SEC Declares Top 4 Ranked Teams in Playoff Non-negotiable
With only three weeks until the June 20 deadline when conference leaders hoped to have a final playoff model to sell to television executives, the time for compromise draws near. Which is why it's so interesting that the chair of the SEC's presidents and chancellors group would draw a line in the sand on one of the most controversial issues. Florida president Bernie Machen said the SEC would not compromise on having the four highest ranked teams in the playoff rather than a group of conference champions.
"We won't compromise on that," Machen said at the SEC spring meetings. "I think the public wants the top four. I think almost everybody wants the top four."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/05/31/sec.meetings/index.html#ixzz1wYPIRzPy
If Big 10 caves on this, I'll be pretty unhappy as it totally devalues the conference structure. Delany's had, in my mind, the best proposals since the beginning of this process. Home games with a preference for high ranked conference champs but still a space for at least one wild card seems the best way to introduce a playoff without destroying the meaning of the conference schedules and the regular season.
It's also interesting to see the different negotiating styles of the Big 10 vs. SEC in this process. Big 10 announces a proposal for home games and later abandons it publicly. SEC from beginning states preference for Top 4 ranked teams with no relation to conference champions, now they double down and say that it's an unconditional term for their participation. Unclear how they back off this without either losing face or saying that Machin didn't speak for the conference. This is also why the Big 10 shouldn't have abandoned the home game proposal without extracting some kind of concession.
If the SEC sticks to this plan as a condition of participation, I'd favor abandoning the playoff concept entirely and advocating a Plus 1, which would work well now that the Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 champs are all locked into "champion's bowls."
weighed in on this topic elsewhere. Just want to say A-effin-men. Fight the good fight.
I stand on that is, if you are taking the "four best" then we still have people deciding who those four are. I would like to view the conference play as part of a playoff. That way, people aren't deciding who goes, the players are. Win your conference, you go. To me, it's all about determining a champion, not about saying how far you went. If you are the 3rd best team and the best team is in your conference, you are simply eliminated earlier in the playoff. Or you could do something like a 6 team deal with the 4 conference champs going and two wild cards.
#2 is simply people with no possible way of making any determination about relative ranking effectively just writing down whatever BS has been spoon fed into them by the media and boom #2. Conference champion means infinitely more than ranked #2 or even ranked #1.
I think the issue is, you seem to believe that the polls and various other ranking are valid objective measurements when in fact they have no basis in objectivity. They are purely subjective. 100% subjective and that 100% subjective is based on so little information that even as a subjective ranking they are critically flawed.
AKA polls are WORTHLESS. basing anything on polls is basically the same as just rolling the bones and calling yourself a seer who can see the future.
Who's more deserving? Stanford or Oregon?
If you didn't win your conference, that means you aren't even the best team in your conference. If you aren't the best team in your conference, WTF, are you doing being allowed to compete for the national championship.
If I was running this thing, it would be top for conference champions, period. Don't win you conference, don't have any hope of making it it.
How do you determine who is actually the top 4 with such disparate schedules? Many years the #3 & #4 team have the exact same record as the #8 team. Shouldn't a national playoff be national? Shouldn't a conference championship count for something? (it is usually the first criteria to qualify in every other sport with a playoff)
Last year Oregon (the Pac 12 champ) would have been left out for Stanford only because they lost to a tougher non-conf LSU. In 2008, there would have been 2 Big 12 teams and 2 SEC teams (leaving out #5 USC and #8 PSU which both finished 11-1--same record as the #3 & #4 teams and #6 12-0 Utah that beat #4 Alabama in bowl). In 2006, there would have been 2 Big Ten teams and 2 SEC teams (leaving out Pac-10 champ USC that proved to be much better than MIchigan that year).
I fear that it's either that or end up with a system that puts at least two SEC teams in every year and that sees those teams play their semifinal games in New Orleans and Atlanta.
Also, co-sign to this: This is also why the Big 10 shouldn't have abandoned the home game proposal without extracting some kind of concession.
All those people who were saying "this is how negotiations work...the B10 is smart to give up on an issue they had no chance with to get something else..."...we'll see how this works out. Obviously the SEC isn't taking that tactic. After the B10 has already given up their position. Are the same people who said it isn't viable for the B10 to refuse to go into a playoff going to say the same thing about the SEC? If everyone else says "we're doing it, the SEC can play their own championship game we don't need them", is the SEC going to be as hurt as the B10 was going to be? The SEC's actions are proving how you negotiate, and how the B10 is left with egg on their face. And it'll be complete failure on their part if the SEC gets their way on this, too.
Fuck 'em. Walk away from the table.
A plus-one post-bowls is far superior to a "playoff" rigged in favor of the SEC. Rose and Jerry Bowls de facto semis.
The SEC won't budge on this issue because the current format favors them, and therefore they have all the leverage. If there is gridlock and the NCAA cannot come to a decision that everyone supports, then we may end up stuck with the status quo: a two-team playoff at a neutral, warm-weather site.
The 4 team playoff is here and there is no going back. The SEC is in the minority on the conference champion requirement issue with the Big 12. Unless they make some concessions in other parts of the playoff negotiation, I think you can expect to see there be some sort of conference champion element to the playoff.
Top 4 ranked by selection committee made up of the "5 strong conferences" = 3 conf champions + 1 at-large
Wait, wha?
If that's the hill they want to die on, say "OK, top 4 ranked teams, higher seed gets the semifinal game at home."
That's exactly what I was going to write: if Delaney loses the top four but gets home games, I'd consider that a big win from our perspective.
He's already given that up, though. And I believe he's gone so far as declaring it "impractical." It's not coming back. It was dead the moment it began being discussed in terms of logistics rather than reinforcing the importance of the regular season (and being generally awesome).
and try to drum up support. Problem is the majority is against them in this case (B1G, Pac-12, ACC, and Big East). I don't see them winning out in this debate if nothing changes. Everyone knows there is no walking away from a playoff now, and I don't think anyone is going to take their bluster seriously and not call their bluff.
Good point. Call their bluff and tell them you can play your own National Championship game, we'll all be over here when you decide to join us. If they're threatening to take their ball and go home, let them. Hell, it's not like the rest of the country is gonna watch their "game," if they decide to opt for that, no one watched this year's BCS title game either.
Under the "best four" model, the SEC championship game broadcast will be nothing more than a Danielson/Lundquist ball tounging of the second-best SEC team. Every. Single. Year.
And that will be but a subset of the southern-fried politicking and windbaggery that will suck all of the air out of college football from November 15 to December 10. Every. Single. Year.
Um, thanks but no thanks.
That's the correct system if we have to have a playoff.
Thank you for dispensing your unquestionable opinion. Now we no longer have to trouble ourselves with this vexing issue.
The justification for a playoff is that it will be a more accurate method of picking the best team in the country (the fact that it's impossible to figure out who is the best college football team in 14 games of fewer is why we just shouldn't care who the best team is, but that's beside the point).
If that is the goal, then any system other than "the best 4 teams get to be in the playoff" thwarts it.
...the fact that it's impossible to figure out who is the best college football team in 14 games of fewer is why we just shouldn't care who the best team is...
I agree with that but think (as we discussed above) that rewarding conference champs is a better way of handling the fundamental aribtrariness of finding a college football champ.
I understand your take here. But I keep coming back to reservations about any four team model. I think eight, even better sixteen, makes the most sense. I vastly prefer the college game to the NFL, but I never question whether the NFL produces a "real" champion, even when a wild card wins it all. In that case they are neither a division "champion" nor are they by definition one of the four teams with the best body of work over the season. But they do earn their championships. I believe college football to be the best sport we have, but its championship process will never be as exciting as pro football's or NCAA basketball's until it expands to invovle more teams. Pontification ended.
It may be more accurate but only slightly as it is really just the same system but one level of extraction back. IMO, a playoff that does not remove all/most of the subjectivity in determining the teams that play in the national championship is a failure and just more of the same. If you make it the top 4 teams by ranking, then you are still leaving a ton of subjectivity in the selection process. If it is just conference champions, there is no subjectivity. If you don't win your conference -- tough shit. Try harder next year in your conference games.
In addition, using conference champions of the 4 major conferences creates a de facto 16 team playoff (assuming the Big 12 gets back to 12 members and has a championship game). If you don't make it to your conference championship game -- tough shit, win your division next year. Plus, with this approach every conference game carries significant meaning each year.
