Online Now 3497

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1793
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3604
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Saban's take on Champion's Only Playoff...

  • MJRuffalo said...

    What does your opinion of the Big-10 having only a few respectable teams have anything to do with making a conference champion mini tourney an easy position to take? I don't follow your logic. If they Big-10 champion is not up to par, then they will never win a 4 team tourney. Better to make a team win 2 games against elite competition, than just one. More accurate that way.

    Polls are way too flawed, you actually have a bunch of dumb southener's who believe that Arkansas was better than Okie St and Stanford last year, some even believe that they were better than Oregon. Idiot's like that deserve no say.

    With only 4 spots in a mini tourney, taking conference champs only is still incredibly flawed and I would argue more flawed than taking the top 4 in polls. You dismiss polls because you cite bias and subjectivity but when you have 11 conference, you are subjectively doing 2 things:

    1. Assuming which conference are more deserving due to their strength
    2. Assuming the accomplishment of finish first in one conference is more rewarding of a spot in the mini tourney.

    While they are subjective, polls give us the opportunity to observe and grade teams on the performance. In a system where there are 11 conferences and 120+ teams but only a 12 game schedule and a limited post-season, it is a necessary to have a process where we can grade who we think is better based on performance. I have to assume those people that have stated that Clemson was more deserving of a title shot than Bama last year are only doing so because they have to say it in order to defend the conference champ only recommendation.

    Fact is, the polls take into consideration conference champions, SOS, etc.. Last year wasn't the norm as the vast majority of the time conference champs have gotten the nod over non-conference champs. That precedent was a large reason why most people were predicting OSU to jump Bama in the final polls. In the end, more pollsters sided with Bama but I do think it is funny that people claim they think Bama was the best team but OSU still should have gone. People really think that OSU(10-0 and ranked #2) could lose to a 6-6 ISU team in the next to last game of the season and not drop a single spot in the polls. If Bama had not drop a single spot in the polls, this place would have flipped their lids but this is what they are saying should have happened with OSU.

    bamabum5

  • bamabum5 said...

    With only 4 spots in a mini tourney, taking conference champs only is still incredibly flawed and I would argue more flawed than taking the top 4 in polls. You dismiss polls because you cite bias and subjectivity but when you have 11 conference, you are subjectively doing 2 things:

    1. Assuming which conference are more deserving due to their strength 2. Assuming the accomplishment of finish first in one conference is more rewarding of a spot in the mini tourney.

    While they are subjective, polls give us the opportunity to observe and grade teams on the performance. In a system where there are 11 conferences and 120+ teams but only a 12 game schedule and a limited post-season, it is a necessary to have a process where we can grade who we think is better based on performance. I have to assume those people that have stated that Clemson was more deserving of a title shot than Bama last year are only doing so because they have to say it in order to defend the conference champ only recommendation.

    Fact is, the polls take into consideration conference champions, SOS, etc.. Last year wasn't the norm as the vast majority of the time conference champs have gotten the nod over non-conference champs. That precedent was a large reason why most people were predicting OSU to jump Bama in the final polls. In the end, more pollsters sided with Bama but I do think it is funny that people claim they think Bama was the best team but OSU still should have gone. People really think that OSU(10-0 and ranked #2) could lose to a 6-6 ISU team in the next to last game of the season and not drop a single spot in the polls. If Bama had not drop a single spot in the polls, this place would have flipped their lids but this is what they are saying should have happened with OSU.

    Let's keep it real for a minute. There are as of now 4 major conferences. The SEC, PAC-12, Big-12, and Big-10. ACC is pretty much dead, and the Big easy is nothing.

    With the new agreement between the SEC and Big-12 I would absolutely love to simply see the winner of that new bowl, play the winner of the Rose Bowl at some rotating site, for the national title. Even if that was not the formal agreement, that is what it would essentially be 90% of the time. With that as a formal agreement, we will see the good teams left in the ACC and Notre Dame join one of the big-4 conferences. Just as a College football fan, I can't see how anyone would not be excited at this prospect. Just go back this past decade and look at the games we would have had, would have been amazing. I don't care if USC is #1 and plays #2 Michigan in the Rose Bowl, I would still like to see them play the winner of the SEC/Big-12 bowl because no matter what I don't trust the polls, I trust on the field results.

    If Alabama fans would simply put last year in the past and understand that nobody is trying to retroactively take away your mnc, and move foward, even you guys should be on board with a plan like this.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    Let's keep it real for a minute. There are as of now 4 major conferences. The SEC, PAC-12, Big-12, and Big-10. ACC is pretty much dead, and the Big easy is nothing.

    With the new agreement between the SEC and Big-12 I would absolutely love to simply see the winner of that new bowl, play the winner of the Rose Bowl at some rotating site, for the national title. Even if that was not the formal agreement, that is what it would essentially be 90% of the time. With that as a formal agreement, we will see the good teams left in the ACC and Notre Dame join one of the big-4 conferences. Just as a College football fan, I can't see how anyone would not be excited at this prospect. Just go back this past decade and look at the games we would have had, would have been amazing. I don't care if USC is #1 and plays #2 Michigan in the Rose Bowl, I would still like to see them play the winner of the SEC/Big-12 bowl because no matter what I don't trust the polls, I trust on the field results.

    If Alabama fans would simply put last year in the past and understand that nobody is trying to retroactively take away your mnc, and move foward, even you guys should be on board with a plan like this.

    Bam fans have moved from last season...last season is still very much on the mind of most people arguing for a conference champs only mini-tourney. We are moving toward the 4 conferences breaking off and creating their own way of doing things. All that said, the nature of CFB is as simple as simply saying a conference champ should be the representative in the tourney. I'm not even talking about leaving a conference out...I'm talking about a team from a weak division going 8-4 and upsetting an undefeated team from the other division in the conference championship game. Would UGA have been worthy of a BCS title game last year had they beat LSU? We now place the the entree post season on 1 game...the conference championship games. Are we going to ignore the rest of the season? Like I have said, winning the conference doesn't mean you are the best representative regardless of conference. In a sport that play series to determine champions, we need a full look at the body of work over the course of a season and select those teams that should go.

    In a perfect world, we would have all 11 conference champs and 5 wildcards play a 16 team tourney but that isn't going to happen. We will likely have a system where conference champs get in as long as they are ranked top 6 but if someone is 7th or lower, their spot would go to a wildcard. I'm alright with that.

    bamabum5

  • MJRuffalo said...

    If Alabama fans would simply put last year in the past and understand that nobody is trying to retroactively take away your mnc, and move foward, even you guys should be on board with a plan like this.

    This is hard to do because it seems like all the change is to reactionary. I understand the need, but the extent seems like it might be so wanted that it will be hurried and not fully thought out.

    To be honest, I really don't give a fvck because A) I love college football and Alabama, but I like other sports too (unlike some fans) B) doesn't really matter how we determine championships, there are few schools like us that are in a position for success---one could argue we actually would benefit from a playoff.

    So it's whatever.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • bamabum5 said...

    Bam fans have moved from last season...last season is still very much on the mind of most people arguing for a conference champs only mini-tourney. We are moving toward the 4 conferences breaking off and creating their own way of doing things. All that said, the nature of CFB is as simple as simply saying a conference champ should be the representative in the tourney. I'm not even talking about leaving a conference out...I'm talking about a team from a weak division going 8-4 and upsetting an undefeated team from the other division in the conference championship game. Would UGA have been worthy of a BCS title game last year had they beat LSU? We now place the the entree post season on 1 game...the conference championship games. Are we going to ignore the rest of the season? Like I have said, winning the conference doesn't mean you are the best representative regardless of conference. In a sport that play series to determine champions, we need a full look at the body of work over the course of a season and select those teams that should go.

    In a perfect world, we would have all 11 conference champs and 5 wildcards play a 16 team tourney but that isn't going to happen. We will likely have a system where conference champs get in as long as they are ranked top 6 but if someone is 7th or lower, their spot would go to a wildcard. I'm alright with that.

