...and this is the 2014 season, and the 4-team playoff is being put into play. In this situation, does it seem to Alabama's benefit that they lost to Auburn? It seems as though they wouldn't have to risk another loss or more injuries and would be guaranteed a spot in the top 4 no matter what happened in the OSU/MSU/AU games this weekend. Auburn, seemingly, would need to win another game and risk injuries whereas Bama can relax and watch it all play out. I realize this could conversation could go a million different ways (and this upcoming weekend's games have not been played out yet), but what do you think? I am sure we will see all types of griping and unforeseen loopholes in the 4-team playoff system in the next few years. I would love some good discussion.
Monday Hypothetical - Let's pretend it's the 2014 season...
- Thread starter Brad Stevens.sixpack
- Start date
Interesting thought process. It would be too tough to give up a chance at an SEC Title game, but I think what you say in theory holds true.
Yes, but not really. Bama would not be "guaranteed" a spot in the playoff, but it would be highly likely they would get in. Remember, the computers are being thrown out, and the playoffs selected just by committee. I could see members of that committee not wanting to pick 2 SEC teams over Oklahoma State or some other 1 loss team. Bama would probably still get in, but if they went ahead and finished undefeated they would definitely get in.
That fg return certainly would've meant less. You're going to lose a bit of that significance in a playoff, I don't care what anyone says. We all thought we were watching Bama decide whether they went to OT or won, but instead we saw them lose the national championship in unfathomable fashion.
With that said, this Bama scenario will still be the rare exception in a 4 team playoff and the tradeoff to definitively determine the #1 team is worth it. Teams not needing to win their rivalry game or conference championship will be commonplace in an 8 team playoff though.
With that said, this Bama scenario will still be the rare exception in a 4 team playoff and the tradeoff to definitively determine the #1 team is worth it. Teams not needing to win their rivalry game or conference championship will be commonplace in an 8 team playoff though.
I didn't know there wasn't any computers at all. I remember looking at the committee and scratching my head at some of the names... especially Condaleza. With all that considered, I'm not exactly a fan of this new setup, but I definitely like it way more than what we have had before.
With that said, this would be similar to Bama benefiting when they lost to LSU 2 years ago. Regardless of whatever format it may be, I don't think the NCAA could have a system where the conference winner actually wouldn't be disadvantaged in that situation. Instead, I think that would be a responsibility placed onto the conferences.
One of the ways to circumvent that, I think, would work best in a conference that goes up to 16 teams and breaks down into 4 4 team pods and doing away with a bipartisan setup. Bump every team to 9 conference games but, ideally, make the 9th game an extension which forces everyone to have a 13 game schedule. The 9th conference game will always be tbd as it would pair teams against each other based on their conference performance to try to make a definitive ranking from best to worst. The conference championship would be this 9th game and could allow for a rematch if the #1 and #2 teams in the conference have already played each other.
That may not be THE only or even the best way to make it to where teams wouldn't benefit from missing out on a conference game, but I think something very similar to it would need to happen to make sure conference winners aren't disadvantaged by having to play more games.
With that said, this would be similar to Bama benefiting when they lost to LSU 2 years ago. Regardless of whatever format it may be, I don't think the NCAA could have a system where the conference winner actually wouldn't be disadvantaged in that situation. Instead, I think that would be a responsibility placed onto the conferences.
One of the ways to circumvent that, I think, would work best in a conference that goes up to 16 teams and breaks down into 4 4 team pods and doing away with a bipartisan setup. Bump every team to 9 conference games but, ideally, make the 9th game an extension which forces everyone to have a 13 game schedule. The 9th conference game will always be tbd as it would pair teams against each other based on their conference performance to try to make a definitive ranking from best to worst. The conference championship would be this 9th game and could allow for a rematch if the #1 and #2 teams in the conference have already played each other.
That may not be THE only or even the best way to make it to where teams wouldn't benefit from missing out on a conference game, but I think something very similar to it would need to happen to make sure conference winners aren't disadvantaged by having to play more games.
Not necessarily. People are quick to say an 8+ team playoff will invalidate the regular season, but that's only if you make SOS not mean anything. There are way too many teams in college to invalidate the regular season. Teams are still going to have to pull some amazing things off if they want to make a playoff. I'd much rather the regular season and the post season both mean something instead of one or the other.
He just demonstrated that with next year's playoff, the Alabama-Auburn game would not mean nearly as much as it did. It's a fact that the more teams make the postseason, the less the regular season means. That's just unavoidable. I do believe that there can be an 8-team playoff that would still keep the regular season very meaningful (if it included automatic berths for the champions of the 5 major conferences plus the highest ranked mid-major champion). But if you start adding more than a couple of at-large teams, you're starting to invalidate the regular season too much.
Yes, that is what I'm getting at. By no means do I think Alabama (or any team) would try to purposefully lose in such a situation, but the negatives to losing won't be so bad. In this case, Alabama could see if OSU/MSU/AU lost, and even if all won, they would most likely still find themselves as the fourth team chosen to play in the playoff. I don't think the current system is the best either. I am simply stating that there may be a new set of gripes in the future. The masses will never be appeased.
I still have to debate that because too me, all the regular season currently promotes is hoping you scheduled decently enough to not be too soft or too hard. As soon as you lose your season is effectively over and all you're having to do now is play for bowls that essentially do not mean anything other than a consolation. That just makes the regular season mean too much in my opinion. I do think that a balance can be found anywhere between 8 to 16 teams and still make the regular season mean something, but sos needs to factor in much more heavily into rankings and positioning than what it does currently. Don't give teams an out to schedule weakly.