BCS charging toward playoffs

[dpwspringer 0]

In the interest in determining the 'real best team in a conference' should the PAC12 championship game have been a divisional rematch of Oregon and Stanford and likewise, the SEC championship game a divisional rematch of Alabama and LSU?  Would those type of conference champion games be best in the current BCSCG selection environment... just asking?  The SEC championship game with LSU and Georgia was a success, but I am not so sure about the PAC12 championship game with Oregon and UCLA.  UCLA went into that champions game with an overall record of 6-6 after ending the regular season with a 0-50 loss to USCw.  They were an embarrassment as a conference championship participant and actually petitioned, and got, an exemption for having a non-losing record to play in a bowl game in anticipation of losing their conference championship game.  They went to a bowl with a 6-7 record and lost to Illinois.  http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/uua

[fly757au 0]

I think we are getting to the core of the issue I saw about having the conference champ be the representative. Let's say divine intervention happened, a bad call or two, and UCLA had pulled off the impossible and beat Oregon. I just think college football has too many but if's to take a conference champion without question.

Now in regards to the conference championship involving the two best teams....I really like that idea. I am interested to see people's ideas of how to make that happen fairly. We would have had a rematch in the SEC and Pac 12 this year had this been applied. If no one wanted a rematch, how do you deal with this?

[keesler 5,990]

IMO polls will never go away.  ESPN has tons of viewers tune in on Sunday nights to watch the "BCS rankings" placement.  Heck, now they even have a pre & post ranking discussions from the ESPN talking heads. 

It's all about the media exposure which leads to $$ in the network pockets.

[Stripe 5]

I think we are getting to the core of the issue I saw about having the conference champ be the representative. Let's say divine intervention happened, a bad call or two, and UCLA had pulled off the impossible and beat Oregon. I just think college football has too many but if's to take a conference champion without question.

Now in regards to the conference championship involving the two best teams....I really like that idea. I am interested to see people's ideas of how to make that happen fairly. We would have had a rematch in the SEC and Pac 12 this year had this been applied. If no one wanted a rematch, how do you deal with this?

I think you have to do away with divisions within the conference, then you would have to start with records After that for tie breakers you would have to look at conference play, game score, and so on. Something kind of like it's set up now for division winners, tons of nerd stuff to determine who holds the tie breaker.

[fly757au 0]

I think we are getting to the core of the issue I saw about having the conference champ be the representative. Let's say divine intervention happened, a bad call or two, and UCLA had pulled off the impossible and beat Oregon. I just think college football has too many but if's to take a conference champion without question.

Now in regards to the conference championship involving the two best teams....I really like that idea. I am interested to see people's ideas of how to make that happen fairly. We would have had a rematch in the SEC and Pac 12 this year had this been applied. If no one wanted a rematch, how do you deal with this?

I think you have to do away with divisions within the conference, then you would have to start with records After that for tie breakers you would have to look at conference play, game score, and so on. Something kind of like it's set up now for division winners, tons of nerd stuff to determine who holds the tie breaker.

I think you will end up with each conference having a pseudo-BCS to determination the participants in the the championship game.

So you don't have any issues with a rematch in the conference championship game? Do you think the LSU/Bama rematch should have been in Atlanta instead of New Orleans? If so, I agree with that.

I guess the real question now is, how do we get that rematch at the conference level and not the national level?

[cooltigger21 0]

Maybe it's just me but I don't want to see a team that didn't win it's conference win the National Championship.

I'm not opposed to it as such. I just don't like the idea of being voted into the championship game. With the strength of the SEC years like 2011 could happen again in the future. That would be what the wildcard would serve. Then let them play it out. If that team makes it in and it happens to be a rematch then fine, I have no problem with that.

[bikeriderga 135]

Funny that they had to Alabama the chance to play for the NC, even though they did not win the SEC or even their division before the "Playoff" talks are actually taking on a new life.

ESPN licks Saban's posterior and I guess AU fans are not the only ones tired of it.

