When was the last time they had a good football team?
"It's not about last year or who's here or who's isn't here," says your head coach. "It's about getting out here and competing and seeing who is here, and that's where we're gonna go."
When was the last time they had a good football team?
I really think conference champions should be incorporated in any new football playoff. I'm not saying the playoff has to include only conference champions nor do I think a very good team who was second place in their conference should necessarily be left out. However, I think the playoff should be large enough to include conference champions.
The reason is simple. I'm tired of having national champions decided by polls and computer algorithms alone. For decades, we had national champions crowned by voters at the end of the season. Then we moved to the BCS, which uses voters and computer algorithms to decide who gets a chance at the national championship. Now, the SEC wants to make the playoff a little larger and still have it decided by polls. There is no way for a team to guarantee themselves a chance at the national championship and that sickens me. I want coaches all across the country to be able to tell their kids that if they fight hard and win all their games then they will get into the playoff and then if they continue to win all their games they will definitely win the national championship.
Since conference champions are not crowned by polls, including them in the playoff system provides a definitive, non-arbitrary path towards a national championship.
6 team format. 4 major conference champs. 2 highest ranked wild cards that did not win their conference. #1 and #2 teams get a buy regardless of whether they are conference champs or not.
The idea that the polls or the BCS standings actually indicate the top 4 teams in the country is utterly delusional. Do they indicate 4 top teams? Sure. That's about it.
The system should be 8 teams. 5 or 6 conference auto-bids plus 2 or 3 at-large teams from the BCS standings. Win your conference, or be one of the top teams in the rankings. Simple. Having a system where the SEC runner-up always gets into the tournament over the champions of the Big Ten, Pac Ten & ACC is just garbage.
just threaten to opt out of the play-off altogether. We are losing on every key point and if we really value the Rose Bowl as much as we say we do then lets threaten to take our Rose Bowl and go home. Otherwise, why are we even agreeing to this play-off formula which will basically be the SEC vs Big 12 anyway.
The national championship is a myth. It has always been a myth. And any of the pending proposals ensure that it will remain a myth.
And the BCS is not even a myth, it's patently silly and fools no one.
The best situation has always been to abandon the myth of a national championship game.
If the SEC wants to define the national championship for themselves, then let them have their game with the Big 12 be their mythical NC every year, and we can have ours with the Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl.
The world hummed along fine without the BCS, without the playoff, and under the old non-system. There is no need for this nonsense.
Nor is it about selecting a national champion. This decision will be about how much additional money the end product will produce. If I am a network or a bowl I very much want as many eyes on each of these games as possible. Given the size of the football audiences for the B1G, the SEC, and the PAC12, I want a team from each in the "final four" as long as they have a plausable record, and my best case for the final game is if the teams come from separate conferences. The 2012 game pulled an audience of 24.1 million viewers, that is down 4.2 million from the average the games from 2009-2011 and 6.7 million from the 2010 game.
As discussed here in great detail, it is extremely difficult to consistantly pick the "top four" teams. That decision will be politlcal no matter how it's done. Using a selection process that is based on conference championships accomplishes two things. Politics is not involved, at team wins the ability to go based on games played on the field not on polls or opinion. It ensures that you have cross conference audiences, which will prove attractive both for fans and for promoters.
Short of a true playoff, which IMHO would require 16 teams, I'd just as soon use conference champions to select who goes.
Had the 3rd lowest ratings for a BCS Championship game ever. The other two? Both featured teams that didn't win their conference.
Also states that Bama was the first team since 1936 Minnesota to win the National Championship without winning their conference. So why are we worried that once every 75 years there may be a team that is the best that didn't win it's conference? Just keep it to the conference champs.
They didn't feel that way when Michigan and Ohio were 1 and 2....
Seriously, of all the things in this world that make me angry, politicians and the power brokers in college football make the maddest. I don't understand how any conference be so arrogant that they would rather bet on their conferece having two teams in the top four every year over a (virtual) garuntee that they would have at least one. On top of that, the best way for other conferences to get the greatest amount of public support-- offering home games to higher-seeded schools-- was cast aside for a system which is corrupt at its worst and idiotic at its best. Further more, all this is going to lead to a new "four super-conference" world which would really be eight smaller conferences vaguely tied together with out much regaurd for geographical distance or traditional rivalries. There are about 17 different ideas for each terrible decision made so far that make more sense, which means a total of a lot of combinations (I am a Medievalist, not a mathmatician).
If they want to use the "top 4" teams model then they need to develop a system of measuring the different conferences against each other. Currently that really only happens AFTER the bowls (which have been argued suffeciently enough on this blog are biased against B1G teams). The AD's won't like this because of the revenue hit, but there should be a conference challenge set up at the begning of the season between the major conferences to get enough data to see which conferences are the better ones. This would require giving up all the baby seal games to play enough interconference games to compare conference records vs. each other. Then the polls can do their work to define a top 4. Until there are more inter-conference games at the beginning of the year, I will never trust the polls to judge who the top 4 are.
Under the SEC's proposal, it will be far too easy for the polls to suddenly change. I never want to see a repeat of '97 where Nebraska had a festivus miracle and moved ahead of Michigan in the coaches poll even though all the games had been finished a week earlier.
I could also see a mid-major who had been deemed top 4 worthy all year suddenly drop to a larger conference team with a worse record after all the games had been played. That's crap. If they were worth the #4 slot or higher all year, they deserve it at the end.
Im cool with a 4 team playoff. Except when the entire 4 is from the SEC.
Here is how the "negotiation" should go.
Dear SEC: We are instituting a playoff for the championship of college football. Due to the large number of conferences and the small amount of berths, we can only allow one team per conference. You are welcome to participate or not participate.
Good to see the SEC hasn't forgotten 2005 when they wouldn't have gotten a single team into the final 4.
I think this whole proposal of 4 teams is ignorant to begin with and now the SEC has not suprisingly put their ignorant, childish, egocentric, and powerful foot down. It is ridiculous that all of the conferences bow down to them. I live in the south and I am sick and tired of hearing about the SEC. I hate that we let those idiots control everything. The only reason they want top 4 is becuase they want repeats of last year so they can keep running their co**suckers about how they are the best and blah blah blah. Make it a 10 team with home field going to conference champs or highest ranked next to conference champs. There should be some chances at upsets and competition. 4 teams is weak and now we are just letting them have their way like the ignorant children they are.
You do realize that if u have a ten team tournament for a playoff you'll be down to 5 teams for the second round? Unless you are offering up byes which should not be allowed. 4,8, or 16 would work. I wish they'd do 16... All conference winners and what 4 "wild cards". Like Dan wetzel proposed in his book "Deat to the BCS"
Because that's as far as Bama fans can count!
The SEC has a point. Just because they're the SEC, and couldn't be more annoying doesn't mean they aren't right about this. That being said, they shouldn't be complaining when their non-conference winning at-large team is forced to play a January game in Ann Arbor or Madison or something. Oh, the SEC kids don't have any sleeves? Sucks.
Well, top four rankings are all spin and the SEC controls circular logic so I'll take conference champs, thank you.
its the SEC way or NO way...Let me Guess The SEC coaches will be the selection committee..Who died and made th SEC the ruler of college football..wouldnt it be great if the rest of the conferences said..OK ...sorry SEC your OUT
I love the conference champion requirement for no other reason than it essentally makes conference championships part of the playoff system, and increases the number of teams in the playoffs.
I wouldnt want any wild cards though, personally, I'd just let it be the top four conference champions.
LSU, you think your great, win your division to get into the playoffs.
Bama, you didnt win your division? Try again next year.
Bosie State, holy shit, you have a chance to win it all...
Just for fun...in this senario:
2011 #1 LSU vs. #7 Bosie State; #3 Oklahoma State vs. #5 Oregon
2010 #1 Auburn vs #5 Wisconson; #2 Oregonvs. #3 TCU
2009 #1 Alabama vs #4 TCU; #2 Texas vs. #3 Cincy
2008 #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Utah; #2 Florida vs #3 USC
I'd watch those games and care a lot more about them...the reason the NCAA BB tourney is so glorious is the underdog effect. If you dont have a dog in the fight, it's easy to root for Bosie State or TCU.