In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
He has a point whether you like him or not. It does have the potential to exclude better teams when you restrict it to Champions only.
"The one thing that I think is that people want to see the best teams play. They don't want a bunch of conference champions to end up playing in a championship game," Saban said. "If we do that, did we accomplish what we set out to accomplish? Hell no."
He also points out Agendas that some have and why...
"Sometimes it's a problem that the conference commissioners, all of whom have somewhat of an agenda to protect their conference and their league," Saban said. "Somebody above that needs to say, this is how we're doing it."
I know a few of you will not agree because honestly without a guaranteed spot for the conference your team is in... You likely won't get a shot based on "On the field" performance when compared to other teams.
Alabama head coach Nick Saban made it emphatically clear what he thinks of the proposed college football playoff model that would exclude any teams that don't win their conference championship.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by SignalBama 2 years ago
Coach is the only one whose opinion matters.
For real though, I think he has a great point, and Delaney is just beating his chest so to say.
This post was edited by James Moriarty 2 years ago
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
Its a terrible point, and Saban only makes it because it is the reason his team has a national title this year.
They had to accomplish less for that title, than almost anyone else who has gotten a national title awarded to them.
The whole idea of the "regular season meaning more" in college football has become a myth, because of this mentality. Accomplishments during the season should be rewarded, and not opinion polls. Thats the whole purpose behind a playoff.
I am a fan of the conference champ if they are in the top 6 model. I understand some sec guys think that this is somehow anti-sec, but it can also help them as well. What if in the near future, that Florida gets their together, Tennessee fires Dooley and gets a real coach. You could have a strong conference where the conference champ has 2 losses and ranked say 5th. How would they feel if the sec champ was left out for the Big-10 #2 team who finished with 1 loss and finished 4th in the poll?
This post was edited by Noah 2 years ago
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
Funny he says that the commissioners need to be above having agendas.
Pfft. Really both Saban and Delany doing what they are suppose to do. Honestly think by being the best conference the sec could be in danger of alienating itself. I wouldn't think you want to isolate yourself and would want to promote competition.
What you eat, don't make me shit.
I am for the most objective measure possible.
Now it appears as all we are going to get is a 4 team playoff. Given that limitation, the best bet is the champs of the best 4 conferences going at it. Of course the best 4 conferences is certainly subjective, but this method is more objective than simply the 4 highest rated teams in subjective polls.
Realistically speaking the ACC is behind the PAC-12, SEC, Big-10, and Big-12. Those 4 conferences should just agree to hold a 4 team tourney between their champs every year. It's basically what is going to be anyway.
Why should a team be rewarded for winning their conference with 3 losses (in some cases)... And another team be punished for losing 1 game to a conference champion in the regular season ? ... In a playoff format of course. You brought up last season, but it wasn't a playoff format. Conference Champions only is also as flawed as just going with opinion polls. There needs to be more to it. 4 teams is very restrictive to both causes. If they would simply agree to go to 6 or 8 teams in a playoff then they could have the best of both worlds.. Include the best 4 conference champions and a few spots for "Wild Cards".
A few questions for you because I respect your opinion. How are we going to hold everyone to the standard of winning your conference to get in when Notre Dame is an independent ? What happens if they actually get their act together and go undefeated or have 1 loss one year ? Are they going to get a pass for not being in a conference... Yet they want to punish another team for being in one.
With every conference having a tv contract these days it would behoove some media to pump or place their product higher on a pedastol.
Why not? What is the worst thing that could happen if you have an 11 team tournament of only conference champions? Isnt that the essence of sports, and the reason that college football has had an identity in the past? Every single game would matter in that scenario. No free passes like Alabama losing to LSU. You either perform well every week, or you are out.
Why is that so forbidden? Because some Sun Belt or MAC team might get to be a first round sacrificial lamb? Big deal....its not like we think those teams are going to win it in any situation, but at least this way every single team in division 1 has their destiny in their own hands before the season starts.
It is the most objective under the limitations of 4 teams. Remember the ultimate goal is to find the #1 team, not necessarily the top-4 teams. So the regular season conference schedule determines the conference representative to face of against the conference rep of the other 3 toughest conferences. As for non-bcs teams, fuck em, they really don't deserve a slot.
