likely in - win or lose. In fact I would imagine that it almost assures 3 SEC teams get in. Because the second place in the West likely has a shot as well most years.
Well it kinda has become less important already under the the BCS and CFP. 5 times a team has either lost or didn’t even play for a conference title and played for a national championship/playoff. 2 times they were declared champs. Then you have Notre Dame.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,706
13,109
187
South Alabama
"Let's add teams, that will end the controversy"

Uh, yeah, and cause a different one.

6-team playoff - "but it's NOT FAY-UH that that team got a bye"
8-team playoff - #5 is gonna complain they have to play at #4 and have a better record and better SoS
16-team playoff - home field? you're gonna wind up with a game in a blinding snowstorm somewhere up north and someone's playoff hopes will die thanks to an injury

ANY expansion at this point will dilute the regular season from "almost meaningless" to "totally meaningless." It will also lower the economic value of the SEC title game, which has been the one ca$h cow in the plethora of conference title games.
You keep on saying that 6 people whine about a bye. But in both FCS and the NFL no one whines about it. As long as there a system in determining the rankings that makes sense, no one of real value is going to whine about the difference of #2 and #3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide