Online Now 3121

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 2419
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 2796
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

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

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

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

  • AlwaysMore said...

    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.

    The purpose of a playoff is to make sure the real best team in CFB is crowned.

    However, if that is your goal, to make sure that the best team wins the national championship, then you can't limit it to conference champions. You guarantee that there will be some years that the best team won't be in the playoff and therefore the winner has a hollow victory.

    And I'm not saying this because I feel the SEC has a leg up- nothing says only the SEC can have 2 teams in the playoff. There's every reason to believe the SEC will have a down cycle and the Big 10 or PAC 12 will go through a cycle of dominance in which they place 2 teams in the playoff for several years and win several titles. And I'm fine with that because I want the best team to win.

    If you want to require only conference champions to be allowed into the playoff then you want to rig the playoffs to give your team more advantages, and you're taking away the legitimacy of any title won under that system.

    TalHawkins112 ●

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Because I'm arguing within the parameters of the given system we will see in te next couple of years and you are throwing out this hypothetical system you want to see.

    We are not going to have a 16 team playoff or an 11 team tournament or whatever it is you are arguing for.

    Its Saban that brought up how he is against an only conference champion tournament. I was responding to that.

    If you dont want to talk about that, move on. It was in the original post, and thats all I was talking about. The relative fairness and unfairness of those types of playoffs.

    AlwaysMore

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    So one fluke year requires an entire rehash to fit the problem of that one fluke finish?

    Gotcha. headslap

    One fluke year? No, this would have settled much more than that. Just go back to 2000, and look at what we would have gotten. We would have had some great football.

    USC and LSU in 2003 would have happened

    2004 tourney of USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah

    2008, Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Utah (Utah here would have been a controversial pick, and if this system was in place, I think the voters would have put them lower to put Texas in)

    The huge controversy in 2000 would have been settled and we would have had Oklahoma, Miami, Florida St, and Washington

    That is some great football, and settles any nonsense. Conference champs top-6 would have insured that a vastly superior USC team got in over Alabama who was ranked higher due to sec bias only. This is why I like this as opposed to polls only. Because what happens on the field matters more than opinions.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    The purpose of a playoff is to make sure the real best team in CFB is crowned.

    However, if that is your goal, to make sure that the best team wins the national championship, then you can't limit it to conference champions. You guarantee that there will be some years that the best team won't be in the playoff and therefore the winner has a hollow victory.

    And I'm not saying this because I feel the SEC has a leg up- nothing says only the SEC can have 2 teams in the playoff. There's every reason to believe the SEC will have a down cycle and the Big 10 or PAC 12 will go through a cycle of dominance in which they place 2 teams in the playoff for several years and win several titles. And I'm fine with that because I want the best team to win.

    If you want to require only conference champions to be allowed into the playoff then you want to rig the playoffs to give your team more advantages, and you're taking away the legitimacy of any title won under that system.

    Your first sentence is factually incorrect.

    So the rest of the post is not really relevant.

    Playoffs are for champions to be crowned. The wholly subjective matter of "best team" is something that can only be talked about, and never really proven, especially in a one game situation like a playoff presents.

    AlwaysMore

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    The purpose of a playoff is to make sure the real best team in CFB is crowned.

    However, if that is your goal, to make sure that the best team wins the national championship, then you can't limit it to conference champions. You guarantee that there will be some years that the best team won't be in the playoff and therefore the winner has a hollow victory.

    And I'm not saying this because I feel the SEC has a leg up- nothing says only the SEC can have 2 teams in the playoff. There's every reason to believe the SEC will have a down cycle and the Big 10 or PAC 12 will go through a cycle of dominance in which they place 2 teams in the playoff for several years and win several titles. And I'm fine with that because I want the best team to win.

    If you want to require only conference champions to be allowed into the playoff then you want to rig the playoffs to give your team more advantages, and you're taking away the legitimacy of any title won under that system.

    This is where the top-6 qualifier comes in. If you are a conference champ, but not in the top-6, then you don't get in. If this system was in place last season, Alabama still would have gotten in the playoff.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    One fluke year? No, this would have settled much more than that. Just go back to 2000, and look at what we would have gotten. We would have had some great football.

    USC and LSU in 2003 would have happened

    2004 tourney of USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah

    2008, Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Utah (Utah here would have been a controversial pick, and if this system was in place, I think the voters would have put them lower to put Texas in)

    The huge controversy in 2000 would have been settled and we would have had Oklahoma, Miami, Florida St, and Washington

    That is some great football, and settles any nonsense. Conference champs top-6 would have insured that a vastly superior USC team got in over Alabama who was ranked higher due to sec bias only. This is why I like this as opposed to polls only. Because what happens on the field matters more than opinions.

    Hold on. How do you decide if there aren't four conference champions in the Top 6?

    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 ●

  • Cuthbert xxii said...

    You should prolly understand how many former champions of those leagues didn't win their conference.

    Huh? I think your making my argument for me. Kinda like Baltimore did by being a 'wild card'.

    National Football League playoffs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_playoffs

    en.wikipedia.org
    signature image

    Do infants have as much fun in infancy as adults do in adultery?

    AnthonyBourdain

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Settling on the field is fine when the system either is equitable in quantity and quality (professional leagues like NFL,NBA) or take in the lack of equity and have both conference champion and at-larges.

    But that is not college football. Some teams choose to play 1AA teams for a glorified practice while others do not, some teams play 6 road games, some teams play only 4. Some conferences play 9 games, others only 8. It isn't equitable across the board, and polls are even more inequitable. It is what it is, and choosing conference champs may not be completely equitable, but it is more equitable than any other scenario we could come up with, outside of forcing more inter-conference play among the major conferences.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    But that is not college football. Some teams choose to play 1AA teams for a glorified practice while others do not, some teams play 6 road games, some teams play only 4. Some conferences play 9 games, others only 8. It isn't equitable across the board, and polls are even more inequitable. It is what it is, and choosing conference champs may not be completely equitable, but it is more equitable than any other scenario we could come up with, outside of forcing more inter-conference play among the major conferences.

    Unless we created a new 64 team, four conference division, I would rather have anything between the old system to the BCs to the new four-team playoff with [insert whatever method they choose] than have this faux-fix gloss over that isn't going to solve the problem of not having an equitable champion determinant.

    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 ●

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Hold on. How do you decide if there aren't four conference champions in the Top 6?

    This is how non-conference champs get into the playoff. The proposed system is not limiting to only conference champs, just gives conference champs preferential treatment. If you are conference champ, but not ranked in the top-6, then you do not get in. So, as I said, if this system was in place last year, we would have had, LSU, Oklahoma St, Oregon, and Alabama. as #4 Stanford, and #6 Boise St were not conference champions.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    But that is not college football. Some teams choose to play 1AA teams for a glorified practice while others do not, some teams play 6 road games, some teams play only 4. Some conferences play 9 games, others only 8. It isn't equitable across the board, and polls are even more inequitable. It is what it is, and choosing conference champs may not be completely equitable, but it is more equitable than any other scenario we could come up with, outside of forcing more inter-conference play among the major conferences.

    That pretty well says it.

    AlwaysMore

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Unless we created a new 64 team, four conference division, I would rather have anything between the old system to the BCs to the new four-team playoff with [insert whatever method they choose] than have this faux-fix gloss over that isn't going to solve the problem of not having an equitable champion determinant.

    Any way you slice it, 4 teams being able to fight it out, is certainly much better than only 2. If Bama was left out last season, they would have no room to complain since LSU would have been in it, and Bama lost to LSU.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Your first sentence is factually incorrect.

    So the rest of the post is not really relevant.

    Playoffs are for champions to be crowned. The wholly subjective matter of "best team" is something that can only be talked about, and never really proven, especially in a one game situation like a playoff presents.

    The point is that the conference champion may not be the best team and exlcuding the, for example, no 4 ranked team for a loss to the no. 1 ranked team is asinine, particularly if it's a 1-3 point loss.

    That No. 4 ranked team, if included in the playoff, could win it and therefore win the national championship. Why exclude them if they are better than the other team that would be included?

    TalHawkins112 ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    This is how non-conference champs get into the playoff. The proposed system is not limiting to only conference champs, just gives conference champs preferential treatment. If you are conference champ, but not ranked in the top-6, then you do not get in. So, as I said, if this system was in place last year, we would have had, LSU, Oklahoma St, Oregon, and Alabama. as #4 Stanford, and #6 Boise St were not conference champions.

    Haha. I thought you were arguing something totally different. That'd be ok.

    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 ●

  • Taking only conference champs means insinuating that the two best teams in the country could not possibly be in the same conference, much less division. Are you okay with saying that, AM?

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    Any way you slice it, 4 teams being able to fight it out, is certainly much better than only 2. If Bama was left out last season, they would have no room to complain since LSU would have been in it, and Bama lost to LSU.

    See my second to last post where I thought you were talking about something else.

    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...

    This is where the top-6 qualifier comes in. If you are a conference champ, but not in the top-6, then you don't get in. If this system was in place last season, Alabama still would have gotten in the playoff.

    Ecept 9 times out of 10 there aren't six teams that deserve to be in a playoff. And you start entering into the area where the preseason ranked No. 1 and No. 2 can afford a late loss to terrible teams and make it into the playoff.

    TalHawkins112 ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    The point is that the conference champion may not be the best team and exlcuding the, for example, no 4 ranked team for a loss to the no. 1 ranked team is asinine, particularly if it's a 1-3 point loss.

    That No. 4 ranked team, if included in the playoff, could win it and therefore win the national championship. Why exclude them if they are better than the other team that would be included?

    2 reasons. #1 There is no way to know for sure, and #2 they had their chance and lost.

    What happens on the field of play has to trump perception. Green Bay was the best team in the NFL last year, but they were not champs. The best team often in not crowned the champion. We are not out to find the "best team" we are out to crown a champion.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • Cuthbert xxii said...

    I should have clarified what I meant. Without winning their division, many teams have won championships. The conference champions are crowned during the playoffs. Correct?

    Yes and the system could be similar by changing some of the verbiage. The college game doesn't have leagues but do have conferences already setup. So instead of wining your league (like in the NFL) you just have to win your conference. Sadly unlike the NFL though there would be no need for extra 'conference chanpionship' game.

    signature image

    Do infants have as much fun in infancy as adults do in adultery?

    AnthonyBourdain

  • MJRuffalo said...

    But that is not college football. Some teams choose to play 1AA teams for a glorified practice while others do not, some teams play 6 road games, some teams play only 4. Some conferences play 9 games, others only 8. It isn't equitable across the board, and polls are even more inequitable. It is what it is, and choosing conference champs may not be completely equitable, but it is more equitable than any other scenario we could come up with, outside of forcing more inter-conference play among the major conferences.

    You are correct in that no scenario purposed in this thread is equitable. I trust pollsters though. Most of the time, all things equal, they side with conference champions. The reason Bama ended up in the BCS title game was only because of the collapse of OSU, Stanford, Oregon, and Boise State. Pollsters believed Bama and LSU were the top 2 teams in the Country that simply happened to also be in the same division. Does anyone in this thread actually believe this was not the case?

    There are way too many examples of pollsters sending conference champions to the title game for anyone to believe that they are trying to get it right. No two schedules are alike as you pointed out. Simply mandating(by rule) that conference champs are only allowed into the 4 team playoff certainly means you are going to end up with a top 3-4 team nationally being excluded and a 3-4 loss conference champ making it in. In that scenario, it is much better to be in a crappy conference than a challenging conference.

    Also, you can't simply pick and choose which conference champs go. excluding the ACC champ(it has been suggested in this thread) is every bit as biased as anything being purposed here.

    bamabum5 ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    Ecept 9 times out of 10 there aren't six teams that deserve to be in a playoff. And you start entering into the area where the preseason ranked No. 1 and No. 2 can afford a late loss to terrible teams and make it into the playoff.

    depends. possible, but that team would still have to win it's conference to guarantee it's place in a playoff. Also it is only the sec who plays terrible non-conference teams late in the season.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • AlwaysMore said...

    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?

    We have a winner.

    Jagstyle ●

  • Calm down Bama brothers. I'm with the Duck fan on this. Let the 11 conference champs play for the crystal. We can just slide over to the Sun Belt and worry about ULM being our only tough game and heading to the playoff each year. No sweat off my rump how we get there if that is the plan they think is best.

    Daup ●

  • bamabum5 said...

    You are correct in that no scenario purposed in this thread is equitable. I trust pollsters though. Most of the time, all things equal, they side with conference champions. The reason Bama ended up in the BCS title game was only because of the collapse of OSU, Stanford, Oregon, and Boise State. Pollsters believed Bama and LSU were the top 2 teams in the Country that simply happened to also be in the same division. Does anyone in this thread actually believe this was not the case?

    There are way too many examples of pollsters sending conference champions to the title game for anyone to believe that they are trying to get it right. No two schedules are alike as you pointed out. Simply mandating(by rule) that conference champs are only allowed into the 4 team playoff certainly means you are going to end up with a top 3-4 team nationally being excluded and a 3-4 loss conference champ making it in. In that scenario, it is much better to be in a crappy conference than a challenging conference.

    Also, you can't simply pick and choose which conference champs go. excluding the ACC champ(it has been suggested in this thread) is every bit as biased as anything being purposed here.

    The proposal that will likely pass is the following

    Highest rated conference champions, as long as they are ranked #6 or higher. If there are not 4 conference champs who qualify, like last year, then the next highest rated team or teams get in.

    The reason I like this, is that it does provide a balance to the polls for any sort of regional or perceptive bias, and it still maintains CFB's regular season as the most important in all of American sports.

    I would like to see a small addition that any team ranked #1 automatically gets in as well.

    As to your contention that conference champs already get preferential treatment, I would disagree. Last season Okie St won their conference, accomplished more on the field, yet still fell behind Alabama. Now personally do I think that Oklahoma St was better than Alabama, no I do not.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    This is where the top-6 qualifier comes in. If you are a conference champ, but not in the top-6, then you don't get in. If this system was in place last season, Alabama still would have gotten in the playoff.

    Another winner

    Jagstyle ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports