Started By
Message
re: Saban Wants Five Conferences That Only Play Each Other
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:42 am to Buckeye06
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:42 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I disagree completely. This is on the premise that the teams who win their conferences have already proven they are the BEST team in that conference (top 4 record in their conference and then won the conference "tourney"). There is no need to have 2 SEC teams in the final 4 if we have already determined who the best SEC team is. Why have, for example, UF and Bama in the final 4 if they already played each other in the conference final game, and UF won. No reason for Bama to be there
There's no perfect solution, but this gives a potential 9-3 SEC champ the same chance to win a title as a potential 12-0 ACC champ
I don't agree because a three loss Big Ten Champ, with an easy schedule to begin with, doesn't deserve an equal chance as a one loss SEC runner up, or second place division champ. The three loss B1G Champ, even with his easy path to victory, deserves a shot, but not an equal one as a team in a conference that has proven the ability to put more time, effort, and support in to its product.
2
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:43 am to TeLeFaWx
Co signed
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:44 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Too bad a division of Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, State, Mizzou and Texas A&M is stronger than whatever the frick the Big Ten has
Mizzou, State, Ole Miss, Auburn and Arky were all pretty bad last year. Bama LSU and A&M were very good teams. I don't think when the B1G realigns that that 'division' will be so much stronger than OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU etc in the east of the B1G. OSU and Mich recruit at a top 10 level, MSU is usually a solid team, and PSU is a wild card (who knows where they will be).
I don't think it's perfect as I said, but it gives the conference champs a chance to win it all without relying too much on the eye test
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:48 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I don't agree because a three loss Big Ten Champ, with an easy schedule to begin with, doesn't deserve an equal chance as a one loss SEC runner up, or second place division champ. The three loss B1G Champ, even with his easy path to victory, deserves a shot, but not an equal one as a team in a conference that has proven the ability to put more time, effort, and support in to its product.
What happens if the best 2 SEC teams are 9-3? Do you think they are undeserving to be in the game? I mean you are only taking the scenario from 1 angle, in which a shitty B1G champ slides in over a more deserving SEC team. What about when the B1G has 3 very good programs, would you want the SEC to get completely left out of the chance to win a title?
I think the conference semifinals and finals have already determined who the best team is in a conference, and the SEC runner ups already had their shots and didn't get the job done
Edit: I respect the other side, but I think this gets rid of the eye test, where Bama goes over OSU in 2011, or Michigan almost went over UF in 06
This post was edited on 5/10/13 at 8:51 am
Posted on 5/10/13 at 8:55 am to Buckeye06
quote:
What happens if the best 2 SEC teams are 9-3? Do you think they are undeserving to be in the game? I mean you are only taking the scenario from 1 angle, in which a shitty B1G champ slides in over a more deserving SEC team. What about when the B1G has 3 very good programs, would you want the SEC to get completely left out of the chance to win a title?
If you go back and look at my post, you will see that my argument is the best teams from whichever conference. I used the example of the 2006 season, when there was an argument as to whether Michigan or UF should've got in. In a fair playoff system, both teams should've had the chance. Just because a teams wins the ACC or B1G or even the SEC, doesn't mean they are one of the 4 best teams in the county.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:00 am to Bamatab
quote:
If you go back and look at my post, you will see that my argument is the best teams from whichever conference. I used the example of the 2006 season, when there was an argument as to whether Michigan or UF should've got in. In a fair playoff system, both teams should've had the chance. Just because a teams wins the ACC or B1G or even the SEC, doesn't mean they are one of the 4 best teams in the county.
I wasn't referencing you're argument I don't believe, but I think my scenario solves the problem. If Mich should have been in the playoff, they are in the playoff in the B1G semifinals and finals
Mine is really just a 16 team playoff with 4 regions where the 4 region champs play each other. So the 4 SEC teams play each other in one region, same with the PAC/B1G/ACC or whatever
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:02 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
His fear of Kevin Sumlin is so delicious.
I've never seen an individual live so vicariously through one victory over an opponent like you continue to do six months after the fact. It's one thing to look back fondly on championship seasons, but to get a boner at the thought of a third place divisional finish and a one-off win over a top-ranked team half a year later seems a bit sad, don't you think?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:11 am to RMFTBama
quote:
I've never seen an individual live so vicariously through one victory over an opponent like you continue to do six months after the fact. It's one thing to look back fondly on championship seasons, but to get a boner at the thought of a third place divisional finish and a one-off win over a top-ranked team half a year later seems a bit sad, don't you think?
You take yourself way too seriously.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:16 am to undecided
frick Saban
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:31 am to Buckeye06
quote:
What happens if the best 2 SEC teams are 9-3?
Thread Hijack:
1943, a year when only half the league played due to the war, is the only year every SEC team had three or more losses at the end of the regular season.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:33 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:
1943, a year when only half the league played due to the war, is the only year every SEC team had three or more losses at the end of the regular season.
Haha ok, well what about 10-2 and there are 5 or 6 0 or 1 loss teams during the regular season?
The system should take these anomaly's into account IMO
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:35 am to MaroonNation
Playing a harder schedule would have its effect on players over the course of a season, so it would make sense to add schollys. However, because of Title IX, it will never happen, as that would throw the rest of a school's numbers out of whack. The playoff system we have in place for the 2014 season is for, what, 10 yrs? We're stuck with it for now.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:55 am to Keltic Tiger
Love the A&M fans talking smack.
1939
That's the last year your school finished with a perfect record.
But huge congratulations on your 3rd place finish in the SEC West and Cotton Bowl victory last year.
Mike Shula did that at Alabama in 2005 btw.
1939
That's the last year your school finished with a perfect record.
But huge congratulations on your 3rd place finish in the SEC West and Cotton Bowl victory last year.
Mike Shula did that at Alabama in 2005 btw.
This post was edited on 5/10/13 at 9:56 am
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:03 am to IAmReality
Don't worry about Saban's opinion. It will change as soon as his needs change.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 12:32 pm to TreyAnastasio
frick Saban, he forgets the little schools 
Posted on 5/14/13 at 7:04 am to DMH64g
I agree with Saban only if there is a 16-team playoff, the players get paid and the schools fund monster insurance policies for each player. It's easy for a guy bringing in $5+ mil per year to load beef into a meat grinder. Not so easy for the beef though.
This post was edited on 5/14/13 at 7:05 am
Posted on 5/14/13 at 9:03 am to undecided
well damnit, we all should just get off our asses and do what he says.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 9:32 am to undecided
quote:
I say 6 conferences, ten teams each.
quote:FINALLY! I agree with you Aubs.
So we can send Mizzou, aTM, Carolina, and Arky packing
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News