🏈 Regarding the impending postseason reforms

[musso]

Sorry if this topic has already been discussed to death, but with the arrival of summer I’m finally getting some free time to frequent the message boards again.

As I’m sure most of you are already aware, there was a bit of a war of words between Saban and the Big10 commissioner Jim Delany over the proposed playoff reforms. Most of you probably listened to/watched the recent colorful interview of Saban by CBS’s Tim Brando. What some of you probably didn’t listen to was Brando’s interview of Les Miles a day or so after the Saban interview. In this conversation Brando asked Miles to comment on Saban’s retort to Delany. While expressing general agreement with Saban, Miles goes further in a diplomatic manner to articulate a chief concern within the non-SEC world, that is, geographic inclusion.

Ideally, I believe most of us agree with Saban and the other SEC and Big12 coaches that any national playoff ought to include the [four] best teams regardless of conference championships. The question I ask people with whom I talk is how do we know who the [four] best teams are? Are we to continue trusting the omniscience of the non-transparent “Wizard of the BCS” and its incomprehensible algorithm? Are we to instead trust sportswriters, most of whom don’t stay up late enough to dutifully evaluate West Coast games? Or are we to trust the votes of coaches, who frankly neither possess the time nor objectivity to evaluate each week’s games? Despite agreeing with Saban, I suspect geographic inclusion (i.e. conference champions) will be a pragmatic necessity in any future reforms.

And another thing to consider. The SEC and Big12 were the first two conferences to implement a conference title game. Almost immediately afterwards, the two conferences began lobbying the other conferences to do the same in order to “legitimize” their conference champions. After eventual compliance from nearly all the conferences, it is again the SEC and Big12 now minimizing the importance of conference titles relative to the national championship. Seems a little self-serving don’t you think, particularly when you look back and see how the SEC and Big12 have dominated the BCS championship game appearances?

 

[TerryP]

Sorry if this topic has already been discussed to death, but with the arrival of summer I’m finally getting some free time to frequent the message boards again.

As I’m sure most of you are already aware, there was a bit of a war of words between Saban and the Big10 commissioner Jim Delany over the proposed playoff reforms. Most of you probably listened to/watched the recent colorful interview of Saban by CBS’s Tim Brando. What some of you probably didn’t listen to was Brando’s interview of Les Miles a day or so after the Saban interview. In this conversation Brando asked Miles to comment on Saban’s retort to Delany. While expressing general agreement with Saban, Miles goes further in a diplomatic manner to articulate a chief concern within the non-SEC world, that is, geographic inclusion.

Ideally, I believe most of us agree with Saban and the other SEC and Big12 coaches that any national playoff ought to include the [four] best teams regardless of conference championships. The question I ask people with whom I talk is how do we know who the [four] best teams are? Are we to continue trusting the omniscience of the non-transparent “Wizard of the BCS” and its incomprehensible algorithm? Are we to instead trust sportswriters, most of whom don’t stay up late enough to dutifully evaluate West Coast games? Or are we to trust the votes of coaches, who frankly neither possess the time nor objectivity to evaluate each week’s games? Despite agreeing with Saban, I suspect geographic inclusion (i.e. conference champions) will be a pragmatic necessity in any future reforms.

IF we had a case where a conference champion deserved to be in the BCSNC I could see where that argument held value. Have we had a conference champion left out of the title game for a reason that was suspect?

As I see it, the Harris poll is probably the most reliable poll we've had in terms of human polls. Quite frankly, I would trust coaches more so than AP writers in determining which teams are the best. I've listed composites of AP voters and who they chose each week here for several years and there is sufficient, documented proof some of them have no clue. Take Eric Gee out of NM as one example when he ranked LSU as the #1 team in the nation after the BCSNC. Craig James is another who had some votes that were, well, just plain idiotic—Stanford ranked as 10th with teams like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kansas State ranked higher. (FWIW, those three teams...the other 59 voters in the poll had all of them lower)

I could get behind a selection committee as long as a few things are mandatory. They release their votes publicly each week for starters. Secondly, when that committee chooses who they think that final four should be they are required to cite why. Last, but not least, some sort of oversight that removes members from the voting group if they pull a "Gee."

