About these SEC national title games...

[jkjsooner]

I think this year's game reminded me a lot of the Oregon / Auburn game.

After watching these game it was clear to me that Auburn was more battle tested going into the game than either Oregon or FSU. But in these games I came out thinking that Oregon and FSU were the better teams. If you can adjust quickly to the improved competition you can win the games.

[picasso]

I just think whoever wins the SEC should be given the NC.
And a sweater vest.

[badger]

I really think that if they'd just make winning a conference championship a prerequisite to getting a playoff bid, you'd see more teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents. Because, after all, those games wouldn't knock you out of title game consideration --- they could be early season tests, similar to college basketball games.

Alas, the SEC wants all four bids (and even ensured there would be no two-team limit similar to the BCS). How, pray, can you be a NATIONAL champion when the only contenders are regional

[Mac94]

I really think that if they'd just make winning a conference championship a prerequisite to getting a playoff bid, you'd see more teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents.

Exactly! I totally agree.

[jkjsooner]

I really think that if they'd just make winning a conference championship a prerequisite to getting a playoff bid, you'd see more teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents. Because, after all, those games wouldn't knock you out of title game consideration --- they could be early season tests, similar to college basketball games.

Alas, the SEC wants all four bids (and even ensured there would be no two-team limit similar to the BCS). How, pray, can you be a NATIONAL champion when the only contenders are regional

I'm a little confused about what you mean by conference championship being a prerequisite. I take that to mean it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. If that's the case the OOC games would still matter.

I'm definitely not in favor of giving major conference champions automatic passes. I want the OOC games to have meaning and I cringe at the possibilities of giving conference champions automatic bids. In 2007 we had 2 conference losses yet won the conference title outright. Can you imagine if we would have lost all 3 non-conference games that year yet made it to the playoffs with five losses? (Unlikely but still...)

Even if it is just a prerequisite, teams in these 14 team conferences are going to demand that the Big 12 expand. After all, why does it make sense for us to only have to compete with 9 other schools when other teams have to compete with 13 other schools?

I've always been of the mindset that conferences are regional affiliations between schools and outside the realm of the NCAA or national picture.

If the NCAA wants to take conference affiliation into consideration, then they need to adopt a model that resembles the NFL (or high school football in Oklahoma) where the NCAA assigns schools to conferences on a year-by-year basis to create conferences with roughly the same size (number of teams) and level of play. But the NCAA has never had that type of control that you see in professional sports leagues...

[badger]

Exactly! I totally agree.
At the same time, you have we-need-money programs like Texas A&M and Tennessee that are trying their darndest to schedule as many home games as possible, which traditionally means going with in-state cupcakes promising big payouts to come to town for their arse whuppin'. So, I don't see conferences going to a Big 12 format with more in-conference games, as those are traditionally all home-and-homes, regardless of if its Kentucky or Alabama.

I think the playoffs will probably be a few years in the proposed current format before changes are demanded and implemented.

[Mac94]

I would take it that in the four team playoff model the pool the committee would select from would be conference champions. So this year the available teams for consideration and seeding would be FSU (ACC), UCF (AAC), Michigan St (BiG), Baylor (Big-12), Stanford (Pac-12), Auburn (SEC) as well as other mid major champs. From there rankings, OOC play, etc go into determining the four teams.

[jkjsooner]

I would take it that in the four team playoff model the pool the committee would select from would be conference champions. So this year the available teams for consideration and seeding would be FSU (ACC), UCF (AAC), Michigan St (BiG), Baylor (Big-12), Stanford (Pac-12), Auburn (SEC) as well as other mid major champs. From there rankings, OOC play, etc go into determining the four teams.

Are you okay with being excluded because you didn't win your 14 team conference yet Baylor is included for consideration because they won their 10 team conference?

Seems a little unfair and that doesn't even address the differences in level of play from one conference to another.

I know that this difference isn't as big of a deal as if conference championship was an automatic qualifier but it's still a legitimate concern IMO.

[Sooners78]

I really think that if they'd just make winning a conference championship a prerequisite to getting a playoff bid, you'd see more teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents. Because, after all, those games wouldn't knock you out of title game consideration --- they could be early season tests, similar to college basketball games.


Agree completely. It would also make for some very entertaining non-conference early season games instead of the annual beat downs of state directional universities.

[Mac94]

If the committee deems Baylor more deserving then so be it. This year FSU and Auburn would be locks but it would be interesting debate between Baylor, Michigan St, and Stanford.

As for differences in level of play ... its something the committee would consider ... but sometimes our assumptions and what we think we know are wrong. Bama was a lock to beat OU when the game was announced ... The Big-10 level of play wasn't all that ... but OU did beat Bama ... Michigan St still beat Stanford in the Rose. There is so little crossover between conference that "level of play" is often an assumption only.

[PrideMom]

SEC has been OVERRATED! It has all been MEDIA HYPE. With all of the mandates delivered by the NCAA, the college game has been leveled out, with the limitation on scholarships, travel, etc. and true power programs are difficult to sustain. That is why TRADITION is so important now. I am so proud of the OU accomplishments year after year, it is amazing what they do.

[SoonerorLater]

If the NCAA wants to take conference affiliation into consideration, then they need to adopt a model that resembles the NFL (or high school football in Oklahoma) where the NCAA assigns schools to conferences on a year-by-year basis to create conferences with roughly the same size (number of teams) and level of play. But the NCAA has never had that type of control that you see in professional sports leagues...

Yes, agree 100%. Until College Football decides to do this any type playoff we have is just another off-shoot of the BCS model. Div I College Football (really all college sports) is a completely unique in the way it is constructed. Not that I hope they do that. I hate the thought of College Football becoming NFL lite.

[Mac94]

Conference play would basically be a "regional" tournament to determine the best of their league ... then those champions determine a "best of the best" ... most objective way to set things up. With the four team model there is still subjectivity to a pool of champions.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I really think that if they'd just make winning a conference championship a prerequisite to getting a playoff bid, you'd see more teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents. Because, after all, those games wouldn't knock you out of title game consideration --- they could be early season tests, similar to college basketball games.



Yes.

[badger]

Conference play would basically be a "regional" tournament to determine the best of their league ... then those champions determine a "best of the best" ... most objective way to set things up. With the four team model there is still subjectivity to a pool of champions.

Plus, it might lend more legitimacy to your conference --- hell, two of your last three SEC champions have lost the national title game. Man your new conference sucks, Aggie :rcmad:

[Tear Down This Wall]

If the committee deems Baylor more deserving then so be it. This year FSU and Auburn would be locks but it would be interesting debate between Baylor, Michigan St, and Stanford.

As for differences in level of play ... its something the committee would consider ... but sometimes our assumptions and what we think we know are wrong. Bama was a lock to beat OU when the game was announced ... The Big-10 level of play wasn't all that ... but OU did beat Bama ... Michigan St still beat Stanford in the Rose. There is so little crossover between conference that "level of play" is often an assumption only.

To me, the entire debate is stupid. They should reward the Controlling 5 conference champions with a playoff spot. Let the Top 4 ranked from those five have a bye week, and the let lowest ranked of the 5 play a "wildcard" game against the highest ranked of the non-Controlling 5.

That would be pitting the best of the best, in my eyes, while still giving the outsiders a chance at crashing the party...which they now have even less hope of doing than before. (Sorry, Boise and Fresno and etc.)

I do hate that tradition and fan travel have trumped what a team accomplishes in a season.

I like to poke at Sic' Em because he is thinskinned and easily drawn offsides, but in my perfect playoff world, this year, they would have been in the playoff and given a bye because they nutted up and won the Big 12 and we did not.

The coming playoff will not be kind to non-traditional powers who put up stellar years. If Michigan and Baylor are both 12-1 or 11-1, who do you really think the committee of playoff team-selecting wonderkins are going to choose? Sadly, probably a slow-footed, Big Ten Michigan who would likely spend halftime on oxygen after chasing Baylor players to the end zone for the first 30 minutes of the game...if they were correctly, under my scenario, put on the same field and made to actually play to advance to a championship game.

