Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[Saunders]

First, I need the obligatory disclaimer: I live deep in 'Bama country here in Birmingham and my wife is a die hard 'Bama fan, but I'm not an Alabama fan in any degree, nor am I a fan of the SEC - AT ALL.

That said, I'm with KC, too. There will be times, although rare (hopefully) that the two (or 4 since we're talking about a 4 team playoff) best teams in the country happen to play each other earlier in the year. It's rarer still when the two are in the same conference, and even more rare that they happen to be in the same division. That rare circumstance doesn't change the fact that they're among the four best teams in the country. Excluding one to make a space for a weaker conference champion, with potentially more losses and a lower BCS ranking, makes no sense. For the system to be legitimate, it HAS to put the best 4 teams in the country into the playoff, not the 4 that happen to have won potentially weak / cheap conference championships.

Using the top 4 teams since 2006, there would have been rematches divisional/conference rematches in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011. There also would have been double rematches in 2006, and 2008.

Four out of 6 years, the playoffs would have been rematches, and two of those years would have had 2 rematches.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title.

And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII.

Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

 

[Saunders]

Let's just pick the best 2 SEC teams, have them play each other, and give the winner a MNC, and continue the circlejerk. That's what we do know, and it's why we had that crapfest of a "title game" this year.

There's a reason why the playoff system that people have been bitching about for a decade is finally coming around. It's because outside of Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa, very few people thought the current system got it right last year. Even in the middle of SEC country (where I live) it was considered a sham.

Frankly, LSU & BAMA would have run **adult content** all over any other conference out there. Yes a rematch isnt as great as a game featuring two team that have yet to play. But there is no doubt in my mind those were the two best teams. OSU was good. Even sometimes very good. BUT not top 2 great. They just were not. They lost to ISU, who was lead by a first time starter. The same ISU who beat northern iowa by 1, Uconn by 4 & ku by 3. The same ISU that lost by 23 to 6th place texas, lost by 23 to baylor, 35 to missouri, 16 to aTm & 20 to OU.

And please for the love of god dont tell me that 85 kids 18-23 years old were just devistated by a woman bb coach and assistant that died. Yes the deaths were tragic, but lets be real here. How many of those boys even knew who those coaches were. Were not talking about fb coaches or MBB.

Then why change the system at all? Obviously, you know who the best teams are. So, the voters must know who the best teams are as well, and can pick the best 2 teams. No reason for a playoff then.

 

[fro daddy]

maybe it will just take nebraska getting really good again then getting left out for a team that is not as good for sauders to change his mind. To each their own i guess. I just think you take the best teams, regardless of possible rematches. Why punish teams because there good. It just seems silly to me. Lets not reward the best teams, lets put these lesser teams in so that we dont have rematches.

But thats just me, i bet you probably think im crazy or wrong for thinking that way.

 

[fro daddy]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title.

And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII.

Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

 

[Saunders]

maybe it will just take nebraska getting really good again then getting left out for a team that is not as good for sauders to change his mind. To each their own i guess. I just think you take the best teams, regardless of possible rematches. Why punish teams because there good. It just seems silly to me. Lets not reward the best teams, lets put these lesser teams in so that we dont have rematches.

But thats just me, i bet you probably think im crazy or wrong for thinking that way.

This may blow your mind, but I didn't think we deserved it in 2001, and was sure we'd get murdered.

You're placing more value on your opinion, than actual on the field results. CFB is largely played in a vacuum, and there's little overlap from conference to conference. The problem is, there is no way to quantifiably prove who the best teams are.

 

[knapplc]

I don't have a problem with 'Bama and LSU's rematch if they earned their way there through a playoff. I really detest that we simply decided they were the best teams and 86'd the idea of Oklahoma State having a shot, or anyone else.

Further, imagine the great games we would have had if there was a four-team playoff format: Alabama vs. Oklahoma State, LSU vs. Oregon. I would watch both games, and if both 'Bama and LSU won, I would watch the rematch in the championship.

As it was, I didn't turn on the rematch last year. And I wasn't alone. People do not like this system, especially when it pits two teams from the same conference in the championship. Viewership plummeted last year.