    As far as upsets occuring in CCG's. That is simply the nature of the beast. The way I look at it is this way. We go to the 4 major's, and it essentially becomes an 8 team playoff among all the division champions. If you are favored and lose in the 1st round, don't cry, you had your chance and blew it. Honestly as a USC fan this could hurt USC more so than an SEC team. USC is likely going to have to play Oregon most season in the PAC-12 CG, while the SECW is decidedly ahead of the SECE, so it is really going to come down to the winner of LSU/Bama in the SEC. The eastern teams have are down right now, and less proven coaches in the East. So USC could go 12-0, lose to Oregon and be out of the 4 team tourney, and I am ok with that. As long as we have as equal of a chance as anyone else, I cannot complain.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    This is hard to do because it seems like all the change is to reactionary. I understand the need, but the extent seems like it might be so wanted that it will be hurried and not fully thought out.

    To be honest, I really don't give a fvck because A) I love college football and Alabama, but I like other sports too (unlike some fans) B) doesn't really matter how we determine championships, there are few schools like us that are in a position for success---one could argue we actually would benefit from a playoff.

    So it's whatever.

    I disagree that it is reactionary, maybe in the south. But PAC-10 teams have been routinely screwed out of a spot in the mnc game for a non-conference champion. Oregon getting left out for Nebraska, USC getting passed up by Oklahoma. Especially bad in that not only did both of those teams lose their last game of the season, they lost very badly, got their teeth kicked in.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    I disagree that it is reactionary, maybe in the south. But PAC-10 teams have been routinely screwed out of a spot in the mnc game for a non-conference champion. Oregon getting left out for Nebraska, USC getting passed up by Oklahoma. Especially bad in that not only did both of those teams lose their last game of the season, they lost very badly, got their teeth kicked in.

    All those years, I always wondered why PAC12 waited so long to expand to get a CCG. It's the deciding factor.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    As far as upsets occuring in CCG's. That is simply the nature of the beast. The way I look at it is this way. We go to the 4 major's, and it essentially becomes an 8 team playoff among all the division champions. If you are favored and lose in the 1st round, don't cry, you had your chance and blew it. Honestly as a USC fan this could hurt USC more so than an SEC team. USC is likely going to have to play Oregon most season in the PAC-12 CG, while the SECW is decidedly ahead of the SECE, so it is really going to come down to the winner of LSU/Bama in the SEC. The eastern teams have are down right now, and less proven coaches in the East. So USC could go 12-0, lose to Oregon and be out of the 4 team tourney, and I am ok with that. As long as we have as equal of a chance as anyone else, I cannot complain.

    I'm sorry but if a 12-1 USC team is sitting at home while 10-3 Oregon team is playing in a 4 team tourney for the title, I'm not alright with the system. Anyone who thinks that is the best system for deciding the champion of CFB is simply not thinking rationally. You are the one hung up on last season bro.

    Also, CFB is cyclical as is every conference. 4 years ago, the SEC east was widely considered the best division in the SEC by a rather wide margin. Oregon has been good the last few years but they are facing possible severe penalties, right? Will they continue their success down the road? I don't see them being a threat to USA for the long haul but it doesn't matter...any team can be upset on any given day which is why we should be putting teams in the 4 team tourney based on the outcome of a single game.

    bamabum5

  • bamabum5 said...

    I'm sorry but if a 12-1 USC team is sitting at home while 10-3 Oregon team is playing in a 4 team tourney for the title, I'm not alright with the system. Anyone who thinks that is the best system for deciding the champion of CFB is simply not thinking rationally. You are the one hung up on last season bro.

    Also, CFB is cyclical as is every conference. 4 years ago, the SEC east was widely considered the best division in the SEC by a rather wide margin. Oregon has been good the last few years but they are facing possible severe penalties, right? Will they continue their success down the road? I don't see them being a threat to USA for the long haul but it doesn't matter...any team can be upset on any given day which is why we should be putting teams in the 4 team tourney based on the outcome of a single game.

    That's why it is best to just call it an 8 team playoff and use the CCG's as round 1. Just a little change in perception is all that it takes.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    That's why it is best to just call it an 8 team playoff and use the CCG's as round 1. Just a little change in perception is all that it takes.

