Online Now 1974

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

On this Board 1134
Record: 4035 (11/24/2012)

Online now 1993
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

ACC sides with Big 10, only Conference Champions in playoff

  • ceece said...

    The problem that will never go away in college football is that you don't ever 'know' who the best teams are. Even the 4 best teams.

    I believe that a conference can certainly have multiple teams that are better than anothers conference champion, but using the conference champions as a starting point is hardly a flawed concept considering there is no way to know who are the best 4 teams. Especially when perceptions, that may or may not prove to be reality, drive the rankings.

    The ACC and Big East have clearly been the weakest BCS links and conference championships don't even guarantee a spot in a 4 team league. The Big 12, B1G, PAC 12 and SEC have all had conference champions for a decade running that have been worthy of a 4 team playoff.

    In a playoff format, of it's all at large, I really think the only way to do it with any intrigue, assuming a conference will get two teams, is if the two teams somehow didn't play each other during the regular season and that's highly unlikely (only way I can think is if say LSU beats Bama but loses to WVA and Oregon and go to Atl as division champ and lose to an undefeated or 1 loss Florida. Then, an 11-1 Alabama and SEC Champion Florida get the nod in a selection committee format)

    College football is not built nor structured for rematches. It's not like the NFL, even if both have a playoff. The nfl schedule is based in large part on rematches, with all divisional teams playing each other twice.

    I just don't think that if you can't win your conference championship, that you should be granted another chance when the results of winning are even more prestigious.

    If Florida wins the SEC, Ohio State the B1G, Oklahoma the Big 12, Oregon the PAC 12 and all their statistical splits are fairly even, then you shouldbt open the door for Texas or Alabama to get in that 4 team mix just because some people think they are better than one of the 4 conferebce winners referenced above.

    The SEC won't be getting shafted, because if the SEC is the best conferebce and produces the best champion, then Florida (in the example) would prove it over the next two games. Same for the big 12, etc..if the ACC or Big East doesbt produce a champion good enough to make the field, then they aren't 'shafted', they just weren't good enough, which has also been likely with past as an indicator.

    My point is, in college football, you don't know who the best teams are because of unbalanced schedules. So, taking a long hard look at all conference champions is not only a sound starting point, it's logical in a sport where opinion is weighed more heavily than any other.

    2 things.

    1. Name as many teams as you can that fell outside of the final regular season top 4 that earned a right to be national champions. You can go back through the entire BCS era.

    2. Name as many ACC champions as you can that have deserved a right to play for it over the past decade.

    Cant wait.

    This post was edited by Jefe5235 on 5/17/2012 at 8:21 PM

    Jefe5235

  • This post is for members of TheBigSpur only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • DarthVisor said...

    Besides having South Carolina on the roundtable on ESPN's "College Football Live" they started the telecast with a discussion of the coming playoff and its format. They said that the ACC AD's and coaches are now backing the Big10 in wanting to limit it to conference champions only. banghead

    Surprise, surpise right Gomer (you just know he was a Tar Heel fan biggrin). Just think the 23rd ranked ACC Champion Tigers would get a chance to be in the four team playoff.

    We have to hope the college presidents, who meet in June and have the final say-so on the format of the four team playoff have some sense. We all know the other conferences just hate the SEC and its winning ways, but what sort of validity will a playoff have that doesn't match up the best four teams in the land, especially one that takes a much lower ranked "conference champion" over a team ranked in the top four.

    Maybe I'll get slammed, but I have no issue with only conference champs being a part of such a small playoff format. I think it's stupid that Bama couldn't win the SEC with a HOME LOSS but is the national champ. Just doesn't make sense to me. If there was an eight or more playoff, then I would feel differently. How dumb was it when Nebraska and Oklahoma played for the title. And couldn't win the Big 12??? Win your league...JMHO

    GamecockDKC ●

  • Just looked it up. By year and in order a top 4 would have been.

    1998: Tennessee, Florida St, K St, Ohio St
    1999: Florida St, VT, Nebraska, Alabama
    2000: Oklahoma, FSU, Miami, Washington
    2001: Miami, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon
    2002: Miami, Ohio St, Georgia, So Cal
    2003: Oklahoma, LSU, So Cal, Michigan
    2004: So Cal, Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas
    2005: So Cal, Texas, Penn St, Ohio St
    2006: Ohio St, Florida, Michigan, LSU
    2007: Ohio St, LSU, VT, Oklahoma
    2008: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama
    2009: Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU
    2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford
    2011: LSU, Alabama, Okla St, Stanford

    There have been seven instances in which a conference would have had more than two teams in. They are: 2001 (CU and Neb), 2004 (OK and Tex), 2005 (PSU and OSU), 2006 (OSU and Mich), 2008 (Okla and Tex, UF and Bama), 2010 (Oregon and Stan), 2011 (LSU and Bama)

    In total, of the 14 years of the BCS:

    7 times 4 conferences would have been represented
    6 times 3 conferences would have been represented
    1 time (2008) 2 conferences would have been represented
    2 times a non-BCS team would have been represented (2009 and 2010 TCU).

    To me a top 4 seems fair.

    This post was edited by joetheogre on 5/17/2012 at 9:32 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • cocky4now said...

    O.K. who were the best 4 conference champions?

    There will alway be some controversy in the system. I see no reason to start off with a model that will clearly have lesser teams participate...simply by being the best in their league.

    LSU, Oregon, Oklahoma St and Wisconsin were the 4 best conference champions.

    ceece

  • sptbgcock said...

    Sorta like the seeding in NCAA basketball, huh?

    It's nothing like seeding in the NCAA Tournament. The NCAA Tournament is inclusive of all teams with a pulse and then some. Public opinion means nothing and once you are in, and good enough, seeding is irrelevant because you should beat any opponent if you are the best.

    ceece

  • ceece said...

    LSU, Oregon, Oklahoma St and Wisconsin were the 4 best conference champions.

    So lets look at these teams.....LSU already beat Oregon earlier in the year...Why do they get a second chance at a playoff yet we say Bama does not.....Oregon beat Wisc in bowl......Again I point out that the only team that possibly got screwed was Ok State.....Lets just acknowledge this point and move on Shit happens tweek the selection process a little and hope this does not happen again....

    86cocky ●

  • Jefe` said...

    2 things.

    1. Name as many teams as you can that fell outside of the final regular season top 4 that earned a right to be national champions. You can go back through the entire BCS era.

    2. Name as many ACC champions as you can that have deserved a right to play for it over the past decade.

    Cant wait.

    1. In the current format, where only 2 teams get in, there is less of an argument for teams outside the top 4. But there are plenty of examples of teams who fell outside the top 4 that would have had arguments to being selected based on merit and being conference champion.

    2. Your query isn't relevant because I've made no such claim that the ACC has had a deserving representative. but, in the future, an ACC champion shouldn't be discounted if their body of work checks out. Whether that is the case, is tbd.

    This post was edited by ceece on 5/17/2012 at 10:58 PM

    ceece

  • 86cocky said...

    So lets look at these teams.....LSU already beat Oregon earlier in the year...Why do they get a second chance at a playoff yet we say Bama does not.....Oregon beat Wisc in bowl......Again I point out that the only team that possibly got screwed was Ok State.....Lets just acknowledge this point and move on Shit happens tweek the selection process a little and hope this does not happen again....

    I didnt say Oregon deserved a rematch more than Bama, I just stated who the 4 best conference champions were.

    But, My original point was that there is sound logic at looking at conference champions first and foremost. And Swofford backing that angle isn't a stab at him trying to weasel his way into the playoff, because at 4 teams, everyone isn't getting in. You have to be good enough and in the ACC's case, it may need to be an undefeated team and an undefeated team would be in the top 4 whether it's only for conference champions or by selection committee. So, based on recent on field performances relative to other conferences, his best chance to get a team in would be a conference champ anyway because they'd be undefeated. I think it has a lot more to do with teams like Oklahoma State or others in the past who have won their conference titles but been snubbed just because someone says they aren't as good as another team. There has to be some sort of tangible criteria as opposed to conjecture. That's the only point I make. That conference champions is a very sound and very logical top criteria for deciding who deserves to be in the playoff. If a committee feels there aren't 4 worthy conference champions based on a plethora of ststistcal splits and body of work, then you look next in line. By that criteria, I think it should be ranked in top 6 or 7.

    College football is the only sport that is judged on rankings. The other sports have rankings that are fun to gawk at but they are irrelevant to the sport itself. The very nature of rankings is that obviously, not every team can be ranked 2, 3 or 4 even though they may be deserving. An early loss is better than a late loss bevause you rise and fall based on that. In most cases, from an objective standpoint, you have to view teams ranked 1 or 2 as 1A and 1B, maybe even number three as 1C. Maybe you view 3,4,5 as 3A, 3B, 3C, etc...bevause the only difference is that one team gets the weekly nod on the higher spot because they may have been more impressive the week before or lost in the more distant past. Weekly polls don't take into account body of work, they take into account the previous week and it all starts from a time behore they ever play a game because pepole put pen to paper and decide a most likely order to the best 25 teams.

    Really and truly, the fairest way to do it is to get rid of any rankings until at least the half way point. That way there is no preconceived notion on who should be where. But we know that's not happening because there is too much invested in the hype of preseason magazines, Tv shows, etc..discussing the rankings of the teams.

    ceece

  • ceece said...

    1. 2008 when Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech all tied for the Big 12 South division title at 11-1 but Oklahoma got the nod because of higher BCS ranking. Throw in So Cal and Penn St who were outside the top 4 as conference champions with 11-1 records. 1998 when UCLA won the PAC 10 but were left out after a loss at Miami in a game that was rescheduled from
    an earlier postponement. Georgia in 2006 was SEC Champ and had the same record as Ohio State. UGA was 6 and OSU was 4. In 2007, So Cal and Oklahoma both won their conference titles and had the same record as LSU who was 4th in the BCS and the other two outside the top 4. 2010 Wisconsin won the Big 10 but finished behind Stanford at 5th with the same record.

    2. Your query isn't relevant because I've made no such claim that the ACC has had a deserving representative. but, in the future, an ACC champion shouldn't be discounted if their body of work checks out. Whether that is the case, is tbd.

    -In 2008 Oklahoma beat Texas tech 65-21. Hardly a championship worthy team. Texas lost a November game to Texas Tech, which again was raped by OU.
    -2008 PSU lost to an unranked Iowa team. SoCal lost to unranked Oregon State.
    -The 1998 UCLA team went on to lose their bowl game to Wisconsin.
    -2006 UGA lost to Vanderbilt.......wait for it.......at home.
    -2007 Oklahoma lost to Texas tech in late November.

    Very few of the teams you've mentioned deserved a shot.

    Nice response to the ACC thing. I understand why you would steer clear of that one.

    This post was edited by Jefe5235 on 5/17/2012 at 11:04 PM

    Jefe5235

  • Jefe` said...

    -In 2008 Oklahoma beat Texas tech 65-21. Hardly a championship worthy team. Texas lost a November game to Texas Tech, which again was raped by OU.
    -2008 PSU lost to an unranked Iowa team. SoCal lost to unranked Oregon State.
    -The 1998 UCLA team went on to lose their bowl game to Wisconsin.
    -2006 UGA lost to Vanderbilt.......wait for it.......at home.
    -2007 Oklahoma lost to Texas tech in late November.

    Very few of the teams you've mentioned deserved a shot.

    Nice response on the ACC thing. Since you don't think the the ACC champion should "discounted if their body of work checks out" tell us all which ACC teams have been left out. I'll answer for you, not a damn one. The ACC is weak, poorly coached, second tier football.

    In 2007 LSU lost to an unranked Arkansas team, late in the season. They also lost to a 5 loss Kentucky team. In 2003 LSU lost to unranked Florida at home.

    So losing to an unranked team has proven to be inconsequential in past seasons so discrediting So Cal or Penn St or the like for losing to an unranked team shouldn't be detrimental. And again, I'm taking about being part of the future 4 team discussion, not the two team discussion of the current format.

    This post was edited by ceece on 5/17/2012 at 11:16 PM

    ceece

  • ceece said...

    LSU, Oregon, Oklahoma St and Wisconsin were the 4 best conference champions.

    What about Boise st? A two loss Wisconsin and Oregon team...one of which had already been mudd stomped by LSU.

    My point is that you are still relying on things like RPI and voters to choose. Whatever system we choose will have subjectivity...reguardless.

    Using conference champions is more about giving a equal share to everyone....than it is about finding out who the best team is.

    signature image

    cocky4now ●

  • cocky4now said...

    What about Boise st? A two loss Wisconsin and Oregon team...one of which had already been mudd stomped by LSU.

    My point is that you are still relying on things like RPI and voters to choose. Whatever system we choose will have subjectivity...reguardless.

    Using conference champions is more about giving a equal share to everyone....than it is about finding out who the best team is.

    Exactly.

    Jefe5235

  • DarthVisor said...

    Besides having South Carolina on the roundtable on ESPN's "College Football Live" they started the telecast with a discussion of the coming playoff and its format. They said that the ACC AD's and coaches are now backing the Big10 in wanting to limit it to conference champions only. banghead

    Surprise, surpise right Gomer (you just know he was a Tar Heel fan biggrin). Just think the 23rd ranked ACC Champion Tigers would get a chance to be in the four team playoff.

    We have to hope the college presidents, who meet in June and have the final say-so on the format of the four team playoff have some sense. We all know the other conferences just hate the SEC and its winning ways, but what sort of validity will a playoff have that doesn't match up the best four teams in the land, especially one that takes a much lower ranked "conference champion" over a team ranked in the top four.

    Kirk Herbsreit was the guest speaker at a function I attended last night;; during the question-answer session he was asked to comment on this scenario and he said that although he was an Ohio State alumn and had strong ties to the Big Ten that "it was an absolutely ridiculous notion" that a 9-3 team from the ACC could play for the National Championship just because they were conference champions.

    Herbstreit added that if the Big Ten had Ohio St and Michigan ranked in the top 4 they would want them to play. He also said that he felt strongly that it would be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and that the fans deserved to see the 4 best teams play.

    Cockzilla

  • Cockzilla said...

    Kirk Herbsreit was the guest speaker at a function I attended last night;; during the question-answer session he was asked to comment on this scenario and he said that although he was an Ohio State alumn and had strong ties to the Big Ten that "it was an absolutely ridiculous notion" that a 9-3 team from the ACC could play for the National Championship just because they were conference champions.

    Herbstreit added that if the Big Ten had Ohio St and Michigan ranked in the top 4 they would want them to play. He also said that he felt strongly that it would be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and that the fans deserved to see the 4 best teams play.

    Yea Herbie's right & like I was saying earlier, if you do only allow conference champions there would have to be some provisions involved. There's no way they would let a 9-3 conference champ play just because they're conference champs.

    Trenchtown Cock

  • sptbgcock said...

    Sorta like the seeding in NCAA basketball, huh?

    The Argument in the NCAA bracket is who is the 68th best team (simplified for sake of argument, but in any event, a team that has no real claim to be the best team in the country).

    Basketball computer polling and human polling is perhaps better equipped to evaluate teams because there are more games and more interconnectiveness.

    You folks arguing for the top four have a very good point but there is no way of determining with certainty who the top four are and no matter what method they pick people will not like it.

    The idea this will solve anything or be better than what we already had doesn't hold water with me. All you do is diminish somewhat the argument you do not eliminate it. The fight will be over the last team in and then over whether any of the multitudes of one loss teams should be picked over the others.

    Everyone will take the side that suits their team at that precise moment in time and change when necessary.

    Seriously, people hated the Bcs formula, they hate the RPI, they hate polls. No matter what is picked people will hate it and act like it's stupid and unreasonable based on self interest.

    VBCock ●

South Carolina
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports