It's a good compromise. Nothing to be upset about. Conference heads realized what the BCS was doing to their bottom line and what a playoff had to offer.
College Football In Season Thread
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
It's a good compromise. Nothing to be upset about. Conference heads realized what the BCS was doing to their bottom line and what a playoff had to offer.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Excellent. I'm so used to having everyone complain so much at the end of the season I'm just glad to hear that's done with.
For me, I don't see this as a better way of crowning a champion, but I don't think it's any worse either. The big upside is that the non-title games should be a lot more interesting & competitive than the BCS provided.
The only tiny fear I have is the selection committee. There's no way to know how it will actually work out yet, but it's a fair bet that it will basically be a poll, with fewer voters than the current polls, and therefore more room for bias. It shouldn't be a huge deal as long as transparency continues to be a priority, but OTOH, I kind of feel like "good luck with that" . . .
For me, I don't see this as a better way of crowning a champion, but I don't think it's any worse either. The big upside is that the non-title games should be a lot more interesting & competitive than the BCS provided.
The only tiny fear I have is the selection committee. There's no way to know how it will actually work out yet, but it's a fair bet that it will basically be a poll, with fewer voters than the current polls, and therefore more room for bias. It shouldn't be a huge deal as long as transparency continues to be a priority, but OTOH, I kind of feel like "good luck with that" . . .
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Yay! Now a couple of years of this and they can start getting their 12-16 team playoff system in order.
12 would be perfect.
Take the conference champions first (so every team has an equal mathematical chance and wins or loses on the field), as long as they're ranked (this is a quality control so you don't have 8-4 UConn or 5-6 North Texas lousing up the playoffs). Fill out the rest of the bracket with the highest ranked at larges. The highest ranked independent who finishes in the top 12 will be considered a conference champ for seeding purposes.
The first two rounds are hosted by the higher seed. This cuts down on travel concerns. It also makes November games very important. Teams are playing for a first round bye or a first round home game or one of a not yet known number of wild card berths.
The semis can be hosted by the "home" bowl of the top two seeds. So if #1 is the SEC champ and #2 is the Big XII champ, the Sugar and Fiesta get to host the semis. The finals will be bid out.
In 2012, you'd have had this scenario:
Byes
1) LSU (SEC)
2) Okie Lite (XII)
3) Oregon (PAC)
4) Wisconsin (B16)
First round
12) Boise (WC) at 5) Clemson (ACC)
11) Arkansas (WC) at 6) TCU (MWC)
10) Stanford (WC) at 7) Southern Miss (CUSA)
9) Al-Abama (WC) at 8) West Virginia (BE)
The WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt champs didn't qualify because they were unranked. The Sugar and Fiesta would host the semifinals featuring LSU and Oklahoma State, respectively (assuming the higher ranked team wins out).
The selection committee for basketball does a fairly decent job. There is always some complaining about the 1 seeds and the last 2 or 3 in, but there is not nearly the dissatisfaction as college football fans have had with the BCS.
The selection committee HAS to be better than the dolts who vote for the major polls.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
@Bestbank: 12 is insane. I can't even think about it. I mean, 4 is pretty nuts. Nobody (except ol' Dan Mullen at Miss State) is really thinking about this practically. The big advantage of the BCS' long layoff was that everybody had time to get healthy. Now the 'playoff' is going to incorporate the BCS bowls, which will presumably be played not before Jan 1st, and then the title game will kick off the next week. So what happens in the first round will likely have more to do with the outcome of the title game than the actual quality of the teams competing in that game.
@Azale: Bball works because they let 68 teams in. There may be some grumbling here or there but there's never a team that says "Hey, we deserved a shot at the title" who doesn't get in. Lots of teams that say "Hey, we deserved to be in the tournament", but that's a very different complaint.
I agree that the coaches poll should be out at least until they become transparent, and probably even after that due to the conflict of interest, but OTOH I sort of feel like everyone's conflicts would cancel each other out with a voting pool that large.
As for the AP, I can't remember the last time I looked at an AP poll and thought "Wait, they have who at fourth?" Seems like a nonstarter. Just take the top four AP teams
@Azale: Bball works because they let 68 teams in. There may be some grumbling here or there but there's never a team that says "Hey, we deserved a shot at the title" who doesn't get in. Lots of teams that say "Hey, we deserved to be in the tournament", but that's a very different complaint.
I agree that the coaches poll should be out at least until they become transparent, and probably even after that due to the conflict of interest, but OTOH I sort of feel like everyone's conflicts would cancel each other out with a voting pool that large.
As for the AP, I can't remember the last time I looked at an AP poll and thought "Wait, they have who at fourth?" Seems like a nonstarter. Just take the top four AP teams
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
SEC fun fact: Of the nine SEC teams that have won national titles this year, six did so after failing to win the conference.
Alabama:
Football (LSU won the conference)
Gymnastics (Florida won the conference)
Women's golf (finished third behind Auburn and Arky)
Softball
Kentucky:
Men's basketball (Vandy won the conference)
Florida:
Men's indoor track & field (Arkansas won the conference)
Men's outdoor track & field (Arkansas won the conference)
Women's tennis
LSU:
Women's outdoor track & field
If only South Carolina had managed to eek out the baseball title last night after failing to win the conference. Ah, well. An opportunity missed . . .
Alabama:
Football (LSU won the conference)
Gymnastics (Florida won the conference)
Women's golf (finished third behind Auburn and Arky)
Softball
Kentucky:
Men's basketball (Vandy won the conference)
Florida:
Men's indoor track & field (Arkansas won the conference)
Men's outdoor track & field (Arkansas won the conference)
Women's tennis
LSU:
Women's outdoor track & field
If only South Carolina had managed to eek out the baseball title last night after failing to win the conference. Ah, well. An opportunity missed . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
At least twelve more years, right?
Anyway, I still think four is pushing it. It's just going to suck so hard that first time that there is a clear, dominant #1 at the end of the regular season that gets knocked off in the semifinal, especially when the team that knocks them off loses in the title game the next week . . .
Anyway, I still think four is pushing it. It's just going to suck so hard that first time that there is a clear, dominant #1 at the end of the regular season that gets knocked off in the semifinal, especially when the team that knocks them off loses in the title game the next week . . .
There are apparently clauses in the contract to make changes before the first 12, in case selection criteria needs to be addressed, like they did with the BCS. Not sure it that includes expansion.
That problem exists in every single other sports competition, and it hasn't ruined everything yet. I think college football will survive.
That problem exists in every single other sports competition, and it hasn't ruined everything yet. I think college football will survive.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
It's my understanding that the length of the agreement was a specific guard against bracket creep, but it's not like I've read it, so I can't speak with authority
Comparing football to other sports and saying it will be okay because of the similarity isn't a good argument to me, since football is better than all the other sports.
But don't get me wrong here. I don't think the new postseason is a step backwards, or even 'bad', really. I just don't see how it's any better. It doesn't seem to really solve anything, it just replaces existing problems with shiny new ones. The only upside I see is that the semifinals will be a lot more interesting than the non-title BCS bowls were . . .
EDIT: Okay, I guess the 'step backwards' part is the fact that the stated goal is no longer to pit the best teams against each other, as it was in the BCS. But I think those complaining about that are the SEC doom-and-gloomers, who see conspiracies everywhere. College football fans may not get to see the best four teams in the playoffs every year, but we're probably going to get to see the best two or three at least, and the years when the teams that don't belong pull the upsets should be few and far between . . .
Comparing football to other sports and saying it will be okay because of the similarity isn't a good argument to me, since football is better than all the other sports.
But don't get me wrong here. I don't think the new postseason is a step backwards, or even 'bad', really. I just don't see how it's any better. It doesn't seem to really solve anything, it just replaces existing problems with shiny new ones. The only upside I see is that the semifinals will be a lot more interesting than the non-title BCS bowls were . . .
EDIT: Okay, I guess the 'step backwards' part is the fact that the stated goal is no longer to pit the best teams against each other, as it was in the BCS. But I think those complaining about that are the SEC doom-and-gloomers, who see conspiracies everywhere. College football fans may not get to see the best four teams in the playoffs every year, but we're probably going to get to see the best two or three at least, and the years when the teams that don't belong pull the upsets should be few and far between . . .
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Yeah, that's probably not going to happen. It's much more likely that deserving SEC teams will be left out in favor of whatever selection criteria is substituted for the 'best teams' criteria the BCS used.
But that's not the point. While some deserving SEC teams will be occasionally excluded, all SEC teams will never be excluded again, as they were in '04. The BCS era has ensured that no legitimate non-SEC team will be crowned champion unless the SEC champion has been defeated in postseason play. The playoff increases the odds that the SEC will fail to win the postseason, eventually, and it's inevitable that power will eventually shift and the SEC won't be the perennial contender it is today, but that won't be the fault of the format.
But in the short term, yes, this is just an opportunity for the SEC to beat up on more folks . . .
But that's not the point. While some deserving SEC teams will be occasionally excluded, all SEC teams will never be excluded again, as they were in '04. The BCS era has ensured that no legitimate non-SEC team will be crowned champion unless the SEC champion has been defeated in postseason play. The playoff increases the odds that the SEC will fail to win the postseason, eventually, and it's inevitable that power will eventually shift and the SEC won't be the perennial contender it is today, but that won't be the fault of the format.
But in the short term, yes, this is just an opportunity for the SEC to beat up on more folks . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Concise article covering how the SEC's last two new additions have fared in the past twenty years, with an eye towards giving Missouri and A&M an idea of what to expect . . .
One positive to the playoff...looks like Wisconsin is going to beef up their out of conference schedule. Others may follow suit: http://host.madison.com/sports/coll...cle_fdf326b2-c302-11e1-9540-001a4bcf887a.html
To be fair to Texas A&M (lol), they have a slightly more prestigious program than South Carolina.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
They tried to schedule a home-and-home with Alabama, apparently, but the only opening we have available in the next six years is 2015, and they didn't want to do a neutral site game . . .
But not really a more successful one, at least not in the decade leading up to their joining the conference:
South Carolina was 58-50-5, with two top fifteen finishes and three bowl appearances (all losses, with one to an SEC team)
Texas A&M was 64-60 with one divisional co-championship (South Carolina was an independent prior to joining the SEC), one top twenty finish and six bowl appearances with one win and five losses (three to the SEC)
I don't see A&M's resume as a whole lot more impressive
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Here to serve. 
It is sort of neat to look at the comparisons between the last expansion and this one. Arkansas/A&M and South Carolina/Missouri seem like the natural analogues, pairing the teams with strong football traditions and the ones without. But if you look at actual performance prior to joining the conference, Arkansas/Missouri and South Carolina/A&M are the more even pairs . . .
It is sort of neat to look at the comparisons between the last expansion and this one. Arkansas/A&M and South Carolina/Missouri seem like the natural analogues, pairing the teams with strong football traditions and the ones without. But if you look at actual performance prior to joining the conference, Arkansas/Missouri and South Carolina/A&M are the more even pairs . . .
Yeah, and I'm not even sure what Bama gets out of that. I'm sure Wisky leaked that to take some heat off the YOU NEVER PLAY ANYBODY storyline. I know they're going after Notre Dame, and if the B1G-PAC12 arrangement holds up, they should get a top 4 PAC team every year.
I think they'll prob have to look towards the ACC or the Big 12 for a better out of conference partner. Wisky will demand a home and home, and the only sec team willing to do that is Alabama apparently (and they're busy).
Similar threads
- Sticky
