Posted on 01/09/2012 1:50:51 PM PST by kathsua
They won’t make any major changes any time soon, but there is a chance they’ll expand to four teams, which the SEC proposed a year or two back. Seeing Alabama, LSU, OSU and Stanford in a playoff would have been a great for fans this year, and for the money it would have brought in.
Surely you jest about Chokelahoma State!
The team that beat Alabama is playing for the national championship. Where is the team that beat OSU?
Actually, in a way, I almost wanted to see OSU against LSU-that would have put a stop to the BS once and for all. Face it-OSU couldn’t beat even a second tier SEC team...
That statement of mine was in response to your assertion that a larger field would end most disputes, which it would not. Your number #61 is off on a tangent and misinterprets my statment, and is not particularly relevant to my #59.
Let me guess: You are a fan of a team from another conference.....?
Yep. Sour grapes make for a bitter whine.
BTW OSU's QB would have connected on that long pass McCarron just overshot.
Try again. FCS was Division I-AA. FBS was Division I-A.
Six quarters, still no touchdowns.
LSU was out coached and out played. In fact, it looked so bad if I didn’t know better I’d think the game was thrown. I DON’T MEAN THAT LITERALLY! What I’m saying is LSU is better than they played tonight. I don’t understand why they all played so badly.
But, THE SEC WON! WOO PIG SOOIE!
4 of the top 10 will be SEC. But I’m not sure LSU will end up number 2. There is a “slight” possibility that OK State could jump them.
You were saying???
Sorry...hee hee...couldn't help myself ;^)
That's a false statement -- while LSU was a consensus #1 going into last night, Oklahoma State (0.950) was ranked higher than Alabama (0.930) by the computer rankings. It was the subjective rankings by the Harris and USA Today polls that put Alabama in that game, which only goes toward the argument of SEC bias in the polls.
Agreed. I seem to recall a similar argument was used against Texas a few years ago, with no one giving them a chance against USC. Funny how that turned out, though...
Except that the argument of the anti-playoff crowd is that "the regular season is the playoffs". But then they turn around and defend a intra-conference rematch and ignore the whole "playoff round" that occurred before. I'd just like some consistency.
Well, I've already heard discussion that one thing that will be considered at an NCAA meeting today is to allow more than two teams from the same conference in any expanded championship setup. The SEC and other major conferences will not agree to any arrangement that eliminates the best teams just because they happen to be from the same conference.
We could see more rematches in future championship determining games.
With a 2-team playoff (as we currently have), you have #3 and sometimes #4 claiming they were unfairly excluded from a shot at the title. There have been years when there have been 3-4 undefeated teams, for example, but major conference BCS bias kept out folks like Boise St.
With a 4-team playoff, you may have some cases where #5 whines about not getting a title shot, but they really have far less claim when you consider that under the current system (or even the pre-BCS system), it's fairly rare for #4 to have a legitimate claim that they should have been considered. No, at this point, it's about schools wanting a shot at the money more so than the title. Of course a lower-ranked team can always beat a higher-ranked one, so the lure of a title is still there, but you know #5 is going to have to do it as an underdog.
As the field size expands, the situation continues in this same vein. #9 complains, but they're an even longer shot. Ditto for #17. For them, it's about qualifying for the lucrative and high-prestige tournament, not because they have any real hope of winning it. (Q.v., the NCAA men's basketball tournament -- starting around the #13 seed or so in each bracket, you're dealing with schools who are just happy to make the tournament. A #13 or #14 might surprise enough to make the second weekend, but no one lower than a #12 has ever made a serious run at the title.)
Bearing all of that in mind, a 4-team or 8-team makes the most sense. After you get past 4 teams, you're starting to really increase the chance for a team with a "failed" regular season to have a chance to win the championship, but an 8-team playoff would allow someone who just had one off week or some really bad luck a chance at redemption. 16 would be overkill.
(For the record, I think the NFL currently allows too many teams in its playoffs. As much as it would have been to my own team's detriment this year, I despise wild card berths -- they were a necessity when there were three divisions per conference, but it's grown into a monstrosity.)
Probably so, with maybe a wildcard week to give some of the weaker conferences a chance to qualify a team or two. But I doubt it'll go beyond four this year, and there is a meeting to take place today to discuss these and other NCAA matters,
A four-team playoff this year would have been:
(1) LSU vs. (4) Stanford (2) Alabama vs. (3) Oklahoma StatePretty good stuff, actually, and likely would have drawn better ratings for both those games and the final, and we wouldn't have this debate over whether OSU should have gotten the nod over 'Bama -- they'd have played each other for the privilege.
An eight-team bracket would have been:
(1) LSU vs. Kansas State (2) Alabama vs. Boise State (3) Oklahoma State vs. Arkansas (4) Stanford vs. OregonA couple of interesting things here... LSU and Alabama shouldn't have been tested too hard by those teams, but neither could they look past them. Stanford and Oregon would be in secondary Pac-10 title game!But most interesting would be Oklahoma State. Their road to the championship would likely have taken them through the top 3 teams in the SEC (Arkansas, then Alabama, then LSU). No doubt they would have deserved the title if they could have pulled that off!
There was no debate on that except from OSU fans and folks who don't like the SEC. Would there have been a debate for Bama if we'd had one loss to Vanderbilt or Ole Miss rather than LSU.
OSU had a clear path to the championship game, but then lost to a third level team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.