College Playoff

[DaveyBoy]

2006 - Florida throttled OSU in Jan 2007....I'll give you that one

2007 - OSU played LSU in New Orleans....14 point victory....some very uncharactersitically dumb personal fouls cost OSU 14 to 21 points. USC would have destroyed LSU.

2008 - UF beat OU....who was throttled by 1-loss Texas earlier in the year...by <6 points......perhaps Texas was the truly best team

2009 - Bama beats Texas after Texas' best player goes out late in Q1 (Colt McCoy)....yeah, that was a real domination <eyes rolling>

2010 - Auburn beats Oregon by <TD.....led by a paid mercenary in Cam Newton

2011 - Bama gets "do-over" game......that USC in '07 didn't....and Texas in '08 didn't......that OSU in '98 didn't


What I see is an SEC that definitely is the best conference but has some very timely luck during this NC streak. Aside from LSU's only NCs being in years in which it played in New Orleans.....and the Colt McCoy injury.....and the convenient miss of Texas by UF in 2008.......I see a very strong NC run.

I find it disappointing that so many Bama fans are gloating over Auburn's NC after they blistered Auburn during the Cam Newton fiasco......I believe most Bama fans considered Auburn's title tainted except during debates like these.

It is truly an indicator of the SEC's "friends of the program" circling the wagons and hiding all evidence from the NCAA with regard to Auburn and Alabama. Good God, man, your players have been busted and photos displayed of them wearing expensive suits, driving expensive cars, and living basically the high life despite being from very poor backgrounds. Yet somehow that is OK while OSU's players exchange legally gained gifts and memoribilia for tattoos is cause for complete destruction of our 2011 team.

By the way, our 2011 team had some players that were the absolute best that Arkansas had faced in 2010....including vs Auburn and Bama. I really think Pryor could have had the Bama defense on their heels a bit....unlike the phantom QB at LSU that decided not to show up.


So when you look back at the SEC's incredible string of NCs, I see some great football teams that had some very good luck and were facing opponents that weren't at the top of their game.


My money is still on the OSU 2002 team over the 2011 Bama team.

Since this years BCSNCG every conference that's not the SEC has griped and complained they got screwed. Why? Because their conference didn't get to participate and the SEC's dominated the BCS for 6 consecutive years. I'm going to ignore all the tin foil hat conspiracy theories - because they're ridiculous.

The BCS has one job: to put the two best college football teams in the BCSNCG regardless of conference affiliation based upon a very diverse group of criteria. It did it's job and we have a legitimate national champion.

The complaints about this years BCSNCG participants is illegitimate however there is a problem that won't go away and will have a detrimental effect on college football until we make a change.

Most college football fans are homers and are, by and large, uninterested in other conferences - so if their conference isn't in the BCSNC picture they lose interest and - COMPLAIN. No one wants to admit their irrelevant - and when they are they lose interest in the season. I'm an avid college football fan but if my team is out of the chase for the Conference or BCS crown I lose interest and don't watch many of the marquee games by the top BCS teams - even the bowl games and the BCSNCG. I've missed quite a few over the years because I just wasn't interested.

College is inherantly different than the pros. The NFL isn't infected wtih homerism so severly that fans abandon it when their team misses the playoffs.

If this years BCSNCG had pitted Michigan against Wisconsin I would have taken a nap no matter how much hype surrounded it. I'm like most college football fans: If my team or conference ins't involved I don't care.

That's the truth about the current system. What will change the dissafected homers is more BIG OOC GAMES. We're all dedicated to the regular season and nothing would make me happier than to watch my team play Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Miami and the rest of the big boys on a regular basis in the regular season - that exposure to those teams would give me a reason to follow their progress based on comparison to the result of my teams game against them.

Without a reason to be exposed to Ohio State (or any other ooc team) during the regular season in a game that matters to my team and conference I'm not going to care about them. That is college footballs biggest problem at the moment. Most peoplewho say they love college footbaly really only love their teams and conferences - not college football itself - until there's a reason for all of us who love college football to care about teams in other conferences because of great OOC games we will all suffer from the ugly side of college football homerism

 

[BUCKYLE]

If that's your complaint then you're the one with the problem not the system. The system put the two best teams in college football on the field for the BCSNCG and with winner is the legitimate Champion. Any teams other than Alabama and LSU would have produced an illegitimate Champion.