    Really piss poor perception on your part. You're telling me that 6-6 UCLA would have been part of an 8 team playoff to decide the CFB championship last season? What a marvelous system you have conceived. Could you imagine if CBB used this same system...Vandy would have made the cut and Kentucky would have been left out of the NCAA tourney because they lost the SEC conference tourney last season. Genius.

    bamabum5

  • bamabum5 said...

    Really piss poor perception on your part. You're telling me that 6-6 UCLA would have been part of an 8 team playoff to decide the CFB championship last season? What a marvelous system you have conceived. Could you imagine if CBB used this same system...Vandy would have made the cut and Kentucky would have been left out of the NCAA tourney because they lost the SEC conference tourney last season. Genius.

    But CBB does do the same thing. In the first round of the NCAA tourney last year UK played some poor team that didn't have a chance at beating them, just like UCLA didn't have a chance at beating Oregon. What if UK lost in the first round last year? Would you be saying that the Middle Nowhere State University didn't deserve to get to the second round of the NCAA if they beat UK?

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • bamabum5 said...

    I'm sorry but if a 12-1 USC team is sitting at home while 10-3 Oregon team is playing in a 4 team tourney for the title, I'm not alright with the system. Anyone who thinks that is the best system for deciding the champion of CFB is simply not thinking rationally. You are the one hung up on last season bro.

    Also, CFB is cyclical as is every conference. 4 years ago, the SEC east was widely considered the best division in the SEC by a rather wide margin. Oregon has been good the last few years but they are facing possible severe penalties, right? Will they continue their success down the road? I don't see them being a threat to USA for the long haul but it doesn't matter...any team can be upset on any given day which is why we should be putting teams in the 4 team tourney based on the outcome of a single game.

    What if the 10-3 Oregon team played an OOC of LSU, Texas, Wisconsin and Florida State while the 12-1 played an OOC of Indiana, Fresno State, Wyoming and Idaho? Record has very little to do with quality of team when you have such huge discrepencies in scheduling, yet record is one of the primary factors in polls which is just another reason polls suck.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • Why do you focus so hard on the 3-4 OoC games rather than the 8-9 conference games when you discuss scheduling?

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4

  • MKatUmich said...

    But CBB does do the same thing. In the first round of the NCAA tourney last year UK played some poor team that didn't have a chance at beating them, just like UCLA didn't have a chance at beating Oregon. What if UK lost in the first round last year? Would you be saying that the Middle Nowhere State University didn't deserve to get to the second round of the NCAA if they beat UK?

    No, CBB doesn't do the same thing. Under a champions only format, UK would not have been in the tourney so Middle Nowhere State would not have faced them. CBB allows all conference tourney champions into the tourney but they only do that because they have the liberty to have at-large selections. Prior to 1975, the NCAA basketball tourney only consisted 16 conference champions gaining entry. They expanded to 32 teams adding at-large teams. What was the primary reason? Read the cut and paste from wikipedia on the topic:

    "Prior to 1975, only one team per conference could be in the NCAA tournament. However, after several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974), the NCAA began to place at-large teams in the tournament, instead of just conference champions."

    The basketball tournament corrected the huge flaw that is just allowing conference champions only into the tournament.

    bamabum5

  • MKatUmich said...

    What if the 10-3 Oregon team played an OOC of LSU, Texas, Wisconsin and Florida State while the 12-1 played an OOC of Indiana, Fresno State, Wyoming and Idaho? Record has very little to do with quality of team when you have such huge discrepencies in scheduling, yet record is one of the primary factors in polls which is just another reason polls suck.

    Under the format of conference champions only, OOC doesn't matter at all. In fact, half the games on our schedule simply become exhibition games. Who cares who wins USC-ND? Bama-Mich? These outcome of these games have no bearing on anything.

    bamabum5

  • bamabum5 said...

    Under the format of conference champions only, OOC doesn't matter at all. In fact, half the games on our schedule simply become exhibition games. Who cares who wins USC-ND? Bama-Mich? These outcome of these games have no bearing on anything.

    I know, that's what I want to see. OOC schedules are so different across the board that it is impossible to determine much from them. In conference schedules are pretty consistent within the conference so they tell you alot more about teams in that conference. Then a playoff between conferences determines the best team.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • bamabum5 said...

