SEC championship and playoffs

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

If you can't win your conference, you are not the best team in your conference or nation.

Now I don't necessarily agree with that. It's entirely possible for a team to play way above their talent and beat another team on any given day. That's why all of the professional sports have provisions for wild card teams. The difference is that they have a strict set of criteria and tiebreakers to determine the wild card teams. It never comes down to the so called eye test.

It's also why all of the sports except for football determine their champion through a best of 7 series. Obviously that's impossible in football, but football is the sport where there's the greatest probably that the champion isn't necessarily the best team (NYG over New England).

 

[volsfan125]

A 1 loss or less ACC champ (Miami, VT, Clemson), Big 12 champ (Okla, OSU, TCU), B10 champ (OSU, Wisc, Penn St) and possibly 1 loss ND will get in over a just loss 1 loss UGA team in my opinion.

 

[TrueOrange]

So, you have two teams that will be undefeated going into the SEC championship game, and the one that loses doesn’t get in, then that is just wrong. You can’t knock a team out, because they lost the championship game being ranked in the top 4. If it happens, then this system is screwed up from the top.

The conference championship game knocking someone out of national championship competition has happened multiple times.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Now I don't necessarily agree with that. It's entirely possible for a team to play way above their talent and beat another team on any given day. That's why all of the professional sports have provisions for wild card teams. The difference is that they have a strict set of criteria and tiebreakers to determine the wild card teams. It never comes down to the so called eye test.

It's also why all of the sports except for football determine their champion through a best of 7 series. Obviously that's impossible in football, but football is the sport where there's the greatest probably that the champion isn't necessarily the best team (NYG over New England).

Yeah, exactly.

Football is a wonderful sport, with weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is that it demands so much of its players--which means, you have to think long and hard about adding more games to the calendar.

And so we don't play two games (much less seven) when one game can provide a result. Even if the result is subject to the vagaries of "on any given Saturday."

 

[TrueOrange]

Ohio State got into the playoff last year without playing in the Big 10 title game.

You can't make a conference title a requirement when you have 5 conferences and only 4 playoff berths.

Also agree, though it seems to have weight with the committee.

 

[hndog609]

Now I don't necessarily agree with that. It's entirely possible for a team to play way above their talent and beat another team on any given day. That's why all of the professional sports have provisions for wild card teams. The difference is that they have a strict set of criteria and tiebreakers to determine the wild card teams. It never comes down to the so called eye test.

It's also why all of the sports except for football determine their champion through a best of 7 series. Obviously that's impossible in football, but football is the sport where there's the greatest probably that the champion isn't necessarily the best team (NYG over New England).

Or how about a team that has a star player (or better yet a couple) out for a big conference showdown and loses. Once those players are back they are now murdering everyone and it's pretty much the consensus that if those teams played again it would have a very different outcome. Which team is "better"?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

A 1 loss or less ACC champ (Miami, VT, Clemson), Big 12 champ (Okla, OSU, TCU), B10 champ (OSU, Wisc, Penn St) and possibly 1 loss ND will get in over a just loss 1 loss UGA team in my opinion.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

I mean, I can think up scenarios where you'd absolutely be right. But I can also think up scenarios where you'd be dead wrong.

If UGa is undefeated going into Atlanta, and plays Bama really close, they may be a more compelling candidate for the playoffs than a "cardiac arrest" Miami squad that wins a lot of games but always looks on the verge of losing, even to weak teams.

Likewise, UGa could lose in a great, close game to Auburn in November, come back and beat Bama soundly in the SEC CG in December, and have a very strong case as one of the best four teams in the country. Stronger than a 1-loss Clemson team whose loss was to 7-5 Syracuse, or a 1-loss Ohio State team that didn't even get into their conference CG.

And what if it's a 1-loss Bama we're talking about, instead of UGa? ...hmm...

So we're just gonna have to wait and see how it all plays out. Could definitely go either way.

 

[05_never_again]

When we get to this point in the season, I can't help but think of the "a playoff will eliminate all of the controversy associated with the BCS" narrative before the playoff was institute.

The playoff, just like the BCS, is controversial. That is actually part of its appeal, IMO.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Or how about a team that has a star player (or better yet a couple) out for a big conference showdown and loses. Once those players are back they are now murdering everyone and it's pretty much the consensus that if those teams played again it would have a very different outcome. Which team is "better"?

That's a perfect description of the eye test that I absolutely abhor. The fact is that if team A is capable of beating team B under any circumstances, then they're more than capable of beating them again. Would they? That's an entirely different question that absolutely nobody can answer.

Remember it was consensus that Miami was going to run the Vols out of the stadium before halftime.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

When we get to this point in the season, I can't help but think of the "a playoff will eliminate all of the controversy associated with the BCS" narrative before the playoff was institute.

The playoff, just like the BCS, is controversial. That is actually part of its appeal, IMO.

And I think that's exactly what the NCAA wants, because it keeps people talking about it year round.

 

[05_never_again]

And I think that's exactly what the NCAA wants, because it keeps people talking about it year round.

Completely agree. I always roll my eyes when I hear people ask "why do we even have these weekly releases of the playoff rankings?" Isn't it obvious?

 

[hndog609]

That's a perfect description of the eye test that I absolutely abhor. The fact is that if team A is capable of beating team B under any circumstances, then they're more than capable of beating them again. Would they? That's an entirely different question that absolutely nobody can answer.

Remember it was consensus that Miami was going to run the Vols out of the stadium before halftime.

Again, that's the crux of the problem regardless of which "side" you're on. Let's say the scenario I posited plays out and the "other team" made the playoffs and looked bad while the team that didn't, with it's star players back, curb stomps their opponent. Nevermind players/fans for that team you're very likely going to have the vast majority of the football world at best saying no system is perfect and "feces happens" or at worst the system failed completely and obviously needs more tweaking.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You're going to punish a brilliant team for playing a conference CG and almost winning it? Leave them out for a 1-loss Notre Dame that doesn't even belong to a conference, doesn't take that risk?

No. Conference championship games are not play-in games, nor should they be.

Pick the best 4 in the country, and let them play it out for the national title. Even if some of them have one loss (in a CG or elsewhere).

Its really much simpler than that - if you don't win your conference there is zero chance you are the best in the country. There is nothing complicated about this - I am not saying you have to play in a championship game but if you are in a conference and can't win the simple fact at best you are 2nd in nation. You had your shot.

I think there are years where the SEC could have had 3 or 4 of the best teams in the country, not this year, but the simple fact is they all had their chance.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Its really much simpler than that - if you don't win your conference there is zero chance you are the best in the country. There is nothing complicated about this - I am not saying you have to play in a championship game but if you are in a conference and can't win the simple fact at best you are 2nd in nation. You had your shot.

That simple logic (and I agree, it is simple) would rule out every one-loss team in the country. Right? I mean, it doesn't matter where or when your one loss happened, you had your shot and lost. Right? They all had their shot, and missed it.

So what happens in the years where only one team in the entire country gets through the season undefeated? Do we automatically crown them national champ, without bothering to hold playoffs? What if that team is, say, Northern Illinois? Still?

What happens in the years where there are no undefeated teams? Conclude that there's no best team? No national champ because everyone "had their shot"?

...

When it comes to complex systems, which football definitely is, the "simple" and concise pronouncements can often be disproven quite easily.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That simple logic (and I agree, it is simple) would rule out every one-loss team in the country.

I don't see that as a fact at all, why would a 1 loss team necessarily be excluded?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I don't see that as a fact at all, why would a 1 loss team necessarily be excluded?

Indeed.

Why would a 1-loss Bama or UGa team be excluded from the playoffs? Particularly if their 1 loss were to one of the top-rated teams in the country?



[had a longer response, but this one is better, briefer, and gets more directly to the point]

 

[LSU-SIU]

Oh, I see.

So as long as it's not your conference championship game, it's okay to lose once.

So Bama is disqualified because they lose 26-24 to UGa in the last second in Atlanta ... but Clemson is okay because their loss to 7-6 Syracuse happened earlier in the season? Bama had their shot, but Clemson hasn't yet.

For the part, yes, you had your shot on the field. If Bama doesn't win their conference they really have no business being in the final 4. imo

One game doesn't necessarily mean a team shouldn't get in - but if you can't win your conference, you are not the best team in the conference let alone the nation.

If Clemson can't win their conference they should be watching the game just like everyone else. imo

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Be clear here: conference championship games are not a part of the playoffs. Explicitly so.

So whether a team loses one game in September, or one game in November, or one game in December, they've all lost one game.

You say losing one game shouldn't definitively disqualify a team. I agree.

But then you say that if that one game happens to be a conference CG, it should.

I disagree. And don't understand why you see the Clemson vs Syracuse game as "not a shot" while seeing the Bama vs UGa game as "a shot." [from when you said, "they had their shot" at the playoffs]

Neither of them are part of the playoffs.

Right?

 

[MphsBlues]

A 1 loss or less ACC champ (Miami, VT, Clemson), Big 12 champ (Okla, OSU, TCU), B10 champ (OSU, Wisc, Penn St) and possibly 1 loss ND will get in over a just loss 1 loss UGA team in my opinion.

Who was Notre Dame's one loss to?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Indeed.

Why would a 1-loss Bama or UGa team be excluded from the playoffs? Particularly if their 1 loss were to one of the top-rated teams in the country?



[had a longer response, but this one is better, briefer, and gets more directly to the point]

If they win the SEC championship, unlikely they will be passed over, but it would probably depend on many factors. It might be more likely that a 1 loss Bama team plays in the playoffs and Georgia losses the SECC game to Auburn/LSU (for instance) and doesn't get in.

So, a team that say #2 in their division could just jump the #1 team in the West and the #1 team in the East.

 

[LSU-SIU]

But then you say that if that one game happens to be a conference CG, it should.

Well, the logic is the #2 team in a conference can never be the #1 team in the nation. The playoffs start in August/September.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Simple scenario, LSU-SIU:

Bama and UGa are both 12-0, and meet in Atlanta. They play a brilliant game, hard-fought, close all four quarters, and UGa pulls out the win with a desperation field goal in the final seconds. 26-24, UGa are 13-0 and SEC champs.

You say 12-1 Bama, who just barely loses in that brilliant game, is now a less deserving team for a shot at the national title than these teams:

• 12-1 PAC champ Washington, who loses during the regular season to 7-5 Arizona State, and barely beats 9-4 USC for the PAC crown (with an abysmal strength of schedule);
  
• 11-2 B12 champ Oklahoma, who loses during the regular season to both Iowa State and TCU, but comes back to beat TCU in a B12 CG rematch;
  
• 12-1 B10 Champ Penn State, who loses during the regular season to Ohio State, but beats Wisconsin in their CG;
  
• 11-2 ACC Champ North Carolina State, who loses in the regular season to South Carolina and Notre Dame, but beats anemic Miami in the conference CG: and
  
• 11-1 Notre Dame, who lose in the regular season to UGa (the same faux pas Bama committed, just not during a CG), and don't have to play in a CG at all;
  
• Oh sure, and let's add in 11-1 Ohio State, who doesn't even play in a conference CG, but is ranked #3 in the country having beaten its conference champ (Penn State) during the regular season.

...

You say that Bama losing narrowly to UGa in the SEC CG automatically should put them behind all these teams for consideration in the playoffs.

Really?

 

[LSU-SIU]

You say 12-1 Bama, who just barely loses in that brilliant game, is now a less deserving team for a shot at the national title than these teams:

They already got their shot and failed, so they got what they deserved - right on the field.

So, your language is incorrect, they got their "shot"... at best they could be #2 in the nation... so they got what they "deserved".

Its better to let teams that are not in the same conference to go head to head - in conference they had their chance more or less, and had their chance to go head to head.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

They already got their shot and failed, so they got what they deserved - right on the field.

So, your language is incorrect, they got their "shot"... at best they could be #2 in the nation... so they got what they "deserved".

Its better to let teams that are not in the same conference to go head to head - in conference they had their chance more or less, and had their chance to go head to head.

They didn't get "their shot" any more than Clemson did when Clemson got beat by Syracuse.

Because the conference CGs are not part of the playoffs. No more than regular season games are.

Period.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

They already got their shot and failed, so they got what they deserved - right on the field.

So, your language is incorrect, they got their "shot"... at best they could be #2 in the nation... so they got what they "deserved".

Its better to let teams that are not in the same conference to go head to head - in conference they had their chance more or less, and had their chance to go head to head.

The goal of the playoffs is to get the 4 best teams; in the scenario presented to you, how is Alabama worse than the other teams in the example?