If you're saying you don't care if the Champion is legitimate or not that's sad and bodes poorly for the future of college football. IF your'e saying it's impossible for one confernces 2nd or 3rd best team to be better than another (or all other conferences combined) conferences Champion then you're a lost cause and there is no system that will satisfy you and no champion will ever be legitimate in your eyes unless it's your conference and your team.

All conferences are NOT equal. Stronger conferences would suffer under your definiton of "Only Conference Champions" deserve a shot at the title. Those stronger conferences have more fans, make more money for everyone, and perform better because they get the best athletes. Forcing them out because Boise went undefeated playing a creampuff schedule is ridiculous and only diminishes the value of the BCSNC.

The PROBLEM people have is "the two best teams" is purely subjective, no matter what y'all want to believe. In 2006, it was pretty fucking clear after The Game that tOSU and Michigan were the two best teams. NO one, tOSU fans and SEC fans included wanted a rematch. Funny how when it's your two teams that are "obviously" the best, your stance changes.

 

[muffler dragon]

If that's your complaint then you're the one with the problem not the system.

Calm.
The.
Fuck.
Down.

I stated a singular complaint with regards to last season. I didn't say that I had a problem with the system. I didn't make a statement with regards to playoffs (the OP), the bowls or anything else other than the weakness of 'Bama going to the NC.

The system put the two best teams in college football on the field for the BCSNCG and with winner is the legitimate Champion. Any teams other than Alabama and LSU would have produced an illegitimate Champion.

As Kyle said, you're attempting to make an Objective conclusion based on subjectivities. To me, I really didn't give a shit as I didn't watch the game. The first one bored the hell out of me, and I wasn't about to watch 2.0.

If you're saying you don't care if the Champion is legitimate or not that's sad and bodes poorly for the future of college football. IF your'e saying it's impossible for one confernces 2nd or 3rd best team to be better than another (or all other conferences combined) conferences Champion then you're a lost cause and there is no system that will satisfy you and no champion will ever be legitimate in your eyes unless it's your conference and your team.

All conferences are NOT equal. Stronger conferences would suffer under your definiton of "Only Conference Champions" deserve a shot at the title. Those stronger conferences have more fans, make more money for everyone, and perform better because they get the best athletes. Forcing them out because Boise went undefeated playing a creampuff schedule is ridiculous and only diminishes the value of the BCSNC.

As I'm not sure why you're attempting to use me as your whipping boy via your strawmen, then I'm going to suggest that you take your angst and your argument to someone else.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

The truth of the matter is that the SEC understands how to game the system by the new rules of the game.



Rule 2: Play your OOC schedule at home against weak, even lower division, teams. This ensures that your teams enter the conference schedule with the highest possible computer ratings, because losses bring down ratings and even good teams can lose against a team in the 30-50 rank category when that team brings its A game on the day. Then, claim that your teams are the best based on playing in a tougher conference, using the spurious human polls and computer scores to justify what you say.

First of all an SEC OOC schedule is different than most of the BIG. They have the OOC throughout the season between major conference opponents. So is the the conference schedule. I could be wrong...and I'm sure Gator will correct me if I am..But the only team from the SEC that played every conference game consecutively was Florida last year. Actually Florida played 3 or 4 of the top 4 or 5 teams in consecutive weeks last season IIRC. That didn't pan out so well. You also fail to mention the conference game early in the year that gets played while a team might be ranked..Miss St. And I swear when they schedule the season..if a team has a chance to win it all in their eyes you get a Div II school late in the season, or right before your main Rival.

 

[Gatorubet]

The truth of the matter is that the SEC understands how to game the system by the new rules of the game.

Rule 1: Forget the old idea that this is really about a college education. Offer scholarships to kids and then throw them out without any sense of commitment to them if they don't make the two-deep. This ensures that you have an on-field advantage against teams that honor such commitments. They can always get a degree at some lower division school.

You need to go to the Meatchicken board and educate all of your brethren who mistakenly go on the sham majors created for the less than cerebral athletes recruited by that institution. Or the Penn State board. None of us always enjoy our athletes' turn at the microphone in post-game interviews. Including the B1G.

Or, you could broad brush the entire SEC because Saban is Saban and his medical red shirt ways will lead to abuse quicker than Jerry Sandusky at mute Cub Scout convention. Florida has two of the last 6 BCSNCs, and we neither oversigned or ruthlessly cut kids to earn it.

