BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

Boards ▾

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

The Tailgate

Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

Question for Playoff proponents.....

  • I am interested to know from playoff proponents, Why are you drawn to a playoff system? What is the benefit for Alabama? I personally am not in favor of a playoff. I think it is based on a desire for fairness. Since when did fairness become a part of college football. Why should I care if Boise State, Utah or BYU get a shot at my team?

    For me, one of the draws of college football is the timelessness of the arguments. Who was better and who could have beaten who. I still argue with people over the '66 season and Penn St. in '94. With a playoff that goes away. Does anyone remember who Arkansas beat in the Regional Semifinals before going on to win the 1994 championship? No....exactly my point.

    The argument that it crowns a "true" national champion rings hollow with me also. In the end it comes down to 1 game that the best team may or may not win. Tennessee beat us in '99. Does that mean that they were more deserving of the SEC title that year? No, because we look at the total body of work. Miss. St. beat us in '96 at the end of the season. Should they have been in the SECCG over us? No. Just because they beat us last doesn't mean anything. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the NY Giants were a better team than the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII? A playoff system is frought with just as many problems as any other system. Will all the playoff suporters still think it is "fair" if an undefeated SEC chamption Alabama loses in the first round to a 2 loss Pac-12/14/16 champion who has played a weaker schedule?

    With all the conference realignment going on it seems as if we are going to be destined to move to a playoff system. I think it is a real shame because it will kill what made college football great.

  • I am for a plus-one. That is it. Nothing more. I want them to take the top 4 bcs ranked conference champions or independents. This is fair and still makes the regular season relevent. I want two bcs bowls to be the first round and the championship to go to another bowl. Preferably I'd like to bring in the Cotton bowl as the 5th BCS game (championship) and keep the other four and rotate everything around like they do now. The championship and playoff sites would rotate and we would keep the current bowl system intact. Everyone wins. You would have a great slippery slope argument against me though!

    This post was edited by Palmetto Tide 3 years ago

  • I am for a playoff because I think the BCS does a joke of a job in determining the best team in college football, and because it would be the most amazing and exciting three or four weeks in sports if it were ever to materialize.

  • 1tide

    Doesn't matter if we are for it or against in now. All the expansion is bringing some type of playoff.

    New Member of The 247 Crew!

  • I'm not in favor of a playoff or against it. Will it benefit Alabama? It could, depending on how this all shakes out. I believe when the dust settles there will be five 16 team super conferences...that's 80 teams and a new football division will come of it..(BCS subdivision or whatever). You'll have the champion of each conference and 3 at-large teams in a 8 team playoff. I think they'll keep the BCS formula for seeding and the 3 at-large teams. This is where it could help Bama and any other SEC team for that matter. Playing in the toughest conference the SEC would have 2 teams in the playoff almost every year IMO. A late season loss at top 5 LSU wouldn't be a NC ending run. Do I like it? Not really, but some variation of this is coming and it could be beneficial to Bama and the SEC.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image signature image signature image
  • I think that is the biggest fallacy in the playoff argument. Do all teams get into the the playoffs or do the best teams based on someone's opinion get in? Playing in a conference like the SEC you have to win it on the field. All a playoff does is marginalize the regular season and give weak teams a chance to get hot and win against teams that are beat up.

    Also, last time I checked we still had to show up and play Miami in '92 and Texas in '09. Miami probably wishes they didn't have to play PSU in '86 or OSU in '02.

  • I disagree. I think that the BCS has accomplished what it set out to do. Who should have been in the '09 game other than Bama and Texas? How about last year? As much as I hate Auburn, they were undefeated as was Oregon. Both played clearly tougher schedules than TCU. Who would you have put in?

    The idea that a playoff guarantees that the two best teams play in the champtionship game is not bourne out. The 2005 Colts were 14-2 and one of the best teams in the NFL but lost to an inferior Steelers team. Last year the Saints lost to a team with a losing record in the Sehawks. In 1988 an incredible 49ers team that was 13-2 lost to an 8-7 Vikings team. A playoff doesn't guarantee that the best team made it to the champtionship. It simply defines how the the championship participants are chosen. The BCS does the same thing. For that matter, so did the old way.