Last, if we stick to the top 4 rankings system, teams still have the incentive to schedule baby seals to pad the win column for the rankings and minimize the risk of losing a non-conf game. If selection to the NC is based on winning your conference, then the fear of taking a loss in a non-conf game subsides and maybe we see more good matchups each year b/c a team can afford to play more tough non-conf games and still have a chance to make the playoffs by winning its conference (e.g., like MSU does in basketball every year).
The only way I am OK with a system that determines selection for the playoff on a subjective basis is the field is expanded to top 8+ teams. Obviously this is not going to happen for a very long time.
If you don't win your conference -- tough shit. Try harder next year in your conference games.
It is also a good point on the scheduling. Top 4 encourages cupcakes. Because no matter how much they weight the system to strength of schedule, a cupcake win will always be better than a good team loss. If you make it Conference Champs, it goes back to what Bo felt about OOC games. They were fun, and helped his team prepare for the conference schedule. Tough games get you ready for conference tough games, and if the point is to win your conference, then it is a boon to make your schedule tougher. Go by rankings and there's more value playing powderpuffs.
last year the top 4 teams according to ESPN where:
New Mexico
Akron
Indiana
Memphis
Those 4 teams sat upon the top of an ESPN ranking.
Granted it was the ESPN Bottom 10, but it is a reputable ranking put out by ESPN.
The problem with using polls or rankings is there isn't enough information to make even a biased subjective ranking. There is so little interleague play and so few games played period that any ranking or poll claiming any level of accuracy enough to provide a top 4 is completely unbelievable.
Given that, the only realistic way to go about it is to use the conferences as an elimination system. Didn't win your conference? You don't count. You have been eliminated.
The only thing I don't like about the "top 4" scenario is that this could once again create controversy by allowing teams who didn't win their conference to potentially make the playoffs, which only diminishes the importance of conference championship games and also gives way to the possiblity of the "Alabama/LSU rematch" scenario, which is the biggest argument for the whole playoff scenario.
And let's not forget, this could allow the potential for OSU/Michigan to play THREE times in one season. If controversy stems from a "rematch," I'd like to believe the college football community would be more pissed from a "re-rematch."
Conference championship games are money grabs. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how they could be diminished more than they already are.
Yeah, but now that conference sizes are increasing, conference championship games become more important. You can't play everyone in your conference anymore. It's difficult to come up with a conference champion with that scenario unless you split the conference in two and have a conference championship to decide the ultimate champ. It may be a money grab, but it will hold even greater importance as conference sizes likely continue to expand.
about M v. ohio 3 times in a single year. I honestly don't think it's that far fetched.
Good point. It could even theoretically shake out such that Michigan & OSU play 3 times in a row some year (The Game, B1G championship, theoretical semifinal matchup). I'm guessing the rest of the college football world would not be amused.
`top 4" model and conf champs model is the conf champs model relys a lot less on polls and opinion and the top 4 model devalues having a conference champion. I already hate having a "regular" season champ and a conference championship game champ but that where $$$ has taken us. Going this route makes the conf season even less important.
It does not devalue a conference champion at all. Do you know how hard it is now be in the top-4 without winning your conference? Very hard. It means your league is respected as being strong, your schedule is recognized as being strong, you likely have one loss and it's to a good team. That team is likely more deserving that a team who managed to win a less competitive conference.
Funny, in 2006 all we heard from the SEC was how unfair it was to have two teams from the same conference in the championship game.
Muscle.
This is so much BS, the SEC dictating how the proposed playoff setup is going to work.
Although, I've gotta hand it to Mike Slive, he maximizing the meaning of "negotiating from a position of strength".
System favors SEC schools...SEC very successful...successful SEC schools always on ESPN...best recruits want to be successful on ESPN...best recruits go to SEC schools...System favors SEC schools....
Slive actually isn't in a position of strength. He needs the B1G and PAC or he's holding nothing but his shrimp dick.
With the Rose Bowl and the sensible right-sized leagues, and the ability to keep their teams from getting roped into "ratifying" SEC "superiority," the B1G and PAC hold the leverage.
The Big Ten at its heart wants to do what its players and coaches and ADs want to do. For all we talk about money and question their motives, Brandon is on the more extreme end of doing what's best for the bottom line, and some of the other ADs are on the extreme end of doing what their fans and donors want them to do.