Though the top-6 ranking requirement is the balance between conference champs only, and top-4 regardless. It is more than a fair compromise.
Of course. That is why I am most in favor of the champs, of the PAC, Big-10 and 12, and SEC, playing each other.
Once again, Saban has it right.
From what I understand, Notre Dame even if they were 12-0 and ranked #1 would be assed out, if there were 4 conference champs in the top-6. This would be unlikely, but certainly possible. At least under the most popular model proposed at the moment.
Its better a team is rewarded for winning a conference with three losses, than losing a conference with one loss.
I have heard all my life, how the regular season matters so much in college football. Well last year we learned that was a lie. That game at Alabama, which seemed so monumental at the time? It turned out to be about as important as a non conference game against North Texas. If these games no longer matter, if actual accomplishments during the regular season are irrelevant, than why put so much stock in it, and continue to pretend to protect it at the expense of a playoff?
If you want to have first round playoff games be between these lower conference champs, and have the big boys given a first round bye, that would satisfy everyone.
As for Notre Dame they would have to join a conference, just like they have in every other sport, so they can be involved in those playoffs. They didnt join the Big East in basketball because they were having that much trouble scheduling games. They joined because they needed a direct route to get to the NCAA tournament, and the only guaranteed slots are those teams in conferences.
Pretty much. Though that is just my personal opinion.
Overall, the conference champ top-6 model, seems to be an equitable compromise for all involved. I would also make an addition, that if you are #1 overall, then you get in automatically.
Which would be just as bad. I may not be a big fan of Notre Dame... But they play a consistent tough schedule year to year. It is just one example why "Champions Only" is a bad proposal.
It is simply the fact that the polls are far too flawed to rely on them to accurately show the top-4 at the end of the regular season.
Because that game the 11-1 team lost mattered as much as any playoff game. Thats what they mean by the regular season mattering.
It didnt last year. That first game between LSU and Alabama was nothing but a scrimmage that actually hurt the team that won, and rewarded the team that lost. Anyone who is not an Alabama fan who thinks that system is in any way fair is lying.
College basketball does it all the time. the champ of some po dunk conference gets an auto invite, while much better teams a relegated to the NIT
BECAUSE THE THREE LOSS TEAM STILL ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING. Why is this so hard to grasp.
Winning a conference is part of a playoff. It USED to be that way more, but now its completely devalued.
If you cannot win a 12 team conference, then you should not be considered as the best team among 119.
Lets put it this way. A few years ago, a two loss LSU team, which won the SEC, went over a one loss Kansas team, that did not win the Big 12.
So was that unfair?
There really is not enough inter-conference play in college football to accurately gauge the best 4 teams at the end of the regular season. I was fair in using the "Fact" word. Then again, you have the argument of "best" vs most accomplished, which is a whole other debate, and it's importance seems to change every season as well.
They did, because they still won the conference with those three losses.
Its about accomplishments all year, on the field. With so few teams playing each other, conference championships are all we have to go on, when you determine the best team in the country. When you throw that out as a decisive measure, you eliminate the need for conferences, and for those games meaning more than any others on the schedule.
That is completely untrue. Bama vs LSU regular season matchup was deemed be the sec loving media as the game of the century. In reality it was completely meaningless. In fact it was the loser who benefited by not having to play a CCG. In the conference champ only model, this game would have actually mattered, though if the model proposed was in place last season Bama still would have qualified for the tourney, since neither Boise St and Stanford who rounded out the top-6 were conference champs.
Yes...because you are making assumptions based on opinion.
Again, I point to the two loss LSU team of a couple years ago. Why were they more worthy than a one loss Kansas team?
Well one big reason was that LSU won their conference, and Kansas did not. We dont have to make biased, opinion making assumptions that one team is better because we THINK that their conference is tougher. We just say that if a team is good enough to win their conference, then they should move on. If a team is not, then they did not accomplish something to be considered a national champion, and thats win a much smaller conference title, before playing for a national one.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports