Saban Fatigue/Fed Up?

[ssgaufan]

I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?

That was the beginning of the end for the BCS.  Just like this year is now the beginning of the end for the 4 team format.  The other Power 5 can't stand to see an all SEC title game again.

[AUChizad]

I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?

The BCS didn't do that. The lack of a playoff did.

[Token]

The BCS didn't do that. The lack of a playoff did.

Even with a playoff Bama would have at least been in the playoff with a chance to play for the title because of the BCS formula. 

Fuck y'all, I like my idea better.  It doesn't give a shit about bitter rivalries.  You might play each other, you might not.  And it keeps people from cheating.  Or at least being severely punished for cheating.

[AUChizad]

Even with a playoff Bama would have at least been in the playoff with a chance to play for the title because of the BCS formula. 

IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.

[Godfather]

IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.

#micdrop

[CCTAU]

As for who should get in all that...there's a problem if you make it automatic for conference champs. Say we get a year when Texas A&M goes 12-0 and wins the West and Tennessee wins the East with an 8-4 record. By some stroke of the Jimbo, UT returns a pick six in the closing minutes and wins the SEC CG. Now we have a 9-4 team in a field of 12-1, 13-0 playoff teams. You just handed someone an easier game in the first round.

So win and you are in is only for losers? ROH TAHD!

[Token]

IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.

So then no to the BCS formula.  Which is exactly what I just said.

[Godfather]

So then no to the BCS formula.  Which is exactly what I just said.

Actually, that isn't what he said.

[Snaggletiger]

Actually, that isn't what he said.

What did he say?

[Godfather]

What did he say?

4+7*2 = 83

[Snaggletiger]

4+7*2 = 83

Now see?  If people would just keep things simple like this, the whole playoff thing would work itself out.

[Token]

Actually, that isn't what he said.

Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2.  In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions.  Everyone hated it, death to the BCS. 

Now, Bama backed their way in again.  Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better.  For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again.  The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?

[Buzz Killington]

I was told there would be no math

[Snaggletiger]

Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2.  In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions.  Everyone hated it, death to the BCS. 

Now, Bama backed their way in again.  Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better.  For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again.  The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?

And that's the way it should be under the BCS and the current committee system we have.  Someone earlier gave the hypothetical, but very real possibility of a team going 12-0 in the West, and then getting edged out by an 8-4 team in the SECCG.  Should the entire body of work be looked at or should the committee say, "Well, you lost.  You're out."?

Anywell, I've been a proponent of an 8 team (Please, no more) playoff since forevah!

[Godfather]

Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2.  In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions.  Everyone hated it, death to the BCS. 

Now, Bama backed their way in again.  Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better.  For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again.  The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?

But what he is saying is that while we don't like it, bama at least had to play a legit team before they made it to the championship. If you had the BCS formula with a playoff yes they got in with both scenarios, but at least we'd have less grievance. 

I'm upset bama got in this year, but at the same time I'm not sure who should have gone over them. Ohio State wasn't deserving, Wisconsin I feel bad for, but win your game and you are in.  Much like us had we won we were in.

I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded.  I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.

[Godfather]

And that's the way it should be under the BCS and the current committee system we have.  Someone earlier gave the hypothetical, but very real possibility of a team going 12-0 in the West, and then getting edged out by an 8-4 team in the SECCG.  Should the entire body of work be looked at or should the committee say, "Well, you lost.  You're out."?

Anywell, I've been a proponent of an 8 team (Please, no more) playoff since forevah!

That's why I say get rid of the conference championships

[Snaggletiger]

That's why I say get rid of the conference championships

That's not what he said.  Wait....what?

As much as I think college football has operated under such an unfair system, with the exception of the BCS, I have to admit that this is part of the allure.  College football is the only sport on earth (Probably, I haven't checked the interwebz) where the teams playing for the championship are determined strictly by opinion.  It was that way before the BCS through the polls, and it's basically the same now with a committee deciding who has the most eye candy.

While college basketball has a committee that picks some at-large teams for the tourney, (Same with baseball and softball) the first deciding factor is win and you're in.  But totally based on opinion with football.  But the reality is that as unfair as that concept may be, every fan, sports media outlet, talking head etc. debates it and talks about it year round.

[RWS]

I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded.  I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.

Anytime anyone goes undefeated, that's quite a feat.  You have to give credit where it is due in that regard.  However, I would also argue that Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama could all more than likely go undefeated against UCF's schedule.  Had they played Georgia, or FSU, or Oklahoma, or Penn State, or Wisconsin, etc during the regular season, would they be undefeated?  I don't know.  I get it; all you can do is play who is on the schedule.  But the best team they beat was a #20 Memphis in the AAC conference championship game in double overtime.  There is always room for argument, but personally, I don't think they deserved a playoff spot. 

[Token]

But what he is saying is that while we don't like it, bama at least had to play a legit team before they made it to the championship. If you had the BCS formula with a playoff yes they got in with both scenarios, but at least we'd have less grievance. 

I'm upset bama got in this year, but at the same time I'm not sure who should have gone over them. Ohio State wasn't deserving, Wisconsin I feel bad for, but win your game and you are in.  Much like us had we won we were in.

I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded.  I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.

I agree we need more teams in playoffs. And less conference championships.  4 conferences, 16 teams each. Top 4 make it from each conference. No rankings, just win your damn ball games.

[AUChizad]

Anytime anyone goes undefeated, that's quite a feat.  You have to give credit where it is due in that regard.  However, I would also argue that Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama could all more than likely go undefeated against UCF's schedule.  Had they played Georgia, or FSU, or Oklahoma, or Penn State, or Wisconsin, etc during the regular season, would they be undefeated?  I don't know.  I get it; all you can do is play who is on the schedule.  But the best team they beat was a #20 Memphis in the AAC conference championship game in double overtime.  There is always room for argument, but personally, I don't think they deserved a playoff spot.

Shut the fuck up.

Also, UCF had as many quality wins as Bama did this year both before the New Years Six bowl and today.