🏈 Conference title games in the era of a play off

[musso]

I was watching a discussion on ESPN tonight about who would be included in a four-team play off if it began this year. They listed (1)ND vs (4)Oregon and (2)Bama vs (3)Florida. I believe it was David Pollock who, responding to the question of who would advance to the title game, said he thought Florida would beat Alabama due to the physical toll of last night's SEC title game. This led me to thinking ... why the hell have conference championship games at all if at-large teams will still be eligible for inclusion in the play off? Why is it fair to teams who put everything on the line for a "meaningless" conference championship, only to face teams afterward who didn't even contend for a conference title and instead of shedding the blood, sweat, and tears against another top ranked team, got a free week to rest?

Now, I've long been one of those who has supported a play off that includes at-large teams, realizing that one conference may have two or more of the nation's best teams within it (as the SEC often does). However there needs to be a mechanism that rewards conference winners over at-large teams. That's why I've always supported the idea that the first round(s) of a play off ought to be played at the home stadium of the conference champions (instead of neutral sites) with the additional possibility of first round byes for conference champions.

Simply put, David Pollock made a good point about Florida having an advantage against playing Alabama next week. This begs the question, what does Alabama earn by winning the the conference title if we lose Barrett Jones, Jesse Williams, and God knows who else for the first round of a play off against a well rested, healthy at-large team that didn't even win its division?

And before anyone brings up last year's BCS title game rematch with LSU, I don't think that is a good comparison. Had I been an LSU fan, I admit I would have been irked with playing Bama again, but at least LSU got ample time to rest and heal up after the SEC title game. The point David Pollock makes pertains to the likely shortened period of time between the regular season and a national play off.

Thoughts?

 

[musso]

Just came across this article. Here's a quote from Barret Jones:

In Saturday’s post-game, Jones was asked to describe the physicality out on the field and how Alabama would fare if it had to play in the national championship next week.

“Oh, we’d be in trouble,” he said. “It was a physical game out there, man. There’s just a lot of physicality on both sides of the ball.”

 

[bamagirl917]

I definitely think the playoff system will ultimately kill the SEC championship game, as much as I hate that.. and for more than the reasons you mentioned. Like all things, I'd say it comes down to money. If the SEC is in a position to send more than 1 team to the playoffs - and I don't see that not being the case any time soon - it almost becomes stupid to have it. The situation is different for other conferences. For us, if the east and west representatives are both in the top 4, why play it and knock each other off when you could send 2 teams instead of 1?

 

[TerryP]

I definitely think the playoff system will ultimately kill the SEC championship game, as much as I hate that.. and for more than the reasons you mentioned. Like all things, I'd say it comes down to money. If the SEC is in a position to send more than 1 team to the playoffs - and I don't see that not being the case any time soon - it almost becomes stupid to have it. The situation is different for other conferences. For us, if the east and west representatives are both in the top 4, why play it and knock each other off when you could send 2 teams instead of 1?

I mentioned here several months ago that the Big12 will be moving back to a conference title game. If we decided to end the SECCG we'd end up being the only major conference without a championship game. So, if we only had one team in the top four we'd run the risk of a team playing in their conference game and jumping the SEC's highest ranked team who happened to be sitting at home.

Pollacks point and what Barrett said, do sum up this situation but not in the hypothetical tone you might imagine.

Barrett said what he did in response to being asked "Alabama would fare if it had to play in the national championship next week." If that were to the case, both he and Pollack would be correct. It would be a tough outing.

The problem comes in with this hypothetical question in that we won't play in a playoff the next week. At the very earliest, and that would be years where the SECCG is played on Dec. 7th, we'd have 24 days of rest before playing in the first round of the playoffs. Huge difference.

 

[Bamabww]

What happened to the B1G and the SEC playing in some kind of championship bowl each year?

 

[TerryP]

What happened to the B1G and the SEC playing in some kind of championship bowl each year?

It's still in place but the likelihood of that happening is pretty small. It's set up if neither of the conference champions are in the top four for the playoffs.

 

[Houndstoothpuller]

Yeah, I think with a playoff, we'll have nearly three weeks after SECCG. At least two weeks.
It's a valid point to bring up about there being three SEC in top four only to have one of those get knocked out by its own brethren.
CNS already points to the SECCG as a playoff game.

I'm sure the money will shape this playoff gig, not necessarily the competition, but it's a step in the right direction, imo.

 

[TerryP]

Yeah, I think with a playoff, we'll have nearly three weeks after SECCG. At least two weeks.
It's a valid point to bring up about there being three SEC in top four only to have one of those get knocked out by its own brethren.
CNS already points to the SECCG as a playoff game.

I'm sure the money will shape this playoff gig, not necessarily the competition, but it's a step in the right direction, imo.

The way they are talking now the semi-finals are going to be played on Jan. 1.

The SECCG will always be played after the last regular season week of the schedule—first week of December on a Saturday. What's interesting about where the 7th falls in the next few years is the first Saturday happens in 2013. So, the 2014 calendar year will have the SECCG on the 6th, 2015 on the 5th, and on down the line.

Simple math puts 24 days between the 7th and the 1st of January. So, we are looking at once every seven years having the shortest break between the SECCG and the semi's.

It won't be out of the possibilities for the SEC to have three of the top four even with a team getting bumped out of the playoffs. Based on the last two years, we'd still have two of the four.