  • crimsonbleeder

    emrys said... (original post)

    I am interested to know from playoff proponents, Why are you drawn to a playoff system? What is the benefit for Alabama? I personally am not in favor of a playoff. I think it is based on a desire for fairness. Since when did fairness become a part of college football. Why should I care if Boise State, Utah or BYU get a shot at my team?

    For me, one of the draws of college football is the timelessness of the arguments. Who was better and who could have beaten who. I still argue with people over the '66 season and Penn St. in '94. With a playoff that goes away. Does anyone remember who Arkansas beat in the Regional Semifinals before going on to win the 1994 championship? No....exactly my point.

    The argument that it crowns a "true" national champion rings hollow with me also. In the end it comes down to 1 game that the best team may or may not win. Tennessee beat us in '99. Does that mean that they were more deserving of the SEC title that year? No, because we look at the total body of work. Miss. St. beat us in '96 at the end of the season. Should they have been in the SECCG over us? No. Just because they beat us last doesn't mean anything. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the NY Giants were a better team than the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII? A playoff system is frought with just as many problems as any other system. Will all the playoff suporters still think it is "fair" if an undefeated SEC chamption Alabama loses in the first round to a 2 loss Pac-12/14/16 champion who has played a weaker schedule?

    With all the conference realignment going on it seems as if we are going to be destined to move to a playoff system. I think it is a real shame because it will kill what made college football great.

    Could not agree more.

    I hate the idea of trying to make everything "fair and equal", when the real world is anything but "fair and equal". The strong survive.

    I do think a "Plus One" in the event of ties at the end of the season is worthwhile, and is favored by CNS and lots of other "big time" coaches. That would be the only case that any sort of "playoff" event belongs in college football.

    Any other argument in favor of a playoff in college football is about: 1) trying to "equalize" everyone (see above), 2) Money grabbing, 3) admitting to yourself that "Dadgum, College Football just ain't exciting enough. Let's add some PLAYOFFS!"---now, I don't know of ANYONE who thinks that college football's regular season isn't exciting enough already. Even the strongest proponent of a playoff would have to admit that.

    I can't see an argument FOR a playoff coming from anywhere else, and none of the above platforms (1-3) are valid.

    signature image

    1960 Les Paul

  • If the conferences move the way things seem to be going we'll probably have 4 super conferences with 16 teams each. The conference will have a champion determined by conference championship game. That will give us 4 champions to have a 2 game playoff. (pretty much a plus 1) If you aren't in the 64 you just get left out or you start your own secondary play off like the NIT does.

  • I don't like the idea that the best 5 teams in college football could be in the same conference. Then after giving each other 1-2 losses, another two teams who breezed through their conference gets to play in the national championship game. With the superconferences, at least the unfairness of having to play in a tougher conference while others did not, would help eliminate that possiblilty.

    "True" national champion will always ring hollow because any team can upset another team. However, the superconference/play off will better reward the most deserving national champion than the current system. The current system just allows to many scenarios that haven't happened yet, but if they did, would create a ton of unfairness and piss a lot of college sport fans off.

    Yes the bowls made football great. I also think it would be a shame. Unfortuantely, sports have to adapt to present day situations. With the increase in amount of teams, athletes, and fan bases, you no longer have the same 5-10 schools competing for the national title every year. There needs to be a better system to allow these increases to keep college football competetive for all teams.

    With all that being said, I do not want superconfernces/playoff and would prefer to keep BCS going awhile longer.

    This post was edited by TideDestiny 3 years ago

  • TideDestiny said... (original post)

    With all that being said, I don't not want superconfernces/playoff and would prefer to keep BCS going awhile longer. :D

    Actually it will keep going. The SEC, ACC, Big 12 already have a championship game.
    By forcing the new 4 super conferences to adopt a championship game you make it more fair to the ones the already do.
    The BCS bowls can be the playoff.
    Sugar, Orange, and Rose rotate playing the 2 play in games and the other gets the championship.
    The Tostito gets bumped back to just reward bowl status like all the other bowls.

    This post was edited by wertyders 3 years ago

  • gatider12

    emrys said... (original post)

    I am interested to know from playoff proponents, Why are you drawn to a playoff system? What is the benefit for Alabama? I personally am not in favor of a playoff. I think it is based on a desire for fairness. Since when did fairness become a part of college football. Why should I care if Boise State, Utah or BYU get a shot at my team?

    For me, one of the draws of college football is the timelessness of the arguments. Who was better and who could have beaten who. I still argue with people over the '66 season and Penn St. in '94. With a playoff that goes away. Does anyone remember who Arkansas beat in the Regional Semifinals before going on to win the 1994 championship? No....exactly my point.

    The argument that it crowns a "true" national champion rings hollow with me also. In the end it comes down to 1 game that the best team may or may not win. Tennessee beat us in '99. Does that mean that they were more deserving of the SEC title that year? No, because we look at the total body of work. Miss. St. beat us in '96 at the end of the season. Should they have been in the SECCG over us? No. Just because they beat us last doesn't mean anything. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the NY Giants were a better team than the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII? A playoff system is frought with just as many problems as any other system. Will all the playoff suporters still think it is "fair" if an undefeated SEC chamption Alabama loses in the first round to a 2 loss Pac-12/14/16 champion who has played a weaker schedule?

    With all the conference realignment going on it seems as if we are going to be destined to move to a playoff system. I think it is a real shame because it will kill what made college football great.

    First of all, what made college football great will not be killed. It is already dead! Media killed college football. ESPN, Notre Dame/NBC, and the BCS killed college football. The money that can be made on the television has killed it and it will never be back. It will never be the same. No 1996, 1999, 2004, or any other year. Time does not turn back and money hungry people never stop trying to exploit a popular sport for more money. Sports media does not care one iota for tradition and legacy. They would love nothing more than to run Joe Pa into the dirt (ala Bobby Bowden) and take Saban with him. Sorry but your ideal is just gone.

    With that said, I am for a system where the winner is chosen by winning. Does that eliminate argument? By proxy I would hope so. Not that there would not still be the opportunity to argue for who is better but that is just sports. I would like a system that is not the same as the NFL. A "plus one" or some system that is not reliant on voters that obviously have an agenda. I do not want ESPN controlling the rankings of college football and we are dangerously close to that today.

    In the end, the world has changed. The college football that you want does not and will not exist. The system must change to overcome the media that seek to control it for television profits that can make the sport more "pro" oriented (notice the paying players stories in the media) and give greater access to the reporters (notice injury report disclosure).

    signature image signature image signature image
  • I yearn for my younger days when I would get up on New Year's Day and watch football from sun-up to well after sun-down. Every game mattered because it had an impact on who would be number 1. After all the dust settled, we had a champion or co-champions. We would then argue about the outcome for 8 months and do it again.

    I don't think I have watched more than 2 bowl games a year since 1998. It just doesn't matter anymore because of the need to have a #1 vs. #2 game.

  • I wish all the games would be on New Year's as well. That was incredible. That being said, I think the BCS has worked for the most part. The only time it really didn't was in '04 when Auburn got left out. I know there was controversy other years, but they all involved 1-loss teams. I will NOT listen to crying from a team that didn't win all their games. Handle your business, win your games, and THEN if you get left out, you have an argument (exception, people who play a joke of a schedule). If you don't win all your games, stop crying, because you didn't do everything that you could. It's still better than the old system where LSU, USC and Oklahoma wouldn't have played each other in '03, USC and Texas wouldn't have played in '05, Florida and Ohio State in '06, you see where I'm going. It's not perfect, but I like it better than a playoff. Like somebody said, you could have a 2 loss team knock off an undefeated team in the first round, but because they played over their heads for one game doesn't mean they're a better team.

    "Quit trying to make a play and do your job!"

  • 1tide

    I also think we're looking at more than a plus one here. A plus one with super leagues isn't gonna fly.

    New Member of The 247 Crew!

  • Just a point that hasn't been discussed here: one of the biggest problems with the current system is the "polls bias" that exists. Polls come out in the preseason and though updated, reflect that bias the entire season. Although we all acknowledge how flawed the preseason polls are, these same polls are a major factor in the BCS. For example, say a TCU / Utah / Boise or any other non-BCS team was ranked in the top 3 in the preseason but never beat a legitimate BCS opponent all season. Simply because they don't lose, they would automatically get a shot in the title game solely based on their preseason ranking. If say, the same year, a Houston, Hawaii, or other team was unranked to start the season, beat a major opponent, e.g. a top-ranked BCS team, they would still likely be ranked below the other non-BCS team solely because of that preseason bias.

    The polls often do not reflect who the "better" team is. You routinely see top 15 ranked teams major underdogs to unranked opponents. Therefore, how could that team truly be deserving of that ranking?

    I understand that it is subjective and there might not be a better system available, but I do believe that you MUST reward the body of work over a season and then have some flexibility to acknowledge that most pollsters are terrible at rating teams by providing a plus one type of format.

  • crimsonbleeder

    mrw5k said... (original post)

    Just a point that hasn't been discussed here: one of the biggest problems with the current system is the "polls bias" that exists. Polls come out in the preseason and though updated, reflect that bias the entire season. Although we all acknowledge how flawed the preseason polls are, these same polls are a major factor in the BCS. For example, say a TCU / Utah / Boise or any other non-BCS team was ranked in the top 3 in the preseason but never beat a legitimate BCS opponent all season. Simply because they don't lose, they would automatically get a shot in the title game solely based on their preseason ranking. If say, the same year, a Houston, Hawaii, or other team was unranked to start the season, beat a major opponent, e.g. a top-ranked BCS team, they would still likely be ranked below the other non-BCS team solely because of that preseason bias.

    The polls often do not reflect who the "better" team is. You routinely see top 15 ranked teams major underdogs to unranked opponents. Therefore, how could that team truly be deserving of that ranking?

    I understand that it is subjective and there might not be a better system available, but I do believe that you MUST reward the body of work over a season and then have some flexibility to acknowledge that most pollsters are terrible at rating teams by providing a plus one type of format.

    all very good points...and very good arguments against a playoff system, of course.

    signature image

    1960 Les Paul

  • I have to agree with Iwasrunning. For all the problems that a playoff may have, at least it was decided on the field. The arguments about Ms. State and Tennessee beating us for 1 game in SEC play those years is a flawed argument. Ms. State and Tennessee both lost more SEC games than we did over the season. The SEC championship is a "round-robin" championship and not a playoff.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
  • My vote is for +1. We wouldn't complain about a Boise St that makes it to the Championship game if they go undefeated and win their game against a 1-4 ranked team before the big game.

    I also know that the SEC is by far the most difficult division to go undefeated in so a +1 would give a 1 loss SEC team a legit chance to show we are the best and just played one hell of a schedule.

    signature image

    The Dynasty is Here! Roll Tide

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
  • 1tide

    With all these teams in the same league looking to achieve the ultimate goal of being national champion. A plus one isn't gonna be good enough.

    New Member of The 247 Crew!

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image signature image signature image

    Roll Tide!

  • jordang121 said... (original post)

    I am for a playoff because I think the BCS does a joke of a job in determining the best team in college football, and because it would be the most amazing and exciting three or four weeks in sports if it were ever to materialize.

    Disagree. I don't want to see some cinderella team that plays no one in the regular season only have to win 2 or 3 games against real teams at the end of the year.

    And honestly, none of you should want any more than a +1 because it makes things harder for Bama and gives more chances for those teams that don't have the tradition we do.