And another thing to consider. The SEC and Big12 were the first two conferences to implement a conference title game. Almost immediately afterwards, the two conferences began lobbying the other conferences to do the same in order to “legitimize” their conference champions. After eventual compliance from nearly all the conferences, it is again the SEC and Big12 now minimizing the importance of conference titles relative to the national championship. Seems a little self-serving don’t you think, particularly when you look back and see how the SEC and Big12 have dominated the BCS championship game appearances?

Where are you getting that idea from? I don't recall a effort "lobbying other conferences to do the same..."

The move we made to the CCG was motivated monetarily. If we'd lost that '92 game against Miami, there's reason to think the SEC may have dropped it a few years later. A lot thought it would end up precluding a team from the SEC getting a title shot.

 

[mhardiman]

Here is a thought that came to me earilier; right now the SEC is unquestionably the toughest conference in college football with the Big XII a distant second, and if it is decided that the four best teams go to the playoff rather then the four conference winners then the SEC more times then not will send two teams to the playoff. For the forseenable future it may be two SEC teams in the title game but my point is this; probably not if but when a power shift happens, and the SEC is not king of the land anymore we may regret that's the system we favored. One system that may benifit us now may be our worst enemy in the future and really hurt the SEC. If we were a fan of a B1G team we'd probably be screaming conference winner only too.

 

[TerryP]

I understand what you're driving at but on the other hand you have to ask yourself this question.

How often in the past two decades has an SEC team not been in the top four at the end of the season?

1993: UF finished 5th after a season ending loss to FSU who was #1 in the final poll.
1999: We won the SEC, but with three losses I can't see even a Bama fan saying we should have been playing in the finals.
2000: UF finished outside the top 10 with a 10-3 record.
2005: LSU and Bama finished 8th and 9th, respectively.

There's four out of the last 20 years the SEC wouldn't have had a representative in a final four; 90% of the time we're in.

On the other hand, you want to talk about how many times we'd have had two?

Last year, 2009, 2008, an argument could be made for 2007's Georgia team to be in the final four based on schedule strength. 2006 would have two...

That's only going back six years versus the 20.

 

[LBS]

The mirror must be broken 'cause I know I aint as ugly as what I'm seeing

The inconvenient truth is that the SEC is producing the best teams, and there is no right/just way to get the rest of college football to play for the title.

Last season there were two events that indicated that this issue as actually getting worse even after our 5 year run; LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas ranked 1-2-3 so late in the season, and an all-SEC title game. With the most diverse polling method ever (i.e. Coaches/Press/Supercomputers), which at the time presumed to give up the most trustworthy results, college football was once again told that the SEC was the fairest of thems all.

6-in-a-row can not be denied, 4 differenet teams within that 6-in-a-row further bolsters the reality. Even with guarentee that a non-SEC team will be in the title game, how do you disregard three of the 4 National Champions? If the play of these former champs does not eliminate them the only thing that is left are more man made options, only it gets worse because these would be the first with the goal to drive out the better football teams if they did not qualify by some self-serving standard.

"If you can't win your own conference you can't play for the title"
What I have not heard said is another conference claiming that the SEC Also Rans could not have won the other conferences if they were in those conferences. College football has for years benefited more from the SEC eliminating itself than from their own play on the field. Three of the last four years the SEC eliminated one of its own who besting the rest of College Football. If Arkansas did not have to play both LSU and Alabama last season, the Hogs would have been in the title game. In '09, the Tide knocked the Gators our in the SEC CG after College Football could not play itself past Florida. The year before that it was the Tide who was forced to play the one team that topped it over the entire season.

How convenient that you other conferences cling to the standards that the SEC teams don't have a shot at. When will the Tide have a shot as being the Midwest regional champ or claiming a shot at the title because we won the PAC12 title -- NEVER. We would forever be denied that shot at the title. But every year, every team has a chance to play its way to the title. Only right now the SEC is the fairest of them all.

