Why being a conference champion should not give automatic bids to a playoff

[sakau2007]

Easy.

You win your conference.

You have no claim to a national title when you don't even have a conference title. That's the way it goes.

I'll use this season as a hypothetical situation and pick on Bama again.

Let's suppose we had playoff this year and took four conference champions. Let's suppose, again, that Auburn won the playoff.

Can you honestly say that Alabama has a legit gripe for being left out?

Sorry. But no. Not when Auburn played and beat Alabama.

I realize I am in the minority here but to me what happened on the field with the scoreboard counts more than someone's opinion.

winning your conference was never a requirement to reach the BCS title game. and it appears the playoff system had the foresight also to not make it a requirement... because they don't want a situation to arise where the 2 best teams aren't both in a 4 team playoff... or even the THREE best teams leave out 2 teams. if you think this can't happen, look at the big 8. i'm pretty sure they had 3 teams finish 1,2,3 back in the 1970s.

 

[LawDawg]

Easy.

You win your conference.

You have no claim to a national title when you don't even have a conference title. That's the way it goes.

I'll use this season as a hypothetical situation and pick on Bama again.

Let's suppose we had playoff this year and took four conference champions. Let's suppose, again, that Auburn won the playoff.

Can you honestly say that Alabama has a legit gripe for being left out?

Sorry. But no. Not when Auburn played and beat Alabama.

I realize I am in the minority here but to me what happened on the field with the scoreboard counts more than someone's opinion.

Yes, if Bama if better than all the other Conference Champs and what you want is the 4 best teams. Not sure how else to say it.

Head to head on the field you are correct. But what happens on the field with one conference doesn't tell you what happens on the field between teams in another.

 

[sakau2007]

This is the point most of the non-SECers are trying to make. SoS is flawed and should not be used to determine the final 4. Win your conference, you're in. Pretty cut and dried.

Win your conference and you're in?

So the 4 team playoff will consist of
Auburn
Florida State
Stanford
Baylor
Michigan State
Rice
Central Florida
Bowling Green

...see where I'm going here?

 

[oaknightshockey1]

winning your conference was never a requirement to reach the BCS title game. and it appears the playoff system had the foresight also to not make it a requirement... because they don't want a situation to arise where the 2 best teams aren't both in a 4 team playoff... or even the THREE best teams leave out 2 teams. if you think this can't happen, look at the big 8. i'm pretty sure they had 3 teams finish 1,2,3 back in the 1970s.

Bad example. When they lost it on the field in the Big 8, they had no chance of winning the national championship. There's more margin for error in taking conference champions than there was back then.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Win your conference and you're in?

So the 4 team playoff will consist of
Auburn
Florida State
Stanford
Baylor
Michigan State
Rice
Central Florida
Bowling Green

...see where I'm going here?

Yes but I figured you were smart enough to realize that I was talking about the AQ conferences minus whatever the hell the Big East is nowadays.

 

[BamaTee1]

But the "two best teams" is an opinion. Take 2011 for example. Everyone says that Bama was obviously was one of the best teams because they beat three FBS teams with a winning record. Oklahoma State had a much better strength of schedule than Bama and won their conference. There is no way to prove one team is better than another without them actually playing on the field. It wasn't like we had one undefeated team, one 1 loss team, and everyone else was 2+ losses.

Out of 120 plus D1 teams what do you think the difference between a #7 SOS and a #22 SOS really amounts to (besides the fact that margin of victory was not calculated but obvious to human voters)? Add the fact Alabama lost to a #1 LSU in OT in a game that most watched would question if best team won and Okie St lost as a 4 TD favorite. I would also say that Alabama had the tougher schedule (hell with computers). OSU benefited from a 9 game Big 12 schedule. People talked about the number of ranked teams they played but at end of year both had played 4 ranked teams YET the average ranking of those teams was something like #12 for Alabama and #22 for OSU. Big 12 had a lot of teams ranked like #16 or worse. While Alabama was playing top 10 ranked teams.

Conference champion is not a requirement and I sure hope the committee doesn't make it one. Even this year is an example. Alabama is#1 for 12 weeks with a huge target on their back and has the game wrapped up with 3 minutes leading by 7 and what looks like a first down on Auburn's 5 yard line then a penalty (holding lol) and a low FG block, another penalty, an illegal pass play by Auburn and then the miracle return sends them to #3. They shouldn't be one of the four? Who you going to send ahead of them?