 

[bhamHusker]

Using the top 4 teams since 2006, there would have been rematches divisional/conference rematches in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011. There also would have been double rematches in 2006, and 2008.

Four out of 6 years, the playoffs would have been rematches, and two of those years would have had 2 rematches.

I'll take your word for it since I don't have time to check for myself. It's irrelevant to how I feel about it anyway. If getting the 4 best teams into the playoff system being considered results in rematches, so be it. I want the best teams to square off, and if one of those teams is left out to make room for an inferior champion of a crap conference, the results will have no legitimacy from my perspective. If the playoff is expanded to 8 or 16 teams, my argument becomes moot - put all of the power conference champs into the mix and then all of the remaining best teams, so long as seeding is done by best to worst, regardless of conference championship status.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title.

And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII.

Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

Agreed, fro. I think once the $$ and the appeal of the four-team playoff becomes obvious to the power-that-be, that the next go-around even may be an 8-team playoff. And I really think that you'll probably see the four-four split. I would have said six-two originally, but I'll be surprised if the ACC or the Big East have the clout regardiing football at that time to make much of a push.

 

[fro daddy]

Then why change the system at all? Obviously, you know who the best teams are. So, the voters must know who the best teams are as well, and can pick the best 2 teams. No reason for a playoff then.

Because a playoff is good for business that why....

And I never claimed to know it all, but there is clearly a reason why Delany is pushing this plan. And I fully believe he knows his teams would have been left out if the four best were taken. And I would say the voters do a pretty bang up job for the most part in the top 5 to 8. I guess the question to you is why do you feel the need to circumvent a system that uses 2 polls done by humans, a number of computer generated rankings & SOS to rank teams fairly TOO INSTEAD use a system that gives teams an auto bid not based on who they beat, or how hard their SOS is, but instead on how old and rich their conference is??

 

[fro daddy]

maybe it will just take nebraska getting really good again then getting left out for a team that is not as good for sauders to change his mind. To each their own i guess. I just think you take the best teams, regardless of possible rematches. Why punish teams because there good. It just seems silly to me. Lets not reward the best teams, lets put these lesser teams in so that we dont have rematches.

But thats just me, i bet you probably think im crazy or wrong for thinking that way.

This may blow your mind, but I didn't think we deserved it in 2001, and was sure we'd get murdered.

You're placing more value on your opinion, than actual on the field results. CFB is largely played in a vacuum, and there's little overlap from conference to conference. The problem is, there is no way to quantifiably prove who the best teams are.

We want the same thing....we just want it done differently.

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should not be ahead of, but are based on their name alone

 

[knapplc]

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

 

[Whistlebritches]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title.

And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII.

Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

I'm firmly in the party of an 8 team playoff because it seems like the best of both worlds. Let in the 5 conference champs (B10, B12, SEC, ACC, PAC) from the current BCS conferences and then 3 at large. It keeps Alabama in from last year and gives teams like Boise a chance. If they can go undefeated and voters think highly enough of the SOS to put them in the top 5 then I don't have a problem with them making a playoff.

 

[fro daddy]

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

Agreed, fro. I think once the $$ and the appeal of the four-team playoff becomes obvious to the power-that-be, that the next go-around even may be an 8-team playoff. And I really think that you'll probably see the four-four split. I would have said six-two originally, but I'll be surprised if the ACC or the Big East have the clout regardiing football at that time to make much of a push.

When we get to 8 take the big 4 of SEC, Big12, Pac12 & Big12 (Big 5 with ACC if Florida State and Clemson stay) Then take the 3 highest ranked teams left. Its not perfect and still leaves the possibility of a team getting screwed, but I doubt they go to 12 or more for a long time, if ever. And anyway there will always be a 9th or 11th or 13th team that doesnt get in.

I would also say, just IMHO, that there should be a cap on the ranking of a conference winner. Say for example if your conference winner is ranked outside of the top 8, then your auto bid is void.

 

[The Dude]

Should be the top 4 BCS conference champs. f#*k Boise, f#*k Alabama. If you can't win your conference or play in a real conference, don't bother showing up.