Started By
Message
re: Playoffs will have its own poll system ...
Posted on 4/23/13 at 4:12 pm to nicholastiger
Posted on 4/23/13 at 4:12 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
This 4 team deal will cause more issues than the BCS
No doubt. I dare anyone to come up with 4 teams from the 2012 season that answers any questions, and it wasn't even that crazy of a year. This is going to be a disaster and we're going to stuck with an even bigger playoff in short order unfortunately.
0
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:03 pm to Cockopotamus
I'm afraid not. 2004 had 5 undefeated teams. You had your 3 BCS teams and then Utah and Boise, on top of 1-loss Cal and Texas both ahead of them. 2009 had Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Boise State and TCU, plus 1-loss Florida.
Furthermore that wouldn't be close to sufficient to handle bullshite like 07 and 08, where the top ten teams had some form of argument that wasn't completely outrageous.
Four would also have been suboptimal in years like 2002 (where you had undefeated Miami and Ohio State; 2 > 4 there).
I recommend a six-team playoff where the top 2 seeds get first-round byes. It covers the awkward 5-team scenarios which were surprisingly common, it's better than 4-teams for 2-team scenarios (since the undefeated teams get rewarded with a bye while the other four less worthy teams have to fight it out to prove their worth), and it does a better job (although imperfect) of handling the crazy years like 07 and 08.
Furthermore that wouldn't be close to sufficient to handle bullshite like 07 and 08, where the top ten teams had some form of argument that wasn't completely outrageous.
Four would also have been suboptimal in years like 2002 (where you had undefeated Miami and Ohio State; 2 > 4 there).
I recommend a six-team playoff where the top 2 seeds get first-round byes. It covers the awkward 5-team scenarios which were surprisingly common, it's better than 4-teams for 2-team scenarios (since the undefeated teams get rewarded with a bye while the other four less worthy teams have to fight it out to prove their worth), and it does a better job (although imperfect) of handling the crazy years like 07 and 08.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:09 pm to lsutothetop
Getting a bye would be way too big an advantage. And I don't care about teams that aren't in AQ conferences. If they're in the top 4 they're in. If not, they don't deserve to be in.
the top 4 is enough and you can view the conference championships as the first round
the top 4 is enough and you can view the conference championships as the first round
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:24 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
the top 4 is enough and you can view the conference championships as the first round
Again, who on earth do you plan to occupy the final 2 spots with if the system were in place just last year?
You got KSU, UO, Stanford, UGA, and UF. GO!
It's going to be a train-wreck a lot of the time, which I guess will be fun.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:31 pm to scrooster
Grant Teaff is pissed... 
LINK
quote:
Current coaches have lost their voice in football’s postseason. The American Football Coaches Association, whose poll comprises one-third of the BCS formula, says it has had no communication with conference commissioners about the playoff selection process.
“When they were trying to get what turned out to be the BCS 15 years ago, the commissioners were begging us to allow our poll to be part of the process,” said Grant Teaff, executive director of the AFCA. “If they need us this time, they’ll probably let us know.”
LINK
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:33 pm to scrooster
They've also named the playoffs, this may shock a few...it will be called "College Football Playoffs"
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:44 pm to GumBro Jackson
quote:
A #5 who felt like they should have been #4 will likely have a weaker argument that someone who thought they should be #2.
I don't think this is true because they will be comparing themselves against other teams of that ilk and not only will there be exponentially more of these teams but they will also have more ammunition with which to poke holes in the oppositions resume.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 5:59 pm to CrippleCreek
quote:
Again, who on earth do you plan to occupy the final 2 spots with if the system were in place just last year?
uhhh like I said, the top 4 of the BCS. UF and whoever was 4. Oregon, stanford or KSU... can't remember
Posted on 4/23/13 at 7:00 pm to Cockopotamus
There is going to be no way to make everyone happy unless they move to a 16 team format and reorganize the entire bowl system into a playoff system.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 7:26 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
quote:
A #5 who felt like they should have been #4 will likely have a weaker argument that someone who thought they should be #2.
I don't think this is true because they will be comparing themselves against other teams of that ilk and not only will there be exponentially more of these teams but they will also have more ammunition with which to poke holes in the oppositions resume.
If a team from a power conference is undefeated they should get a shot, otherwise their complaint just isn't that big a deal b/c the obvious answer is "you should have won all your games".
Posted on 4/23/13 at 7:37 pm to GumBro Jackson
quote:
If a team from a power conference is undefeated they should get a shot, otherwise their complaint just isn't that big a deal b/c the obvious answer is "you should have won all your games".
Also you should have won your damn conference. Why don't they actually use some objective results like winning your conference to be eligible. That way you can eliminate teams objectively. If you don't win your conference an easy argument can be you have already been eliminated in tournament format from being number 1.
Win all your games or just win your power conference and you are most likely in the playoff.
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 4/23/13 at 8:30 pm to Colonel Flagg
Conference championships shouldn't be a major provision. The conferences are unbalanced. Every conference has their Big 2, but the SEC annually has at least 4 teams that compete with other conferences ' Big 2's. Including a conference championship provision would help the weaker leagues. I'd be more in favor of getting rid of conference championships; they're not an honest play-in because the championship games rarely feature a conference's two best teams.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 8:37 pm to dallasga6
quote:So, I wonder if they will still give their Crystal Ball trophy to a national champion they pick, like the AP.
Current coaches have lost their voice in football’s postseason. The American Football Coaches Association, whose poll comprises one-third of the BCS formula, says it has had no communication with conference commissioners about the playoff selection process.
And I wonder what the new trophy will look like.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 8:38 pm to jatebe
I was about to say the same thing. Guess they'll have a new trophy?
Posted on 4/23/13 at 8:59 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Also you should have won your damn conference. Why don't they actually use some objective results like winning your conference to be eligible. That way you can eliminate teams objectively. If you don't win your conference an easy argument can be you have already been eliminated in tournament format from being number 1.
They should do this in basketball too...just have a 34 team playoff of conference champs only.....right?
Ooooooh, all conferences aren't equal, duuuh
Posted on 4/23/13 at 10:23 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
They should do this in basketball too...just have a 34 team playoff of conference champs only.....right?
Ooooooh, all conferences aren't equal, duuuh
Yep,
1) SEC
.
.
2) PAC
3) B12
.
.
4) B10
.
.
.
.
.
.
5) ACC
6) BE
The Big East champ and the ACC champ have literally won nothing of value. They are scrubs and should not be on the same level as the other AQ conferences.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 10:24 pm to IT_Dawg
I don't think the basketball and football season are comparable at all; however, I honestly wouldn't really care.
Also who cares if the conferences are unbalanced? Why does it really matter? The playoff determines #1. It isn't there for #2, #3, and #4. In fooball there isn't a lot of match ups between conferences to compare objectively. If my team comes in second in the SEC they aren't national champions IMO. They are no better than #2. They can still be ranked second by pole voters.
If they want to change up how the conference champion is determined in the SEC I am open to that too if they feel there are flaws in the tournament style.
Also who cares if the conferences are unbalanced? Why does it really matter? The playoff determines #1. It isn't there for #2, #3, and #4. In fooball there isn't a lot of match ups between conferences to compare objectively. If my team comes in second in the SEC they aren't national champions IMO. They are no better than #2. They can still be ranked second by pole voters.
If they want to change up how the conference champion is determined in the SEC I am open to that too if they feel there are flaws in the tournament style.
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 4/23/13 at 10:29 pm to scrooster
I expect the latest BCS poll will be followed by the playoff committee, unless a key player such as QB or RB is injured late in the season, and there is a very strong, deserving, alternative team.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 10:37 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:
5) ACC
6) BE
The Big East champ and the ACC champ have literally won nothing of value. They are scrubs and should not be on the same level as the other AQ conferences.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 10:56 pm to Colonel Flagg
Someone still has their jimmies rustled from the rematch against Bama
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News