I would send FSU, Auburn, Michigan St and Alabama.

 

[sakau2007]

Yes but I figured you were smart enough to realize that I was talking about the AQ conferences minus whatever the hell the Big East is nowadays.

And even then you'd have 5 teams.

And what makes you think the Big 10 is still worthy of an automatic qualifying bid? The entire conference combined to beat 4 ranked teams this season. Auburn beat that many by themselves.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

I would send FSU, Auburn, Michigan St and Alabama.

So you would leave out the champion of arguably the #2 conference in the country?

 

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

Honest question... who do you think has earned their way in to the field between these two teams

11-1 Alabama, with a 21 point win over LSU and a road win over Texas A&M. Only loss on the road to #2.
or
12-1 Michigan State, with no road (or home) wins over ranked teams. First and only win over a ranked team was in the Big 10 title game to Ohio State. Loss to an unranked Notre Dame team.

If you say Michigan State has earned it more than Alabama, then that is your opinion.

Hypothetically of course, what happens if the playoff started this year, and the semifinal games end up being MSU over FSU, and Alabama over Auburn? Should we just play Alabama and Auburn again for the title? Since Auburn's body of work is better than MSU's?

 

[7Samurai13]

I dont read Sakau's posts so I had no idea what your post was about except what i read. I like talking to you, we never get into riled up conversations, just debates, so dont take my words as trying to be offensive to you.

Had Saban stayed I believe, based on his track record of success and recruiting, he could have done what Dantonio is currently doing.

As far as Urban, I am not a big fan of his, so my thoughts are that he ran from the SEC because he saw that Saban was doing what he could not, get number 1 recruiting classes that would equate to top teams. Urban was not going to be the top dog anymore once Saban got established and he knew that, especially after Saban beat one of Urbans best teams in the SECCG and made his QB cry on the sidelines like a little girl. So forgive me if i dont get into the Urban to the B1G conversation, my opinion might be a similar one considering he went to one of the two schools that recruits will flock to with a decent coach at the helm.

I think there is a history of coaches leaving a program when they lose their starting quarterback and don't see much of anything in the pipeline after that. Urban saw the writing on the wall and rather than take the chance of tarnishing his name with a bad season and taking the chance of losing out on his dream job, he took a year off. Lloyd Carr took off from Michigan in the after he lost his top WR, RB, and QB and the entire fanbase was calling for his head.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

And even then you'd have 5 teams.

And what makes you think the Big 10 is still worthy of an automatic qualifying bid? The entire conference combined to beat 4 ranked teams this season. Auburn beat that many by themselves.

It is more difficult to beat top 25 teams when as a conference the Big 10 has to fight it's way into the top 25 rather than being gifted top 25 rankings at the beginning of the year that mean nothing.

 

[sakau2007]

It is more difficult to beat top 25 teams when as a conference the Big 10 has to fight it's way into the top 25 rather than being gifted top 25 rankings at the beginning of the year that mean nothing.

The SEC started with 6 teams in the top 25, the Big 10 started with 5.

They weren't gifts on either account. They were based on the previous season's team, returning players, and recruiting.

After the games were played, more SEC teams are ranked than when the season started as opposed to less for the Big 10.

Congrats on owning yourself.

 

[Codaxx]

There are other problems with 8, but it would take care of the CC argument. 5 CCs, 3 at large bids.

I completely agree. I think it should be conference champs and a selected group of at-large teams. I said 11 teams would be great. 5 conference champs get a bye week, given them an advantage and preserving the importance of the season.

 

[7Samurai13]

Out of 120 plus D1 teams what do you think the difference between a #7 SOS and a #22 SOS really amounts to (besides the fact that margin of victory was not calculated but obvious to human voters)? Add the fact Alabama lost to a #1 LSU in OT in a game that most watched would question if best team won and Okie St lost as a 4 TD favorite. I would also say that Alabama had the tougher schedule (hell with computers). OSU benefited from a 9 game Big 12 schedule. People talked about the number of ranked teams they played but at end of year both had played 4 ranked teams YET the average ranking of those teams was something like #12 for Alabama and #22 for OSU. Big 12 had a lot of teams ranked like #16 or worse. While Alabama was playing top 10 ranked teams.