Don't get me wrong Alabama was a great team last year, but if you cannot win your division or conference championship, you should not be playing for the National Championship.

Seem to remember a team that was undefeated and won the SEC that never got a chance to even play for the NC. But a team that cannot win the SEC or the SEC West gets to play for all the marbles. Fair? I think not!

[dpwspringer 0]

Funny that they had to Alabama the chance to play for the NC, even though they did not win the SEC or even their division before the "Playoff" talks are actually taking on a new life.

ESPN licks Saban's posterior and I guess AU fans are not the only ones tired of it.

Don't get me wrong Alabama was a great team last year, but if you cannot win your division or conference championship, you should not be playing for the National Championship.

Seem to remember a team that was undefeated and won the SEC that never got a chance to even play for the NC. But a team that cannot win the SEC or the SEC West gets to play for all the marbles. Fair? I think not!

About do-overs:  could bama have beaten LSU twice in the 2009... could they have beaten Texas twice if the second time McCoy was heathy?  You could say the same thing about a lot of games in most every season. 

The LSU-Bama rematch was distasteful to a lot of folks and for good reason.  The SEC west and SEC championship were settled fair and square by the rules of the SEC on the field of play.  A rematch was uncalled for and took place in part because of ESPN's agenda and Nick Saban's biased ballet.  The rematch was unfair to LSU and college football.  IMO, a worthy champion from another conference was unfairly denied a shot at the BCSC. 

But when all is said and done, the BCS is not about fairness and never claims to be.  Alabama backdooring their way into the BCSC will be the straw that breaks the BCS's back... so to speak.

[AU64 10,122]

"Don't get me wrong Alabama was a great team last year, but if you cannot win your division or conference championship, you should not be playing for the National Championship"

So Kentucky should not have been eligible for the NCAA basketball championship because Vandy won the SEC championship? 

For the umpteenth time, I will state my position that any playoff that the BCS agrees to will be designed to make certain that two SEC teams do not end up in the final four.  The BCS like the NCAA is all about political correctness and diversity.....and if the championship game actually has the best two teams.....well that will just be a coincidence.

[dpwspringer 0]

"Don't get me wrong Alabama was a great team last year, but if you cannot win your division or conference championship, you should not be playing for the National Championship"

So Kentucky should not have been eligible for the NCAA basketball championship because Vandy won the SEC championship? 

For the umpteenth time, I will state my position that any playoff that the BCS agrees to will be designed to make certain that two SEC teams do not end up in the final four.   The BCS like the NCAA is all about political correctness and diversity.....and if the championship game actually has the best two teams.....well that will just be a coincidence.

There are fundamental differences in a 65 team or so tournament and what the BCS is or is being talked about being in the future.  For one, all conference champs have earned a berth in that 65 team or so tournament.

[C'viewTiger 253]

So Kentucky should not have been eligible for the NCAA basketball championship because Vandy won the SEC championship? 

To me, this is apples and oranges?? 65 team run for the money vs. what's proposed?? 

[fly757au 0]

So let's just have a 32 team football playoff.....game on

[AU64 10,122]

A 32 team tourney huh?

Can't you already hear the crying from some alum out there:    " wait a minute....my favorite team is #33 and they beat three teams that are getting in the playoffs.....the system is rigged"

Otherwise, we have a hard time finding 32 decent teams to play in the current bowl format....seems half the teams were only one game over the magic .500 requirement and sure doesn't seem reasonable to have a play-off start with a bunch of 10-1 teams slaughtering the 6-6 teams at the bottom of the seeding.

Most years the BCS would be hard pressed to find 6 or 8 teams with any kind of chance of winning the championship.  Usually the argument is over the top four or 5.   

A six or eight team play-off might work but still, the NCAA/BCS will demand that the big conferences each have a rep so we will get to see a couple 12th ranked teams from the ACC or Big East in the play-offs while two SEC teams ranked in the top 10 are left out. 

Remember....you heard it here.