The SEC is much more focused on winning championships, and all else is secondary to that. There's a different worldview here as to what college football should be about. I think in their heart of hearts Delaney and Brandon both think they're running businesses--most of the rest of the conference goes along with what these guys do, but among the standouts Barry Alvarez is the self-appointed protector of all things traditional, and Mark Hollis is the consummate "that's not fair" complainer. Gene Smith of Ohio State and all of the SEC power brokers believe they're running NFL franchises. The difference in approach to a national championship stems from these differing personalities.
Am I the only Big Ten person who WANTS this?
I'm glad the SEC drew a line, they're doing what's right.
Now if the B1G counters with a 8 team tournament where the top 4 conference winners get a spot, I'm okay with that. But with it being just 4 teams...I want to see the top 4 teams play, period. 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3...where they play those games is what should be up for debate.
I agree. Or how the four are determined. I'm OK with some type of committee that uses rather objective ways to get to the four, and I'm OK with a conference championship holding some weight in that. For instance, if numbers 4 and 5 are very close, but #5 won their major conference, I'm OK with that pushing them over the edge. But if it's pretty clear who the top 4 teams are and not all of them are conference champions, then those four should play.
You write as if top 4 is always clear cut. Last year, Oregon, is the counter point. Giving priority to conference champs above a certain level creates a somewhat objective critieria for admission into the playoff. Want to have a better chance of qualifying for the playoff? Win your conference.
Deemphasizing the polls for what goes occurs on the field is one of the benefits of the 3+1 model.
The past seven week 8 BCS standings (before were:
- 2011: LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford
- 2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford
- 2009: Alabama, Texas, Cincinati, TCU
- 2008: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama
- 2007: Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma
- 2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU
- 2005: USC, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State
I'd say Stanford and TCU would've like this "Top 4" model as well.
See, everyone thinks this gives the SEC such an advantage because we all remember last year, but only 3 of those 7 years would there have been 2 SEC teams, and it's hard to say they didn't deserve it. Once each the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 had two teams, so it's hard to say this heavily favors one conference over another.
2011 is a year where a little objectivity would have come in handy. #5 last year was conference champion Oregon, and I think few would argue against Oregon getting in over Stanford.
Here's how the playoffs would have worked out since 2006 (so we can get Michigan in) with the 3+1 system using the BCS rankings. Conference champs and wildcards listed in parantheses.
2006: 1. OSU (Big 10) v. 5. USC (Pac 10); 2. UF (SEC) v. 3. UM (WC) [Pac 10 champ USC displaces #4 LSU]
2007: 1. OSU (Big 10) v. 4. Oklahoma (Big 12); 2. LSU (SEC) v. 3. Va Tech (ACC)
2008: 1. Oklahoma (Big 12) v. 5. USC (Pac 10); 2. Florida (SEC) v. 3. Texas (WC) [USC jumps alabama, who lost in SEC championship game to Florida. This was that terrible year where Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all tied on one side of the Big 12]
2009: 1. Alabama (SEC) v. 4. TCU (MWC); 2. Texas (Big 12) v. 3. Cincinnati (Big East) [Florida #5 destroyed Cincinnati in the Sugar Bowl, but hey, Florida's not in the top 4 anyway]
2010: 1. Auburn (SEC) v. 4. Stanford (WC); 2. Oregon (Pac 12) v. 3. TCU (MWC) [note: if the Big 10's proposal was "any conf champs in the top 6" then Wisconsin displaces Stanford. It's not, however. The politicing for the #4 slot would have been heavy here].
2011: 1. LSU (SEC) v. 5. Oregon (Pac 12); 2. Alabama (WC) v. 3. Okie State (Big 12) [Oregon jumps 4. Stanford, objectively the right call]
So what we have is the exclusion of three teams ranked #4, all of whom lost to one of the teams above them, in favor of a #5 ranked conference champ. One of these is objectively the right call (2011) and the other two seem entirely justified to me. What we're going to be dealing with is not the exclusion of a team that is dominant. It's going to be favoring conference champs in what are either very marginal calls or clear cut ones.
Thanks for doing this. Looking at this plan, I can jump on board with this. It seems like the most fair way. Obviously there are scenarios where this could get screwed up (like if OK St. would have lost another game, then the third conference champ is down a ways, and is maybe Boise State) but it's probably the best way.