Rule 2: Play your OOC schedule at home against weak, even lower division, teams. This ensures that your teams enter the conference schedule with the highest possible computer ratings, because losses bring down ratings and even good teams can lose against a team in the 30-50 rank category when that team brings its A game on the day. Then, claim that your teams are the best based on playing in a tougher conference, using the spurious human polls and computer scores to justify what you say.

The thread is about college playoffs. The college playoffs will involve the upper tier of a conference. Those upper tier programs play in the BCS games. The SEC freaking OWNS the BCS, win record wise. Computer polls did not help them win the game when it was time for kickoff. Rankings, while playing a role in an SEC team being in the game, did nothing to help that SEC win the game once it started. The record shows that the SEC is the best "upper tier" conference in the nation when you look at the results of the upper tier teams playing each other in the highest level games against other conferences. Steve, it may make you mad, but you need to find a way to just accept that. Because when the subject of the thread is the playoffs, then it does not matter what the "total bowl games" record is - it matters not if Ole Miss beats Wake Forest in a lessor bowl game. The kind of "playoffs" this thread is discussing will always include the top ten teams (Mili's quest for a top 16 notwithstanding :p). When a top ten team is from the SEC and plays in a BCS Bowl, they kick ass - historically. That is the format we are talking about; those are the SEC teams they will draw.

Rule 3: If you get forced to play a team in the 30-50 rank category and have the double challenge of playing a team located north of the Mason-Dixon line, have the sense to schedule a "name" team that is in a down cycle (e.g., Penn State).

Schedules are made many years in advance. I'm sure every AD wishes he or she knew when their opponent will have a down year. They don't.

Rule 4: Play your bowl games like everything else; close to home and in the warm climate. Realize that kids brought to sunshine and summer temps really have a bit more trouble focusing after eight to ten weeks of gray skies, rain, snow, and cold temperatures. Give them an early spring break. Take them around to Disneyland, Disneyworld, beaches and the like. Get them to relax in that holiday mood.

The Disneyland Plot. :tinfoil: Yeah, that's the ticket. That whole fifty years of folks up North wanting to spend a mini-vacation during the bowl game somewhere warm had nothing to do with it.

Now I know that when the B1G loses it is not due to playing the other team. It is instead the unholy alliance of the poor Yankee kids seeing a blue sky for the first in weeks, and being tricked into humming "It's a Small World Afterall" when he should be listening to the snap count.

Rule 5: Be sure to ignore when your conference does not show that superiority in the total bowl games at the end of the year, even though the games are essentially home games for you. You don't need to be a fan of an SEC team to benefit from the SEC manuals, "Building Strawmen", "Whistling it the Dark", and "Winning by Ignoring What Others Say in Conversation."

Puppies. I like them.

 

[Gatorubet]

So when you look back at the SEC's incredible string of NCs, I see some great football teams that had some very good luck and were facing opponents that weren't at the top of their game.


My money is still on the OSU 2002 team over the 2011 Bama team.

Hell, luck is very much a part of all of this. Your Holy Buckeye and our "Cock-block" (respectively in 2002/2006) were both needed to even have a shot. No doubt about it.

I do think that having five different SEC programs win the BCSNC says something about the strength of the conference. Next is the Big-XII with Okie and Tejas. No other conference has had more than one team win it.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

It did, and then about 8 other teams lost their shot at the title in different regular season games that also mattered.

Definitely this.

Exactly my point. Thank you. The stupid-ased argument that regular season games lose their important when a playoff is in place is just that: stupid.

We lucked out in that we just happened to lose just a tad earlier than a bunch of others. Almost all of them them had one loss like we did. Did that make them less worthy of a title shot?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

You need to go to the Meatchicken board and educate all of your brethren who mistakenly go on the sham majors created for the less than cerebral athletes recruited by that institution. Or the Penn State board. None of us always enjoy our athletes' turn at the microphone in post-game interviews. Including the B1G.

The Gator is not wrong, Dude. The SAT gap between entering football players and the average entering student at Ohio State is almost 300 points. It's over 300 at Michigan. The reality is that at least half of every entering recruiting class at EVERY Big Ten school (and I'd arguably include NW) would not get into that school as a normal freshman applicant.

Breaking the numbers down a little further. Assuming that a portion of each recruiting class meets or exceeds the overall freshman average and taking into consideration the 820 floor for eligibility (which means that the proverbial "few bad apples" can't pull the entire class' average down to the 1000 mark, that means that a big chunk of each recruiting class is in Tebow (SAT:890) territory. Put it this way. Given current SAT averages for freshmen and freshmen football players, every freshman football recruit who meets the average SAT of the overall freshman class means that there are two Tebows in the class.

