OT: Consensus reached on 4 team college playoff.

[chicowalker]

Except LSU beat Alabama in the regular season just like they beat everyone else they played. Alabama only got a second chance because they got put into a championship game they didn't earn their way into.

I'd be fine with Alabama winning the national championship if they had earned it. If there was a playoff and they won out fine. But they ended up as 3rd place in the SEC so I don't see any logical way to catapult them in front of Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, etc to a shot at the title regardless of what sportswriters and other coaches think. If a real playoff is implemented then whoever wins wins. But picking 4 teams, either you just do 1-4 and 2-3 matchups to determine who plays for the title and disregard conference championships totally (as in not even play the games) or you take the 4 conference champs with best records and forget the rankings. You can't have it both ways.

the logical reason is that all the teams you mentioned lost games, too

A 4-team playoff remains highly flawed, but as another poster said, it now opens the door to a good playoff system. (like kontra, I'd say 1 12-team playoff would be ideal. Yes, there will be arguments about who should be the final spot or 2 (just like there are questionable calls at the bubble in the basketball tourney), but no team ranked 13th or 14th will have an argument that they're actually the best team in the nation.

 

[stinebot]

the logical reason is that all the teams you mentioned lost games, too

Yes they lost games, but just speaking about Ok St. now, they won their conference. You didn't address my point that if you have two teams with the same record but one won their conference and one finished third, consensus is the team that won it's conference is the better team.

That is certainly open to debate, but I'd give the nod to a 1 loss team that lost it's game in double overtime on the road over a 1 loss team that lost it's game at home and couldn't even score 7 points in their losing effort, even though a computer formula most people don't comprehend said Bama was a tiny fragment of a percentage point better.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes they lost games, but just speaking about Ok St. now, they won their conference. You didn't address my point that if you have two teams with the same record but one won their conference and one finished third, consensus is the team that won it's conference is the better team.

That is certainly open to debate, but I'd give the nod to a 1 loss team that lost it's game in double overtime on the road over a 1 loss team that lost it's game at home and couldn't even score 7 points in their losing effort, even though a computer formula most people don't comprehend said Bama was a tiny fragment of a percentage point better.

In 2007, the Giants didn't win their division. They beat a clearly superior opponent and won the Super Bowl, and it was a rematch after they'd lost to that same team a few weeks earlier.

They are considered the league champions.


So.... do we need to get rid of this possibility in the NFL now? Should we eliminate the wild cards?

 

[stinebot]

In 2007, the Giants didn't win their division. They beat a clearly superior opponent and won the Super Bowl, and it was a rematch after they'd lost to that same team a few weeks earlier.

They are considered the league champions.


So.... do we need to get rid of this possibility in the NFL now? Should we eliminate the wild cards?

Not at all. A few responses back I said that if there was a true college playoff then whoever wins the championship deserves to be called champions. Just like the NFL. My point is that with no playoff as was the case last year you are left with picking the two teams that "deserve" to play for the championship. How can a team that finishes third in it's conference be one of the two best teams in the entire country, when they are only third best in their conference?

 

[Deus Irae]

Not at all. A few responses back I said that if there was a true college playoff then whoever wins the championship deserves to be called champions. Just like the NFL. My point is that with no playoff as was the case last year you are left with picking the two teams that "deserve" to play for the championship. How can a team that finishes third in it's conference be one of the two best teams in the entire country, when they are only third best in their conference?

The NFL doesn't have a "true playoff", either. None of the 4 major professional sports leagues in the U.S. does. In order to have a "true playoff", you'd need to have every team in the league playing in it.

 

[stinebot]

The NFL doesn't have a "true playoff", either. None of the 4 major professional sports leagues in the U.S. does. In order to have a "true playoff", you'd need to have every team in the league playing in it.

That's just silly. The NFL, NBA, and NHL have all had teams with losing records make the playoffs. If a team with a losing record can make the playoffs it's reasonably safe to assume the best team overall team made it. Once you are in it's up to you. Play hard and you can be champions. but in college football it has always been more like "Be a good team in the SEC and you'll be fine and you can claim nobody else deserves to play for the title because you don't face as good of competition, excuse me I have to go pound on Southwestern North Dakota Community College now."

 

[chicowalker]

Yes they lost games, but just speaking about Ok St. now, they won their conference. You didn't address my point that if you have two teams with the same record but one won their conference and one finished third, consensus is the team that won it's conference is the better team.

That is certainly open to debate, but I'd give the nod to a 1 loss team that lost it's game in double overtime on the road over a 1 loss team that lost it's game at home and couldn't even score 7 points in their losing effort, even though a computer formula most people don't comprehend said Bama was a tiny fragment of a percentage point better.

I didn't see that point in your post. A conference winner isn't necessarily better than a non conference winner. However, there's certainly an argument to give the conference winner the benefit of the doubt.

(But the rest of your argument is at best one-sided, at worst irrelevant. "couldn't even score 7 points"? Who cares? They also held their opponent to under 10 in that game. I could just as easily say that Ok St "couldn't even hold their opponent under 35 points in their losing effort." And while LSU lost at home, it was a loss to the consensus best team in the nation (until the last game, of course). Oklahoma State, otoh, lost to a mediocre opponent. and Alabama's loss was in OT, something you conveniently left out while pointing out that Ok St's was in double OT.

There was an argument for Ok State, but if you're going to make that argument -- as irrelevant as that is today -- at least don't be disingenuous and cherrypick.)

 

[chicowalker]

Not at all. A few responses back I said that if there was a true college playoff then whoever wins the championship deserves to be called champions. Just like the NFL. My point is that with no playoff as was the case last year you are left with picking the two teams that "deserve" to play for the championship. How can a team that finishes third in it's conference be one of the two best teams in the entire country, when they are only third best in their conference?

Alabama weren't exactly "3rd best" in their conference... You're comparing apples and oranges because of the respective structures of the SEC versus the Big 12.

You would have been hard-pressed to find any college football fan (outside of Athens, perhaps) who thought Georgia or any other SEC East team was better than Alabama.

Do you actually believe that Alabama was any worse than the 2nd best team in the SEC last year?

 

[Deus Irae]

That's just silly. The NFL, NBA, and NHL have all had teams with losing records make the playoffs. If a team with a losing record can make the playoffs it's reasonably safe to assume the best team overall team made it. Once you are in it's up to you. Play hard and you can be champions. but in college football it has always been more like "Be a good team in the SEC and you'll be fine and you can claim nobody else deserves to play for the title because you don't face as good of competition, excuse me I have to go pound on Southwestern North Dakota Community College now."

It's not silly at all. It's a specific response to a claim. A "true playoff" doesn't first eliminate teams before the playoffs even start. What you're trying to do is massage this so that if fits nicely into a preconceived notion of perfect.

That's just not going to happen. If you have 4 teams, the 5th team will often have gotten screwed. If you have 8 teams, the 9th team will often have gotten screwed. March Madness should have made this pretty clear to even the most ardent champions of this nonsense.

And that "losing team" argument is ridiculous, as 2010 should have demonstrated, conclusively, to you, when a sub .500 team knocked off an 11-5 team. Hell, 2010 had some of the "We need to change this!" brigade out, calling for reforms of the NFL playoff system.

 

[Frezo]

Not at all. A few responses back I said that if there was a true college playoff then whoever wins the championship deserves to be called champions. Just like the NFL. My point is that with no playoff as was the case last year you are left with picking the two teams that "deserve" to play for the championship. How can a team that finishes third in it's conference be one of the two best teams in the entire country, when they are only third best in their conference?

It makes absolutely no difference what system is put in place. There will ALWAYS be a group of people that don't like it. For every stinebot that likes it there will be a stinebot that hates it and other stinebots that don't care until their team doesn't make the playoffs then they'll become the vocal party year after year after year. There can be no system that will be viewed as fair by everyone.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I didn't mind the bowl system either. I just would have liked to see a playoff system in which (and this had been mentioned) we get to see if a team like Boise State really does have what it takes to go all the way against the SEC and the ACC.

This is pretty much the only reason I follow college football. (Damn Boise State kicker) I thought this system would of made it easier to get a game like that, as the only real ones I can remember were Boise st. vs. Oklahoma and Hawaii vs. Georgia. But I guess as you've pointed out this system will suck even more.

 

[Triumph]

Except LSU beat Alabama in the regular season just like they beat everyone else they played.

I realize that, but both teams basically had the same record after the BSC game in a system based on wins and losses to decide who even plays in that game. LSU had 1 more win from the SEC championship, but those game are a farce anyway. If you lose the Conference Championship it reflects negatively on your record and if you win it doesnt mean anything since LSU wasnt crowned the champion.

Alabama only got a second chance because they got put into a championship game they didn't earn their way into.

Based on this system they did.

Beating LSU didnt prove to me that Bama is better though. Im fine with the NFL system where playoff teams are 0 - 0. Regular season record only matters in the seeding and as we saw this past NFL season a Wild Card can win it all. A team with injuries or in a slump during the regular season still has a chance if they earn a playoff spot.

Nobody here would be bellyaching about the Giants 9 - 7 record if the Pats had won the Super Bowl with the same record.

 

[brdmaverick]

I love the idea. I mean, let's face it, sure there will still be debates about what team is number 4. But that debate will always exist. If the playoffs including 12 teams, every year there will be an argument that some teams got jipped.

The way I see it, the "number 5" should be lucky they were even in consideration to play for the championship because in past years they would have been a non-factor (when it was only two teams).

 

[VJCPatriot]

Guys, I don't think this is the end of Bowls. Rather, there will be a separate set of championship playoff games to decide the national champion. And I fully expect there to be a rotation on who gets to host those games. Seed 1 vs 4 and Seed 2 vs 3 are nationa championship semi-final games will be hosted in 2 different locations. And the championship game itself would be hosted in a different location. They will still find ways to make money out of this. Don't worry, bowls aren't going away for regional championships/rivalries, etc.

 

[Kontradiction]

Except LSU beat Alabama in the regular season just like they beat everyone else they played. Alabama only got a second chance because they got put into a championship game they didn't earn their way into.

I'd be fine with Alabama winning the national championship if they had earned it. If there was a playoff and they won out fine. But they ended up as 3rd place in the SEC so I don't see any logical way to catapult them in front of Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, etc to a shot at the title regardless of what sportswriters and other coaches think. If a real playoff is implemented then whoever wins wins. But picking 4 teams, either you just do 1-4 and 2-3 matchups to determine who plays for the title and disregard conference championships totally (as in not even play the games) or you take the 4 conference champs with best records and forget the rankings. You can't have it both ways.

I'm a die hard Gator fan born and raised. I don't like Alabama at all, but you can't say that they didn't earn their way to the title game. They beat the hell out of everyone except LSU and has an exceptional strength of schedule, then beat LSU in what was probably the most boring NC in history. They definitely earned it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Alabama should not have played in the national championship last year. What's the point of having a regular season and a conference playoff if the results of that will be disregarded? Alabama did not even win the SEC West, let alone the SEC. So how did they deserve a shot at the national championship? They were not even the best team in the SEC West. Games count.

I guess you're arguing that being the second best team in the country (at the time) should be ignored if you're in the same division as the best team in the country (at the time).

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[mgteich]

The top 4 Bowls will be used, generating lots and lots of additional monies. The championship game will be played in the Bowl that bids the highest. The semis will be played in the other 3 top bowls on a rotating basis.

So, there will be the same number of bowls. The difference will be that only 6 teams will play in the top four bowls each year, 4 in the championship series and 2 in the remaining bowl game. Normally, 8 teams would play in the four bowls.

The top 4 bowls have always included the top 4 teams plus 4 others. Now these bowls will include the top 4 teams plus only 2 others and lots more money.

Guys, I don't think this is the end of Bowls. Rather, there will be a separate set of championship playoff games to decide the national champion. And I fully expect there to be a rotation on who gets to host those games. Seed 1 vs 4 and Seed 2 vs 3 are nationa championship semi-final games will be hosted in 2 different locations. And the championship game itself would be hosted in a different location. They will still find ways to make money out of this. Don't worry, bowls aren't going away for regional championships/rivalries, etc.

 

[stinebot]

I guess you're arguing that being the second best team in the country (at the time) should be ignored if you're in the same division as the best team in the country (at the time).

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I fully admit that Alabama was a great team. I never said they were not. I just don't think they earned the right to play in the national championship. They finished with the same record as Oklahoma State. Both teams were really good. I am saying Oklahoma State should have gotten the nod based on the fact that they won their conference while Alabama did not.

A real playoff system would be best. When you just pick two (or now four) teams based on how you think they stack up there will always be disputes.

So do you think the NFL should go the college route? How many great Pats-Colts Super Bowls would there have been? Or some combination of Giants/49ers/Redskins/Cowboys games in the 80s or early 90s? I mean, you say you want the top two teams. The second best team in the AFC should not be ignored if the guys on BSPN think they are better than the best team in the NFC, right?

 

[Deus Irae]

I fully admit that Alabama was a great team. I never said they were not. I just don't think they earned the right to play in the national championship. They finished with the same record as Oklahoma State. Both teams were really good. I am saying Oklahoma State should have gotten the nod based on the fact that they won their conference while Alabama did not.

A real playoff system would be best. When you just pick two (or now four) teams based on how you think they stack up there will always be disputes.

So do you think the NFL should go the college route? How many great Pats-Colts Super Bowls would there have been? Or some combination of Giants/49ers/Redskins/Cowboys games in the 80s or early 90s? I mean, you say you want the top two teams. The second best team in the AFC should not be ignored if the guys on BSPN think they are better than the best team in the NFC, right?

College is college, and the NFL is the NFL. The people who are demanding similar/same outcomes from a 32 team professional system and a 100+ team college system are the problem here. You'll note that there's no hue and cry for the NCAA to scrap March madness and go to a series system, or for the NBA to go to a 1-and-done system.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I fully admit that Alabama was a great team. I never said they were not. I just don't think they earned the right to play in the national championship. They finished with the same record as Oklahoma State. Both teams were really good. I am saying Oklahoma State should have gotten the nod based on the fact that they won their conference while Alabama did not.

So you are again saying that the team voted as 2nd best in the country should be penalized because they played in the same division as the team voted the best in the country. That's what it boils down to (as the reason they didn't win their division or conference is solely because they were up against the best team in the country at the time).

I think that Alabama has a significantly better case for being ranked #2 than Oklahoma State for reasons that others have stated and that the voters agreed with. That being said, we can agree to disagree.