And considering the Big Ten is normally one of the top 3 conferences, we should get a team in most years (not that this should be a criterion, but I like it nonetheless).
so why don't we do them all:
1998: #1 Tennessee (SEC) v. #6 Texas A&M (Big 12); #2 FSU (ACC) v. #5 UCLA (Pac-10). Kansas State loses in conference title game to A&M and it allows A&M to jump into the top 6. Ohio State is #4, but is technically not the BCS rep because they didn't play co-champ Wisconsin. It's an odd situation, but it does bring up the point of what happens should a conference without divisions choose not to have a full round robin schedule (Big XII drops 9th game to go back to 8). Don't expect it to happen, but this won't be the 1st time this situation arises. Ohio State ends up beating A&M by 10 in Sugar Bowl. Kansas State is #3 and is out--I hate the conference champ argument, but I do like the idea of a conference champ getting in before any other team in its conference if it's in the top 6.
1999: #1 FSU (ACC) v. #4 Alabama (SEC); #2 Virginia Tech (Big East) v. #3 Nebraska (Big XII). All four are conference champs. Pretty damn straight forward.
2000: #1 Oklahoma (Big XII) v. #4 Washington (Pac-10); #2 FSU (ACC) v. #3 Miami-FL (Big East). Washington is co-champ with similar situation to Ohio State in 1998. However, unlike OSU, they are considered their conference's rep to the BCS. Again, pretty straight forward.
2001: #1 Miami-FL (Big East) v. #4 Oregon (Pac-10); #2 Nebraska (Big XII at large) v. #3 Colorado (Big XII). A mess. #5 and #6 are the highest ranked SEC teams, but neither won the conference. Nebraska's last game saw them getting absolutely torched by Colorado. Guess what? The regular season doesn't always matter even in a playoff system. Nebraska didn't win the division so I don't know if they even get the bid. Does it drop down to #6 Tennessee as the SEC East winner, but loser in the conference title game? Would it drop to the next conference champ (#8 Illinois--who proceeded to get torched by LSU in a bowl game)?
2002: #1 Miami-FL (Big East) v. #6 Washington State (Pac-10); #2 Ohio State (B1G) v. #3 Georgia (SEC). Another weird year. #4 USC and Wazzu tied for the Pac-10, BUT WSU did beat them. Iowa was undefeated in the conference, but Ohio State is the BCS representative. USC ends up destroying Iowa in the Orange Bowl. Wazzu gets torched in the Rose Bowl by Oklahoma. Another issue of tied conference champs in the B1G.
2003: #1 Oklahoma (Big XII at large) v. #4 Michigan (B1G); #2 LSU (SEC) v. #3 USC (Pac-10). #5 and #6 didn't win the conference either. How do you handle non-conference winners finishing in the top 2? Do they still host? Do we bump them down?
2004: #1 USC (Pac-10) v. #6 Utah (MWC); #2 Oklahoma (Big XII) v. #3 Auburn (SEC). #4 Texas and #5 California each lost one game to a team in the top 3. Do we really want to allow ANY conference champ to get in? Sun Belt? Guess how many ranked teams Utah played in 2004? ZERO. When they would have been selected they would have beaten 3 teams with winning records (7-4 Texas A&M, 7-4 New Mexico, and 6-5 Wyoming). They are more deserving than Cal or Texas?
2005: #1 USC (Pac-10) v. #6 Notre Dame (Ind); #2 Texas (Pac-10) v. #3 Penn State (B1G). #4 Ohio State lost to Penn State. I believe an ND in the top 6 would be treated as a conference champion and therefore Ohio State would be passed up. Naturally, Ohio State beat ND in the Fiesta Bowl 34-20.
It's pretty clear the bowls have historically shown that conference champs lower on the BCS rung, but playoff eligible, lose to teams higher on that rung who didn't win the conference.
1998: #4 Ohio State over #6 Texas A&M
2002: #4 USC over #5 Iowa
2005: #4 Ohio State over #6 Notre Dame
The conference champ argument also has other issues to deal with--how to deal with non-BCS conferences and the Big East? How to deal with non-round robin schedules? How to deal with co-champs (it's patently unfair to simply allow them to CHOOSE their BCS rep by BCS standings)? What happens when there aren't enough conference champions and division winners--not likely, but possible?
All of those problems are solved by taking the best 4.
Actually, the Big Ten had 2 teams in the top 4 twice - PSU/osu in 2005 and Michigan/osu in 2006. Your larger point still stands