I agree with the overall premise that there are fundamental differences in how the SEC goes about its business in comparison to the Big Ten. Letting in subpar students is not one of them.

As an aside to Gator, we all know that Timmuh would have--despite his abortion of an SAT score--still been admitted to UF normally due to his gpa, class rank and ap classes at a competitive high school. Oh wait, he was home schooled.

 

[BigWoof31]

Rule 3: If you get forced to play a team in the 30-50 rank category and have the double challenge of playing a team located north of the Mason-Dixon line, have the sense to schedule a "name" team that is in a down cycle (e.g., Penn State).

I appreciate your Bama Bashing as much as the next fella - but this is a huge reach.
There is absolutely no way Alabama could have predicted Penn State would be in a down stretch when this game was scheduled.

Since 2003 they are 4-3 in Bowl Games including an OT win in the Orange Bowl and a loss in the Rose Bowl. They have NYD victories over Tennessee and LSU.

Matchups against Big Time Programs in other conferences take years to cobble together. Nobody can predicting recruiting more than 6 months in advance.

Outside of scheduling Notre Dame it's impossible to schedule big opponents during downward cycles with any level of consistency.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Or, you could broad brush the entire SEC because Saban is Saban and his medical red shirt ways will lead to abuse quicker than Jerry Sandusky at mute Cub Scout convention. Florida has two of the last 6 BCSNCs, and we neither oversigned or ruthlessly cut kids to earn it.

The SEC doesn't mind using that broad brush to paint the entire conference with winning.

 

[BayBuck]

I appreciate your Bama Bashing as much as the next fella - but this is a huge reach.
There is absolutely no way Alabama could have predicted Penn State would be in a down stretch when this game was scheduled.

Did they schedule PSU in 1992? :tongue2:

 

[Ryan36_1]

I think Delany's plan would be a very good compromise for a 4 team playoff.

For the reasons stated many times in the past dozen pages, we can never objectively know if Team A from the Blue conference is better than Team B from the Red conference in most cases. For that reason, I had always thought a 4 team playoff should be conference champions only. But last year showed there comes a point where that would just devalue the playoff.

While an 8 team 6+2 or 6+1+1 (6 conference champs + 2 AL // 6 conference champs + next AQ team + top non-AQ team - feel free to debate if there are still 6 conferences that would be AQ in this system) would be my first choice, I would settle for Delany's version of a playoff.

I think that what needs to be talked about more is the way teams are ranked in any system. The human element needs a complete overhaul, in my IMO. The final polls are clearly now a matter of 'who we want to be in championship game' and not 'who we think the best teams are'. And even tossing out bias, the qualifications of the voters - coaches and media alike, is questionable - and that's being nice.

I think the polls are fine week to week rankings, but the final rankings should be done in a different manner. My suggestion is some sort of hybrid between polls and the basketball committee. Have a committee - conference representatives and media - discuss the merits of each team and cast individual rankings. The composite of these rankings would decide final BCS standings - either on their own or in combination with the final computer rankings. The committee should be small - 10 to 12 representatives - and the votes public.

While this system wouldn't prevent voter manipulation - like there was last year with Okie State last year, for example - it would take away the quasi-anonymity that we have now. Of the population of CFB fans, what percentage do you think even knows that Okie State was ranked as low as 6 in final polls last year (I would argue very few) and further more, how many can name the voters that placed them that low? (I would argue far fewer - I know I can't)

 

[Gatorubet]

The SEC doesn't mind using that broad brush to paint the entire conference with winning.

Five different programs have won the BCSNC from the SEC. Compared to the ACC, B1G, Big East and Pac-10's single program winner, that is a broader brush. I get why Vandy or Miss State fans mouthing off seems silly. I get why its annoying. Let's just agree to disagree on the whole conference pride thing. We see it differently. Not saying we are "right", but that is how we roll. To figure out why we do you'd have to watch the entire Ken Burns series.

 

[Muck]

If that's your complaint then you're the one with the problem not the system. The system put the two best teams in college football on the field for the BCSNCG and with winner is the legitimate Champion.Any teams other than Alabama and LSU would have produced an illegitimate Champion.[/i]

The system is right. Why? Well because we say so.

Folks this is why we point and laugh at SEC fans.

What is all this 'broad brush' nonsense? Finger painting is a graduate level course down in dixie.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Folks this is why we point and laugh at SEC fans.

Not completely: