Auburn's Tuberville Calls for Playoff System

[Dossenator]

Sounds like he is still a little pissed about what happened a few years ago. Auburn got shafted that year. It could happen again this year as well, and that would be a travesty.

[Spence]

He wouldn't have the problem if he would schedule one high profile match up OOC. Everyone can acknowledge that the SEC is very good, but how teams will Auburn play that finishes in the T25? Somewhere between two and four. If it is four he has an argument, if it is two he may not.

If there were to be a playoff, D-1 would have to trim around 49 teams and abolish the bowl system altogether. You would also have teams from the south coming north to play some playoff games in December. They wouldn't leave, the large B-10 venues out of the mix in a playoff system. Imagine having to play in Michigan in December. It would take a lot of teams out of their confort zone. Speed would be less important in those venues because of weather. It wouldn't be all that people would think it would be.

[Eric]

I just think that a playoff, to sum it up in one word would be...I think feckless works.

It would just be ineffective because it would not be good for the regular season or the smaller schools. I don't think the smaller schools from the WAC, MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA could afford to be competitive should that happen.

I keep saying that a playoff with 16 or 32 teams would make the bowl games for the teams that get left out like the NIT is to college basketball.

I could live with a 4 team playoff. I don't really watch the BCS games that intently anyway, so it wouldn't bother me. The problem would be when the #5 team in the land gets "shafted" they have a right to cry foul. Heck, even in college basketball teams cry foul for not making the tourney

[Spence]

I could live with a 4 team playoff. I don't really watch the BCS games that intently anyway, so it wouldn't bother me. The problem would be when the #5 team in the land gets "shafted" they have a right to cry foul. Heck, even in college basketball teams cry foul for not making the tourney .

There will always be a team out on the edge. 4, 6, 8, 32 teams someone will always feel shafted.

If people truely want to get a system that finds out who the best teams really are, then have them play OOC at the beginning of the year. If you win your conference, the next year you play 2 conference #1s from major conferences and two conference #1s from midmajor conferences. Same for #2 and so on. Then their is no doubt. If you beat 4 conference #1s, but lose a conference game to a team that has lost 2 or 3 games, you would get forgiveness from the voters based on beating 4 #1 teams.

There also wouldn't be many, if any, undefeated teams. This would remove most doubt about who the best teams are every year. It also wouldn't require a playoff.

[billybud]

Just having 8 teams in a playoff requires three extra games...and it gets more difficult to make the cut, regarding who is deserving, the farther you get from #1 and #2.

[Spence]

Just having 8 teams in a playoff requires three extra games...and it gets more difficult to make the cut, regarding who is deserving, the farther you get from #1 and #2.

That is exactly right. If people think trying to pick who deserves to be the top two teams is hard try telling #9 that #8 is better. You will have all the same arguments, nothing would be solved.

[Dossenator]

I just listened to Tuberville's press conference for the Ark vs. Auburn game this Sat. He does not really want just a play off system. In his statement he said (this is an exact quote: "I don't think we'll ever get to a playoff system. Football's so physical; I don't think it would work if you tried to do more than eight anyway. Honestly, I don't see a problem with having the top four teams play in bowl games and then take the top two from those four teams and have them play one more for the true National Championship. But, I don't see that happening for a while. So much comes from the school presidents or is economically driven." You can get this at (http://www.secsports.com and then click on football).

He really wants the bowls to continue how they are and then the winner of the top two bowls to play for the title. I don't have a problem with that. Teams like Auburn would not have been left out a few years ago. Also, a couple of years ago we could have then seen LSU vs. USC.[/b]

[Spence]

The problem with "plus one" and suggestions like that, is that it won't stop the problem. If 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3, and three of them are undefeated. That would leave one who wasn't. Let's say their were 3 one loss teams. All from major conferences. How do you decide who goes? The polls? Why would they be more reliable in this situation? What would it change?

If Ohio State were to go undefeated and not go, I would be mad. Just as Auburn fans would be mad, or fans of any team would. Ohio State's strength of schedule is very high right now. In the next few weeks it will go way down as they are getting ready to play teams that aren't very good. No one is immune from the polls. There will be years when some teams get screwed, as Auburn did a few years ago. It creates controversy and makes guys like us talk football for the whole year. Why would they even want to change that, especially for a system that is just as flawed.

[RazorHawk]

I agree with Tubby on this one. There can be a playoff and not eliminate the bowl games. Anything you do, will not be perfect, but also anything that is done will be better than the status quo, IMO.

[Spence]

I agree with Tubby on this one. There can be a playoff and not eliminate the bowl games. Anything you do, will not be perfect, but also anything that is done will be better than the status quo, IMO.

How can you incorporate the bowls in a playoff system. Teams from the B-10 cannot be asked to make three or four trips across the country. The logistics won't work.

Also a playoff would get a bigger TV contract and the television exposure. No one will pay attention to the bowls, with a playoff going on. It would be like the Reds and the Pirates playing during the World Series or LCS.

The system we have know isn't perfect, but I like the bowls. I like to see how conferences match up at different levels.

If there were a playoff, don't you think that B-10 and B-East teams would want a chance to have home field advantage. Why should they have to travel to Arizona to play the first game and Texas or Florida to play the second. On trip across country is doable for fans. The B-10 would have a hard time maintaining fan support for more then one game, if the fans had to travel across the country for each game.

On the other side, why should a team, built for speed, like LSU have to travel and play in the December weather in Wisconsin? Wisconsin who is built for power, would have a decided advantage in that game. In the NFL home field is a big deal because of weather. In CFB it would be almost impossible to overcome.

[Vileborg]

If any team survives the SEC undefeated I think it will take care of itself. However, if an SEC & Big East team survive, add Ohio St or Michigan, and an undefeated USC team, it could get really ugly. With four legitimate undefeated teams.
As far as a playoff system, I made a huge post under the Boise St. thread, but I'll transfer some of it below.


If you go to a playoff system, college football will revert to elite teams getting all the money. Recruits will be more likely to go to schools that go to the playoffs every year, and the playoff schools will be the only teams able to afford the salaries of high profile coaches.
This would still be the case, but thankfully the conference's T.V. proceeds are spread amongst the teams. So conferences like the Big East, and SEC who have four teams in their conference in the top 25 are making a good amount of money off the proceeds. Does it seem fair that Mississippi St. gets a share when they are 1-4? Probably not, but it gives the school opportunity to pay a coaching staff, and be able to afford to go out and recruit.

[Spence]

I read that and you are right. With all teams being able to have a shot to compete, it makes the sport more interesting. If there is four undefeated teams it will get ugly. As soon as it does, CFB will start getting even more exposure and make even more money for the schools. I don't view that as a bad thing.

CFB is more about the individual battles, the passions, and the rivalries then it is about the national championship.

Most Buckeye fans, given the choice, would rather beat Michigan 10 times in a row then win a national championship and lose to Michigan 9 times in a row. I suspect the same could be said with most teams and their cheif rivals.

[colorado_loves_football]

I know how frustrating it is to be on the outside looking in. I well remember 2001, when our one-loss team was passed over in the title game to a mediocre Nebraska team that not only failed to win its conference, but didn't even win its division.

Actually, I think that year, the BCS did a 'satisfactory' job in terms of pairing teams together. It's hard to argue that Oregon and Colorado weren't 'comparable' teams, despite Oregon's 'lop-sided' 38-16 win.
And, it's unlikely, Oregon would have beaten Miami, FL, so I can't agree with you entirely that Oregon was 'cheated' on a NC. Colorado had to beat some pretty good teams (Nebraska, Texas) to 'earn' a Fiesta Bowl invitation. What Oregon did, was 'solidify' themselves as a 'solid' #2.
I'm not sure a 'plus-one' would necessarily have addressed that problem, fairly. Here's my position: Arrange teams into 'competitive' conferences, allow each confernece a representative to the BCS. (In effect, 'extend' the deal already in place, to the remaining conferences.
Then, apply a 'competitive' BCS, which would address every issue, equally. For every Oregon, there's assuredly a Boise St., or Miami, OH looking in. Oregon wasn't 'screwed' out of anything, IMO. They simply weren't good enough to be in the NC. Nebraska wasnt' the 'best' team, but they weren't too bad. Colorado was running on all cylinders, they were likely the 'best' team, at the time, but credit Oregon for their win.

[Spence]

[quote"fluiddude"]My personal opinion is that when it's close, the popularity factor kicks in and lesser known teams such as Oregon are simply not going to be able to compete with the Nebraskas of the football world (even if their glory days are past).[/quote]

That is absolutely true. If teams are close, the teams that have the biggest fan base's usually go. I is a financial decision for the bowls and TV, who pay for the rights to host.

I am not saying this is fair, just that it is how things work.

[Spence]

It won't bring down the BCS. The only thing that will bring down the BCS is lack of cash. If they stop getting big money it is over. The Bowl system has always been very profitable to CFB. It is very,very profitable to the major conferences. Playoffs would destory the bowl system. It would limit exposure to teams outside the top 15. It would hurt regular season TV money and fans support. Once a team has no chance at the playoffs people won't care about them. The Bowls provide a chance to end the year a winner for a lot of teams that would get zero exposure if there were a playoff.