    No, CBB doesn't do the same thing. Under a champions only format, UK would not have been in the tourney so Middle Nowhere State would not have faced them. CBB allows all conference tourney champions into the tourney but they only do that because they have the liberty to have at-large selections. Prior to 1975, the NCAA basketball tourney only consisted 16 conference champions gaining entry. They expanded to 32 teams adding at-large teams. What was the primary reason? Read the cut and paste from wikipedia on the topic:

    "Prior to 1975, only one team per conference could be in the NCAA tournament. However, after several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974), the NCAA began to place at-large teams in the tournament, instead of just conference champions."

    The basketball tournament corrected the huge flaw that is just allowing conference champions only into the tournament.

    You are missing the point. Don't focus so much on the conference championship, it's just another game in a playoff. Oregon had as much a chance of losing to UCLA as UK did their first round game in the tourney. Do you think UK vs Vandy would have been a decent sweet 16 matchup? Elite 8? Because that is more of the comparison and it wouldn't have been quite as big an upset then and i'm sure UK would have come to play.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • sf2k4 said...

    Why do you focus so hard on the 3-4 OoC games rather than the 8-9 conference games when you discuss scheduling?

    Because we were comparing two teams in the same conference. Their in conference schedule is going to be more or less the same.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • bamabum5 said...

    Under the format of conference champions only, OOC doesn't matter at all. In fact, half the games on our schedule simply become exhibition games. Who cares who wins USC-ND? Bama-Mich? These outcome of these games have no bearing on anything.

    Most teams are already scheduling shit OOC games to begin with. I think under an Conference champ format, we will see more competitive OOC games, as a loss does not mean an end to your title goals.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • bamabum5 said...

    Really piss poor perception on your part. You're telling me that 6-6 UCLA would have been part of an 8 team playoff to decide the CFB championship last season? What a marvelous system you have conceived. Could you imagine if CBB used this same system...Vandy would have made the cut and Kentucky would have been left out of the NCAA tourney because they lost the SEC conference tourney last season. Genius.

    CBB does use that system. A team could have been absolute dogshit over the course of the regular season, but if they win their conferences post season tourney, then they get an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • sf2k4 said...

    Why do you focus so hard on the 3-4 OoC games rather than the 8-9 conference games when you discuss scheduling?

    There can be a much greater disparity between teams OOC, than their in conference schedule. With some exceptions of course. For example Georgia, both their OOC, and in conference schedule is terrible.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    CBB does use that system. A team could have been absolute dogshit over the course of the regular season, but if they win their conferences post season tourney, then they get an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney.

    You don't get it. The NCAA had a system in place where only conference champions made the tourney. That was until 1975 where they expanded from 16 to 32 teams to include at-large teams. I will post the cut and paste again on why they did this:

    "Prior to 1975, only one team per conference could be in the NCAA tournament. However, after several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974), the NCAA began to place at-large teams in the tournament, instead of just conference champions."

    The NCAA no longer just accepts conference champions because it wasn't a good system and they changed it for the better. I will say this to explain it one more time.

    Under a conference champ only format, the following teams would have been left out of march madness in 2012:

    Kentucky(#1 seed)
    Syracuse(#1 seed)
    North Carolina(#1 seed)
    Kansas(#2 seed)
    Duke(#2 seed)
    Ohio State(#2 seed)

    meanwhile, every 13-16 seed except 1 team would have been in because they won their conference tournament. Makes sense, right?

    The problem here is that basketball can expand to include all conference champions and still include the great teams that get upset in the conference tourney. Football isn't capable at this time.

    I just find it odd that people would support a system that could have a potential 6-6 UCLA in a 4 team playoff for the title. Was it a long shot? Sure but so was Texas Tech beating Oklahoma. Most times, it will play out right but why not have something in place to prevent us from having a crappy 4 teams due to upsets? You said it yourself when you were saying how awesome it would have been to see LSU, Bama, Okie Lite, and Oregon play in the playoffs. That's what we want to see. Why create a system where we could end up with much less than that? Why not have the teams we want to see play it out for the title?

    bamabum5

  • bamabum5 said...