[SoonerorLater]

Conference play would basically be a "regional" tournament to determine the best of their league ... then those champions determine a "best of the best" ... most objective way to set things up. With the four team model there is still subjectivity to a pool of champions.

It will never work as it is. If you were the SEC would you give away a potential extra seat at the championship table to the winner of the WAC or Big East (whatever they call themselves these days)? For that matter any conference.

[jkjsooner]

Conference play would basically be a "regional" tournament to determine the best of their league ... then those champions determine a "best of the best" ... most objective way to set things up. With the four team model there is still subjectivity to a pool of champions.

Fine let's get rid of a couple of teams from the Big 12. Heck, let's go back to the Big 6. That'll make it easier to get into the tournament.

We can fill our schedule with four or five big boys from other conferences. It'll give us some big games (good competition( but can't harm us as the games won't matter since winning the Big 6 is all that matters.

As long as conference membership is voluntary, it's troublesome. Conferences (with their voluntary memberships) were not designed for the purpose that people are suggesting. They just weren't.

[jkjsooner]

And thinking about this I thought of two really out of the box things I'd love to see.

1. Smaller six teams conferences. Think of Big 12 South Conference and SEC West Conference. We would have a year-by-year merger between these smaller conferences. One year the Big 12 South would play the SEC West. The next they may play the Big 10 Leaders Conference.

This would add a lot more variety to a team's schedule. Can you imagine the pride at stake when the Big 12 South competes with the SEC West for superiority?

2. Have a slightly smaller regular season and then the last 3 or 4 games have matchups based on like-vs-like teams. Say an 0-7 team would play another 0-7 team. Same with two 7-0 teams. You'd find out really fast who the best team in the country is. If one team was 6-1 but had an easy schedule, they'd quickly be exposed. If another is 1-6 on the back of a killer schedule, they'd have the opportunity to redeem themselves by proving that they're a decent team and work their way back up.

[Temujin]

Put together eight 12-team conferences with 2 divisions in each conference. Rotate like the NFL does on the schedule. 8 team playoff at the end, winners of each conference, ranked by BCS.

Remaining FBS teams can play into a conference from year to year like European soccer. Top 8 in the independents replace the bottom team in each conference the following year.

[jkjsooner]

Put together eight 12-team conferences with 2 divisions in each conference. Rotate like the NFL does on the schedule. 8 team playoff at the end, winners of each conference, ranked by BCS.

Remaining FBS teams can play into a conference from year to year like European soccer. Top 8 in the independents replace the bottom team in each conference the following year.

I'd like something like that and I love the play-in like concept. This would also mean the worst performing teams would be relegated to FCS. But of course all of this requires a little more centralized control...

By the way, now that we have a playoff system can we get rid of this FBS and FCS crap? Have you ever tried to explain to someone who isn't a college football fan that Football Bowl Subdivision is more elite/better than Football Championship Subdivision?

[GreenSooner]

The SEC wants to make sure that, if the playoffs had happened this season, the four teams would have been Auburn, 'Bama, FSU, and either Michigan State or Stanford. I would have wanted the four teams to be Auburn, FSU, Michigan State, and Stanford. 'Bama had their shot at this bunch and lost to Auburn.

My preference, in the medium run, would be to have an eight team playoff in which the winners of the Big XII, B1G, ACC, SEC, Pac-12, and the Mid-Major Conference Formerly Known as the Big East essentially get automatic bids. In the long run, I'd like to have every conference winner in D-IA get an automatic bid, though that will involve more playoff rounds, fewer D-IA schools, or huge superconferences (and that's about my order of preference for these solutions). As far as I know, other divisions in football (including I-AA / FCS) give conference winners automatic bids, and it's a great way to assure that teams are not punished or rewarded for something that's extremely difficult to change: one's conference affiliation.