Conference champion is not a requirement and I sure hope the committee doesn't make it one. Even this year is an example. Alabama is#1 for 12 weeks with a huge target on their back and has the game wrapped up with 3 minutes leading by 7 and what looks like a first down on Auburn's 5 yard line then a penalty (holding lol) and a low FG block, another penalty, an illegal pass play by Auburn and then the miracle return sends them to #3. They shouldn't be one of the four? Who you going to send ahead of them?

I would send FSU, Auburn, Michigan St and Alabama.

I said in a thread a while ago that I do not want it to be written in stone that a team must win their conference. I think more weight should be put on winning their division/conference than one who does not and that if there was a playoff this season it should be definitely be FSU, Auburn, Alabama, and either Michigan State/Baylor/Stanford.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Easy.

You win your conference.

You have no claim to a national title when you don't even have a conference title. That's the way it goes.

I'll use this season as a hypothetical situation and pick on Bama again.

Let's suppose we had playoff this year and took four conference champions. Let's suppose, again, that Auburn won the playoff.

Can you honestly say that Alabama has a legit gripe for being left out?

Sorry. But no. Not when Auburn played and beat Alabama.

I realize I am in the minority here but to me what happened on the field with the scoreboard counts more than someone's opinion.

So Bama losing means they are not one of the top 4 teams in the country huh? based simply on them not winning their conference? And this could be used for any team that was as good so the Bama reference is simply because its fresh. Personally(and i am sure i could get probably a 75-80% agreement) I feel that Bama is easily one of the top 4 teams in the country And apparently i am not alone based on the voters. Yes its opinion, but to not include a team that was number one for every week of the season that lost on a fluke play with no time on the clock, a team that most people said was the best in the country prior to them losing, would be a complete disservice to the playoff if you want to really have the BEST 4 teams in the playoff.

Now take this in the context of if Baylor had not won against Texas, the Big 12 champion would have 2 losses versus an Alabama with one loss, could you really say that the Big 12 champion was better than a one loss Alabama. See the inherent problems with locking it in to just conference champions if you want the BEST 4 teams in the playoffs. B1G champion last year had 3 losses, clearly not one of the best 4 teams in the country, but they won their conference and it was one of the best 4 conference based on history and tradition in the NCAA. No clearcut answer to this dilemma.

 

[sakau2007]

Hypothetically of course, what happens if the playoff started this year, and the semifinal games end up being MSU over FSU, and Alabama over Auburn? Should we just play Alabama and Auburn again for the title? Since Auburn's body of work is better than MSU's?

No. If the rules of the playoff were you are in, you reset the records and start playing the games, then it would be MSU vs. Alabama.

But we are talking about "earning" our way into a field. And I don't think that Michigan State has "earned" anything more than Alabama has. So they won their conference? That'd be fantastic if there weren't 2 teams in the SEC ranked higher (and considered better) than your conference champion.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

The SEC started with 6 teams in the top 25, the Big 10 started with 5.

They weren't gifts on either account. They were based on the previous season's team, returning players, and recruiting.

After the games were played, more SEC teams are ranked than when the season started as opposed to less for the Big 10.

Congrats on owning yourself.

Outside of OSU, the other Big 10 teams were ranked 17 and below in the AP. You lose one game at that position and you drop out. The SEC had 5 in the top 10. You lose there, and you stay in the top 20.

 

[GreenNickle]

It is clear that only SEC teams should be allowed into the playoffs.
No other teams have an argument to be included or even thought of as anything but marginally average football teams.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

I think there is a history of coaches leaving a program when they lose their starting quarterback and don't see much of anything in the pipeline after that. Urban saw the writing on the wall and rather than take the chance of tarnishing his name with a bad season and taking the chance of losing out on his dream job, he took a year off. Lloyd Carr took off from Michigan in the after he lost his top WR, RB, and QB and the entire fanbase was calling for his head.

He recruited Brantly if I am not mistaken and stayed a year with him at the helm. He bolted when he saw the handwriting on the wall.

So I guess if Saban leaves this year it will be because he sees no QB option on the roster after McCarron, since he is a senior and leaving this year? Money may be the root cause of this more than McCarron leaving, seeing as Saban has won a title with his last two QB's in their first year as QB.

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

Well, clearly the playoff is going to equal the same old controversies x4. I love it!