[dpwspringer 0]

So let's just have a 32 team football playoff.....game on

I will argue that conference championship games should be the first round of any playoffs.  Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alabama are the only teams in the BCS era (since 1998) that have been selected to play in the two-team BCS championship game while not winning their conference titles.  There are probably only 1 to 3 teams in only about 4 conferences with the political clout to pull that off at any particular time.  If you don't think politics came in to play to get those non-conference winning teams in the BCS championship game, I can't help you with your logic but I will tell you there is no way in he!! that an Auburn team that did not win the SEC would ever have gotten into the two-team BCS championship game.  

On every occasion when a non-conference champion was selected to play in the two-team BCS championship game, there were deserving conference champs with no more losses that were not selected.  In 2001, when a one loss Nebraska team was selected despite not winning its conference, a one loss ACC champ (Maryland), a one loss Big Ten champ (Illinois), and a one loss PAC 10 champ (Oregon) were denied.  In 2003, when a one loss Oklahoma team was selected despite not winning its conference, a one loss PAC 10 champ (USCw) was denied.  And in 2011 when a one loss Alabama team was selected despite not winning its conference, a one loss Big 12 champ (Oklahoma State) was denied.

Do I resent that kind of favoritism and want to see a stake driven through the heart of that piece-of-crap 'championship system'-- you can bet you rear-end I do.

[fly757au 0]

Whoa AU64.......yellow text brother

I don't want a 32 team playoff. I don't want a 16 team playoff. I have posted my thoughts on a format I like.

I just don't want conference champions placed in a playoff without regard to anything else. However, I believe that conference championships should mean something, therefore a conference champion gets in the playoff as long as they are ranked in the top 20/25.

There are over 100 team in D1, you are NEVER going to make everyone happy. It is not going to happen.

[cooltigger21 0]

It looks like it's going to be a four team event to start with. I think it'll move up in later years.  The big ten is still acting like they might try to be a fly in the ointment. I say screw em. If they don't like it then they can be left out.

[dpwspringer 0]

It looks like it's going to be a four team event to start with. I think it'll move up in later years.  The big ten is still acting like they might try to be a fly in the ointment. I say screw em. If they don't like it then they can be left out.

I don't see a whole lot wrong with using 4 major bowls as the first round of an 8 team playoff.  But realistically most conferences have a championship playoff and if you made it conference champs only, then it is basically a 16 team playoff.  And I could see the Rose being for the PAC12 and Big Ten champs.  The Cotton for the Big 12 and whoever, the Sugar the SEC and whoever, and the Orange the ACC and whoever.

Then the 2nd round (really 3rd if you count the conference championship games as round 1) could be for the west championship and the east championship with the Rose winner against the Cotton winner for the west and the Sugar and Orange winners for the east.  Then those winners could play for the national championship.

[rockfordpi 91]

Do a 4 team playoff with the NC game in December.

Hold the other traditional NY day bowls with everyone else.

End the season on Jan. 1st or 2nd. 

[dpwspringer 0]

Question 1:  If they go to a 4 team playoff that is not 'conference champ only' and allows more than one team per conference, does the SEC need to re-think having a conference championship game?

Forget about last year for a moment when the two highest ranking SEC teams were in the same division and could not play each other in the SECCG under the selection process where the SECCG is for division champs only, and think about when an undefeated Alabama beat an undefeated Florida and the year before that when an undefeated Alabama team lost to a one loss Florida team.

Question 2: If the conference championship games are between division champs and not between the two highest ranked conference teams, isn't it more than a little hypocritical to pick the four highest ranked teams for a 4 team playoff to determine the national champion and not use 4 conference champions? 

[rockfordpi 91]

Question 1:  If they go to a 4 team playoff that is not 'conference champ only' and allows more than one team per conference, does the SEC need to re-think having a conference championship game?

Forget about last year for a moment when the two highest ranking SEC teams were in the same division and could not play each other in the SECCG under the selection process where the SECCG is for division champs only, and think about when an undefeated Alabama beat an undefeated Florida and the year before that when an undefeated Alabama team lost to a one loss Florida team.

Question 2: If the conference championship games are between division champs and not between the two highest ranked conference teams, isn't it more than a little hypocritical to pick the four highest ranked teams for a 4 team playoff to determine the national champion and not use 4 conference champions? 

I think we have to think of a 4 team playoff as really being an 8+ team playoff with the conference championship game being the first round of the playoffs.

For reasons of $$$$$, I don't think the NCAA will ever allow two teams from one conference in that 4.

Also, any scenario where there any type of subjective system that sets the final 4 will be fatally flawed.

Heck, they put 65 teams in the B'ball tournament and nearly every year there is a huge controversy about who got left out. I think VCU was a bubble team 2 years ago and almost did not make it in.

[dpwspringer 0]

rockfordpi... here is a good 'what do you think about this' imaginary scenario for thought.  Suppose last year the SEC championship was not between the two division champs, but between the two highest ranked SEC teams.  Now, suppose bama beat LSU in a close game that could have went either way and they ended up ranked #1 and #2 in the BCS rankings.  Okay, digest that for a moment and then answer me this-- would they have put bama and LSU in the BCSCG... that would have made it 3 times they would play each other.

[rockfordpi 91]

rockfordpi... here is a good 'what do you think about this' imaginary scenario for thought.  Suppose last year the SEC championship was not between the two division champs, but between the two highest ranked SEC teams.  Now, suppose bama beat LSU in a close game that could have went either way and they ended up ranked #1 and #2 in the BCS rankings.  Okay, digest that for a moment and then answer me this-- would they have put bama and LSU in the BCSCG... that would have made it 3 times they would play each other.

Interesting scenario. My guess is that in the BCS they probably would have. That would have actually been more fair than the way it was this year.

At least it would have been a best of three series for the NC instead of a "whomever wins the last game" scenario is the NC. For some reason UAT's win over LSU on a neutral field counted more than LSU's win at BDT stadium.

That said, I do think UAT was the better team, I mean LSU played 8+ quarters against them and still could not score a TD. However, I would have still voted against a rematch.

Follow-up question: Which sport(s) most often comes up with the very best team as its Champion? I would argue the NBA (with MLB second). With all the best of 7 series in the NBA, you are not going to back into or luck into a championship.

Now, think about how many times the eventual NBA (or MLB) champion lost the first of any of the 7 game series. If that were NCAA tournament or the BCS the best team would have been eliminated with that initial loss.

My point is, the neither the NCAA tournament or BCS does a very good job of proving who the best team is. It is all about who is best on the one day that counts. LSU was best one day in Nov. UAT was best on the day that counted most.

It totally flies in the face of logic to say that LSU was the best team in the SEC and UAT was the best team in America. Just as it does to say the Vandy was the best B'ball team in the SEC and UK was the best team in America.  However, if we accept that Champion= Best, that is what we had this year.

[dpwspringer 0]

It totally flies in the face of logic to say that LSU was the best team in the SEC and UAT was the best team in America. Just as it does to say the Vandy was the best B'ball team in the SEC and UK was the best team in America.  However, if we accept that Champion= Best, that is what we had this year.

I have never been a fan of wildcard teams.  I have always felt you either respect champions- division, conference, whatever, when you have playoffs and have playoffs limited to 'champions' or just not have division, conference, whatever champions and put the top so many teams in a playoff. 

And of course, my feelings are based on the illogical logic you mention... something about it being stupid beyond comprehension by my way of thinking.  A championship should be something you are proud of, pure, if you will, and not have to use excuses to justify or explain.  LSU earned the SEC championship but it is tainted in a way because they lost the BCSCG to another team not only in their conference, but their own division.  That ain't right for LSU, the SEC, or college football... with the exception of bama fans.

[keesler 5,990]

IMO, if LSU had just "shown up" and played a close game vs. uat in the BCSNC game then there would have been a split title.  But, LSU allowed uat to come into their own backyard and skull drag them up and down the field.

[Rabern57 0]

The best part of it is that it took UA to win the BCS for them to realize it was screwed up.