IF the loser of the SECCG is good enough they will still get consideration for that fourth slot. If they miss out? Well, they had "their own destiny in their own hands and blew it." So be it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[musso]

I was completely unaware of the proposed duration between the regular season and the beginning of the play off. If it turns out to indeed be 24 days, then yes, that eases my concerns a bit. But my larger point still remains: when has a SEC title game ever been needed to bump an SEC team into the top four? My point is, the teams that have participated in the SEC conference title game have usually (if not always) been at the top of the polls already. And as fans of SEC teams, why would we in the conference particularly want to play an SEC team again in a play off, especially if we already played them during the regular season? I was never a fan of the mandatory SEC conference title game anyway, particularly if the two teams had already faced each other during the season. Now, with a proposed play off, I'm even more opposed to it. I don't see anything gained by the SEC (or any other dominant conference with multiple teams finishing at the top of the polls), while I see the potential of significant loss in the form of injuries when two juggernauts face off at the end of the season, when most teams (especially in tough conferences) are already banged up enough.

With the arrival of a play off, why can't we return to conference titles being granted to the teams with the best records and, if necessary, shared conference championships. I don't remember people ever griping about that back when it was done that way. And if conference title games remain, does anyone agree that conference champions ought to be given something extra for their effort and the risk involved with playing an extra quality opponent above and beyond what was asked from the at-large teams?

 

[TheChief]

I was watching a discussion on ESPN tonight about who would be included in a four-team play off if it began this year. They listed (1)ND vs (4)Oregon and (2)Bama vs (3)Florida. I believe it was David Pollock who, responding to the question of who would advance to the title game, said he thought Florida would beat Alabama due to the physical toll of last night's SEC title game. This led me to thinking ... why the hell have conference championship games at all if at-large teams will still be eligible for inclusion in the play off? Why is it fair to teams who put everything on the line for a "meaningless" conference championship, only to face teams afterward who didn't even contend for a conference title and instead of shedding the blood, sweat, and tears against another top ranked team, got a free week to rest?

Now, I've long been one of those who has supported a play off that includes at-large teams, realizing that one conference may have two or more of the nation's best teams within it (as the SEC often does). However there needs to be a mechanism that rewards conference winners over at-large teams. That's why I've always supported the idea that the first round(s) of a play off ought to be played at the home stadium of the conference champions (instead of neutral sites) with the additional possibility of first round byes for conference champions.

Simply put, David Pollock made a good point about Florida having an advantage against playing Alabama next week. This begs the question, what does Alabama earn by winning the the conference title if we lose Barrett Jones, Jesse Williams, and God knows who else for the first round of a play off against a well rested, healthy at-large team that didn't even win its division?

And before anyone brings up last year's BCS title game rematch with LSU, I don't think that is a good comparison. Had I been an LSU fan, I admit I would have been irked with playing Bama again, but at least LSU got ample time to rest and heal up after the SEC title game. The point David Pollock makes pertains to the likely shortened period of time between the regular season and a national play off.

Thoughts?

Great points. Consider this:

With the conference championship - Florida makes the playoff of four.

Without the conference championship - Georgia make the playoff of four.

Why are we penalizing a team for qualifying for the SEC championship?

 

[TerryP]

I was completely unaware of the proposed duration between the regular season and the beginning of the play off. If it turns out to indeed be 24 days, then yes, that eases my concerns a bit. But my larger point still remains: when has a SEC title game ever been needed to bump an SEC team into the top four? My point is, the teams that have participated in the SEC conference title game have usually (if not always) been at the top of the polls already. And as fans of SEC teams, why would we in the conference particularly want to play an SEC team again in a play off, especially if we already played them during the regular season? I was never a fan of the mandatory SEC conference title game anyway, particularly if the two teams had already faced each other during the season. Now, with a proposed play off, I'm even more opposed to it. I don't see anything gained by the SEC (or any other dominant conference with multiple teams finishing at the top of the polls), while I see the potential of significant loss in the form of injuries when two juggernauts face off at the end of the season, when most teams (especially in tough conferences) are already banged up enough.

With the arrival of a play off, why can't we return to conference titles being granted to the teams with the best records and, if necessary, shared conference championships. I don't remember people ever griping about that back when it was done that way. And if conference title games remain, does anyone agree that conference champions ought to be given something extra for their effort and the risk involved with playing an extra quality opponent above and beyond what was asked from the at-large teams?

$$

That one game added a little over 1 million to our payout last season—15.3MM to the conference divided by 13.

 

[bamagirl917]

$$

That one game added a little over 1 million to our payout last season—15.3MM to the conference divided by 13.

But to my point, can the money argument not also be made about sending more teams to the playoffs and/or potentially having 2 teams play for the natl title?

 

[musso]

But to my point, can the money argument not also be made about sending more teams to the playoffs and/or potentially having 2 teams play for the natl title?

Exactly.

Everyone knows the conference title games make money for its members. Merely noting that, Terry, doesn't progress this discussion at all. I would have argued, had the play off began this season, to crown Alabama and Georgia as shared conference champions (without a conference title game) and insert them into the play-off with Notre Dame and another (Oregon, or even Florida if their BCS ratings justified it). Forcing Alabama and Georgia to play before the play-off while letting Florida in, despite losing the division to Georgia (as well as the head-to-head match up), makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever money is lost by dropping the conference title game would be more than recovered by multiple SEC participants in the play-off. And keep in mind the exponential earnings from SEC teams participating in both rounds of the play-off. In fact, a single play-off that included 2 or 3 SEC participants could potentially make up the "lost" revenue equal to several conference title games!