 

[musso]

IF we had a case where a conference champion deserved to be in the BCSNC I could see where that argument held value. Have we had a conference champion left out of the title game for a reason that was suspect?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't believe anyone else can reply with certainty either. All we have are opinions. This gets to the heart of the matter for me. Should we be satisfied with winners and losers being determined by votes and esoteric mathematics? I say no. I want winners and losers to be settled on the field, and I think a majority of fans across all conferences do too.

I could get behind a selection committee as long as a few things are mandatory. They release their votes publicly each week for starters. Secondly, when that committee chooses who they think that final four should be they are required to cite why. Last, but not least, some sort of oversight that removes members from the voting group if they pull a "Gee."

Wow, so in addition to the creation of a selection committee, you’re talking about an oversight committee too? Sorry, but you sound like a liberal utopian. :icon_tongue: Every time I hear a "selection committee" mentioned I cringe. In my opinion, the only thing worse than an inanimate entity (e.g. BCS algorithm) deciding is a corruptible human having the same power. Furthermore, the more human beings involved in the selection (and oversight of the selection) the greater probability there is of bias, lobbying, corruption, etc. (I'm trying really hard not to resort to using political analogies here. :icon_smile: )

Where are you getting that idea from? I don't recall a effort "lobbying other conferences to do the same..."

The move we made to the CCG was motivated monetarily. If we'd lost that '92 game against Miami, there's reason to think the SEC may have dropped it a few years later. A lot thought it would end up precluding a team from the SEC getting a title shot.

The portion of your quote I put in bold answers your own question which I underlined. I clearly remember coaches and sportswriters at the time vocally sharing their desires for the other conferences to follow suit in the name of "fairness." SEC coaches didn’t particularly like being required to play an additional game after the regular season for the right to go to the Sugar Bowl, or if circumstances allowed, the national title game. In fact, I can remember a disgruntled Stallings prior to the initial SEC championship game saying, “We’re 11-0 and haven’t won anything.” Lots of Bama fans complained too that it was ridiculous that the only undefeated SEC team was being forced to earn the conference title by playing a Florida team with something like 3 losses at the time.

Do I think the SEC is the best conference, top to bottom? Sure, who doesn't? Do I think every SEC BCS national champion has been the best team in that given year? Probably, the SC team which shared the title with LSU comes to mind as an exception. But the point I'm trying to stress is that these are nothing more than my opinions, and to the extent that we can minimize the impact of opinions upon national championships the better. This means acknowledging the primacy of on-the-field competition over subjective human judgement. And if we admit that competition trumps human judgement, then we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that all geographic regions must be included.

 

[TerryP]

Let's review this a second. You've set up the parameters of what we're discussing here in the original post. To review, we are talking about a four team playoff and how those teams are selected along with whether or not "geographical inclusion" should be a factor.

(IF you came up with "geographical inclusion" from Miles conversation with Brando, avoid Miles speech from now on. You'll just cloud the conversation. Call it what it is: conference champs)

Now, back to the conversation:

---

I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't believe anyone else can reply with certainty either. All we have are opinions. This gets to the heart of the matter for me. Should we be satisfied with winners and losers being determined by votes and esoteric mathematics? I say no. I want winners and losers to be settled on the field, and I think a majority of fans across all conferences do too.

Sure you can answer that question as can anyone. All that is needed is a look back at standings, rankings, and where teams stood at the end of the regular season. Those records in terms of W's and L's, as well as who they played and their records, are easily available.

Wow, so in addition to the creation of a selection committee, you’re talking about an oversight committee too? Sorry, but you sound like a liberal utopian. :icon_tongue: Every time I hear a "selection committee" mentioned I cringe. In my opinion, the only thing worse than an inanimate entity (e.g. BCS algorithm) deciding is a corruptible human having the same power. Furthermore, the more human beings involved in the selection (and oversight of the selection) the greater probability there is of bias, lobbying, corruption, etc. (I'm trying really hard not to resort to using political analogies here. :icon_smile: )

I'm talking about a form of oversight, yes. And, I've mentioned a beginning to where they oversight needs to start. We'll know who is part of the committee if we move to one for selections. The oversight is simple. If we have members of that committee who are voting teams in positions that make no sense, they need to have to be able to explain why they did so. If it's extreme, they need to be booted from said committee.

Who is part of that oversight? There's a discussion worth pursuing. I've used the Harris poll as example because their members are as removed from the game as far feasibly possible. It's never going to be perfect. But, if you insist on using political references here :icon_smile: in a manner of speaking it would be no different than the populaces seeing how their representatives vote.

If we have a situation like that of Eric Gee, or Craig James it would be simple for those involved in this process to say, "that's extreme and biased. He's gone." The AP poll might still be a factor today if they would have had some sort of checks and balances in place.

The portion of your quote I put in bold answers your own question which I underlined. I clearly remember coaches and sportswriters at the time vocally sharing their desires for the other conferences to follow suit in the name of "fairness." SEC coaches didn’t particularly like being required to play an additional game after the regular season for the right to go to the Sugar Bowl, or if circumstances allowed, the national title game. In fact, I can remember a disgruntled Stallings prior to the initial SEC championship game saying, “We’re 11-0 and haven’t won anything.” Lots of Bama fans complained too that it was ridiculous that the only undefeated SEC team was being forced to earn the conference title by playing a Florida team with something like 3 losses at the time.

Hang on now. You're taking Stallings comment and using it outside of its context. For one, it was not a "disgruntled Stallings" which said that. It was a comment Stallings made after defeating Auburn to get a shot at UF in the SECCG. He was reminding people, not complaining, that we were "11-0 and hadn't won anything." We had the number two ranked football team in the nation and it was very evident how good of a defense we had. Stallings was issuing a "hold on now" statement to the fan base and the media.

Bama fans complaining about playing Florida? I was on campus at the time and vividly recall a lot of Bama fans wanting another shot at Florida. Stallings did as well. The 1991 35-0 beat down we took at the hands of Florida was far from forgotten.

It was 1992. The only way anyone could have been told there were coaches vocal about questioning the SECCG came from sportswriters who were putting that out there. Now, it was true that was a subject brought up in the meetings before the game was enacted. But, we have to remember one key ingredient here. For that game to be played the 12 schools had to agree for it to happen. They saw the big picture. Those complaints, or better said those worries, were dismissed in one evening to the tune of Yea Alabama in New Orleans.

It wasn't until 1996 until the Big12 decided to follow the same format. And, by that time, it was proven a conference title game wasn't a deterrent to making it to the NC game. They followed suit because they saw the model created by the SEC and the monetary value.

Just as a side note here. The quickest way to lose me in a conversation is to say "Bama fans are/were complaining." It's what the majority of our fan base does.

Do I think the SEC is the best conference, top to bottom? Sure, who doesn't? Do I think every SEC BCS national champion has been the best team in that given year? Probably, the SC team which shared the title with LSU comes to mind as an exception. But the point I'm trying to stress is that these are nothing more than my opinions, and to the extent that we can minimize the impact of opinions upon national championships the better. This means acknowledging the primacy of on-the-field competition over subjective human judgement. And if we admit that competition trumps human judgement, then we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that all geographic regions must be included.

The SC team didn't share a title. LSU won that BCS title outright.

What I've suggested here is putting a premium on "on the field competition."

Again, we are back to the original response.

Has there been a conference champion left out if we were in the four team model since 1992? (I know the answer to this, BTW, and you do as well. If we took the top four of the week 15 BCS standings there has been a conference champ that would have been left out. Last year.)

The four team playoff doesn't eliminate a conference champion. If a team from a select conference has won their conference and done so like Oklahoma State did last year, they deserve to be included in the four team playoff.