    You don't get it. The NCAA had a system in place where only conference champions made the tourney. That was until 1975 where they expanded from 16 to 32 teams to include at-large teams. I will post the cut and paste again on why they did this:

    "Prior to 1975, only one team per conference could be in the NCAA tournament. However, after several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974), the NCAA began to place at-large teams in the tournament, instead of just conference champions."

    The NCAA no longer just accepts conference champions because it wasn't a good system and they changed it for the better. I will say this to explain it one more time.

    Under a conference champ only format, the following teams would have been left out of march madness in 2012:

    Kentucky(#1 seed) Syracuse(#1 seed) North Carolina(#1 seed) Kansas(#2 seed) Duke(#2 seed) Ohio State(#2 seed)

    meanwhile, every 13-16 seed except 1 team would have been in because they won their conference tournament. Makes sense, right?

    The problem here is that basketball can expand to include all conference champions and still include the great teams that get upset in the conference tourney. Football isn't capable at this time.

    I just find it odd that people would support a system that could have a potential 6-6 UCLA in a 4 team playoff for the title. Was it a long shot? Sure but so was Texas Tech beating Oklahoma. Most times, it will play out right but why not have something in place to prevent us from having a crappy 4 teams due to upsets? You said it yourself when you were saying how awesome it would have been to see LSU, Bama, Okie Lite, and Oregon play in the playoffs. That's what we want to see. Why create a system where we could end up with much less than that? Why not have the teams we want to see play it out for the title?

    basketball is different. Don't confuse tournament champs in basketball with conference champs. And they don't have a conference tourney in football with three games in three days. And if it had been one game do or die between Vandy and UK to get into the tourney I have a feeling it would have ended a little differently. And if it didn't, well that's why you play the game.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich

  • bamabum5 said...

    You don't get it. The NCAA had a system in place where only conference champions made the tourney. That was until 1975 where they expanded from 16 to 32 teams to include at-large teams. I will post the cut and paste again on why they did this:

    "Prior to 1975, only one team per conference could be in the NCAA tournament. However, after several highly ranked teams in the country were denied entrance into the tournament (e.g., South Carolina, which was 14-0 in conference play in 1970, Southern Cal which was ranked #2 in the nation in 1971, and Maryland which was ranked #3 in the nation in 1974), the NCAA began to place at-large teams in the tournament, instead of just conference champions."

    The NCAA no longer just accepts conference champions because it wasn't a good system and they changed it for the better. I will say this to explain it one more time.

    Under a conference champ only format, the following teams would have been left out of march madness in 2012:

    Kentucky(#1 seed) Syracuse(#1 seed) North Carolina(#1 seed) Kansas(#2 seed) Duke(#2 seed) Ohio State(#2 seed)

    meanwhile, every 13-16 seed except 1 team would have been in because they won their conference tournament. Makes sense, right?

    The problem here is that basketball can expand to include all conference champions and still include the great teams that get upset in the conference tourney. Football isn't capable at this time.

    I just find it odd that people would support a system that could have a potential 6-6 UCLA in a 4 team playoff for the title. Was it a long shot? Sure but so was Texas Tech beating Oklahoma. Most times, it will play out right but why not have something in place to prevent us from having a crappy 4 teams due to upsets? You said it yourself when you were saying how awesome it would have been to see LSU, Bama, Okie Lite, and Oregon play in the playoffs. That's what we want to see. Why create a system where we could end up with much less than that? Why not have the teams we want to see play it out for the title?

    BIg difference in talking about 30 conferences of drastically different strength, and 4 major football conferences, that though may not always be equal in strength every season, are usually pretty damn close.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    BIg difference in talking about 30 conferences of drastically different strength, and 4 major football conferences, that though may not always be equal in strength every season, are usually pretty damn close.

    You just don't get it. I don't mind if we allowed the four big conferences to have their champ be AQ into a playoff as long as there is also a process to allow at-large selections in the event of upsets in conference title games and such. The basketball tournament saw the flaw in conference champs only and expanded. If we had an 8 team playoff and had the four conference champs with 4 at-large, I would be fine with it. A four team playoff of champions only is a completely flawed system that will produce years where CFB fans aren't getting what they should expect each year.

    bamabum5

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports