re: Big 10 Commish - 2011 Bama wouldn't make playoff

quote:

---

So, you're gonna brag about your conference even though you didn't play either of the top two teams in the East?

Five teams in the SEC had a winning in-conference record last year. Alabama beat precisely one of them in the regular season. Sure, the SEC is an awesome conference, but it's a lot less awesome if you take out two of its top five teams. You can't brag about your conference's quality if you didn't play those quality teams.

Alabama played a lousy OOC slate and then played nearly the weakest possible SEC schedule. And they were rewarded for it.

---

I see you finally got it through your thick skull that your system provides no incentive for OOC games. BTW, Penn ST. was 8-1 before joe had to quit.

quote:

---

Cross country games were much rarer in the 50's and 60's than they have become today, precisely because polls were penalizing teams with weak schedules.

---

Actually, teams didn't play as many cross-regional games because of the cost of travel. The difficulty around cross-country travel lowered significantly, and cross-regional games became much more popular in the 70s-80s. But even then, it was not uncommon to play 2-3 "BCS conference" teams in a season, now it's down to 1 and very rarely, 2.

quote:

---

Again, if you knew anything about the history of college football, you would know that cross country games were featured much more from the 70's on, when polls began to reward teams for tough schedules.

---

Or.. you know... when air travel became cheap.

quote:

---

Why would I play a tougher game, if it doesnt help win my conference or get to a playoff? Why? Answer that one damn question.

---

I've answered it repeatedly. Money. Prestige. Fan interest. Pride. Or the fact it does help you in conference play by getting you "season ready". A good tough game against a real opponent, not a glorified scrimmage against a rent-a-win, makes you a better team.

quote:

---

No, you obviously dont know shite about how college football developed. The great series began in the 70's, in pursuit of national titles.

---

Or television ratings. That's when TV got in the picture and needed product. Believe it or not, money has always driven the train. Shocking I know.

quote:

---

Injuries, wearing a team out by playing to many hard games in a row, having to show more of your playbook than you want to because you're in a dogfight with a tougher team, mental fatigue on your players, need I really go here?

---

No. I see clearly that you're terrified of competition. We get it.

quote:

---

Not just hurt. Fatigued. You realize that football teams dont give the same effort week to week dont you? You know the concept of a trap game? the problems of playing three tough teams in a row? Do you actually know anything about the game of football?

---

Yes, teams get tired. So what? Go play your four teams with a winning record for a title shot and call it good for the game. What are you saving up for? The two games Bama played all season against top ten caliber teams? Or, one every month and a half of the season.

quote:

---

So? Did you play in that game? Do you think a coach is going to schedule mkore potential losses and tough games if it doesnt help his team get to a title?

---

Because the question is what is good for the game. Great games are great for fans, which is why we even have these games. If it was up to the coaches, they would play no tough games and get crowned champions and they'd all be undefeated, so they can keep their jobs forever. But that would be bad for football and bad for fans.

The questions is not "what is good for Bama?" but "what is good for the game of football and its fans?"

quote:

---

They wont be, if schedule toughness is not factored into winning titles.

---

Exactly the problem with the current system. It rewards a crappy schedule but not too crappy). Play somebody. Prove it on the field. Hell, I'd prefer a committee select teams over the BCS formula, and they could act like the basketball committee and reward teams that play tough games. But that's the next step.

quote:

---

If all i have to do is win my conference, why would i need to prove anything beyond that?

---

Well, you're clearly not doing it now. But playing a tough game and winning it gives value to your conference title. If the SEC goes, say, 12-5 vs. the Big Ten in the regular season, it demonstrates the value of the SEC title better than if you went 3-1.

quote:

---

Bama fans dont make the schedule or play the games any more than the LSU nfans do. The coaches do. And if games dont help them win titles, they wont schedule them.

---

Actually, the AD does. But you are advocating for a weak schedule, so you must want it. Unless you're lying. Alabama schedules games against patsies. So will LSU this year, and it sucks.

quote:

---

Nut up? You think you or I have any control over who your team schedules? No. the coach does you moron.

---

Actually, you kind of do. Demand your team play good teams. LSU has built a culture in which the fanbase demands tough games. We want to play Florida. We want to play Oregon. We show up to these games and pay lots of money for them. AD's react to money, even though the coaches don't like playing UF every year.

If you don't demand good games, you won't get them. LSU fans are pissed about this schedule and the AD will hear about it. Especially from our pocketbooks.

quote:

---

There's only three games before the conference game starts.

We already play a top 10 michigan team to open the season. But you want more so a team will be good and sore when they actually start the conference grind? Again, you have provided no incentive for a coach to schedule more hard games other than "I like it as a fan." You know how much that coach gives a shite about your opinion as a fan? Not one bit.

---

Good. I didn't know your schedule because I don't follow Bama. I'm not as obsessed with them as you are with us. Play good teams.

Again, coaches don't make schedules. And I've listed the incentives repeatedly and for like 7 pages, if you can't read, that's your own damn problem. I'm not going to keep saying it. Look at how teams schedule in basketball. Much harder OOC schedules for the best teams.

quote:

---

Really? "Great football" is why a coach schedules games? Really?

---

Coaches don't schedule. AD's do. And yes, they want great games so people will pay them money. A superior product brings in more revenue. And why wouldn't you want, as a teacher (which is what coaches are supposed to be), to challenge your kids? Are we to teach them the lesson that we should avoid things that are hard?

quote:

---

Conference pride means dick to a coach. He cares about winning games and winning championships. THats all.

---

Then stop claiming other conferences "suck". You clearly do care and it's the basis for your argument why Bama's resume was better. It's practically the whole argument, "we played in the SEC." Without that, you have little to hang your hat on.

quote:

---

What part about "I dont make the goddamend schedule and neither do you" dont you get? You cant look at it from what YOU want. You look at it how a coach would.

---

We also don't make the college football playoffs, but we are debating the merits as if we did. That's a cop out. At the end of the day, we can't make the playoffs either, so arguing that "I don't make the schedule" as the basis for your argument on why you don't want tougher schedules voids the rest of your argument on the entire topic. We are debating what is best for college football. If we were in charge, what system would we adopt and why. Saying "I reject this hypothetical because it isn't real" misses the entire point of the discussion.

quote:

---

The same way we determine them now.

---

Opinion polls. Which is precisely why I want the conference camp method -- objective criteria.

quote:

---

We played one close game all year and beat the shite out of everyone else.

---

Congrats on beating one top caliber team and four teams with winning records. And only one conference foe with a winning SEC record. How did you ever blow out the dregs of the conference?

Despite all the long arguments and hyperbole from Bama fans the fact is LSU did everything last year we are supposed to award a team for...they played a tough OOC schedule, won all their games, played an extra game in the Conference Championship game and won that handily...Bama did none of those things...and what was LSU's reward...they have to replay their hard fought victory from the middle of the season...beating a team twice (which is always hard to do no matter the opponent.)

That was LSU's reward and that's a shame. As we move forward...I see no point in having a playoff if it's going to be based on a subjective poll opinion...nothing has changed then. It has to be objective...you win something (your conference) because no matter how many "experts" there are...only the clueless will fail to admit they can be wrong in their subjective "eyeball" test.

This whole argument is more about LSU last year and less about Bama - the college football season needs to matter and the post-season needs to be a reward system for a regular of on-field achievement.

i think a playoff should be each conference champion.. if u can't win ur conference how can u claim to be the best team?

quote:

---

Actually, teams didn't play as many cross-regional games because of the cost of travel. The difficulty around cross-country travel lowered significantly, and cross-regional games became much more popular in the 70s-80s. But even then, it was not uncommon to play 2-3 "BCS conference" teams in a season, now it's down to 1 and very rarely, 2.

---

bullshite. it had nothing to do with cost. it had everything to do with teams not being rewarded for weak ooc schedules. see alabama in 66.

quote:

---

Or.. you know... when air travel became cheap.

---

Or, you know, when it became obvious that teams would not be rewarded for weak OOC games. See Bryant, Bear.



quote:

quote:

---

I've answered it repeatedly. Money. Prestige. Fan interest. Pride. Or the fact it does help you in conference play by getting you "season ready". A good tough game against a real opponent, not a glorified scrimmage against a rent-a-win, makes you a better team.

---

No, you havent. Money is not an issue. Its divided by conferences anyway. The cost of going vs whats actually made is not that great. "Prestige"? Damn you're funny. You know what coaches care about more than "prestige"? Keeping thier contracts.

quote:

---

Or television ratings. That's when TV got in the picture and needed product. Believe it or not, money has always driven the train. Shocking I know.

---

Nope. TV got into the picture in the early 60's through Roone Arledge. IT didnt change till the 80's when Georgia sued the ncaa.

quote:

---

No. I see clearly that you're terrified of competition. We get it.

---

You still think you or i have anything to do with a schedule?

quote:

---

Yes, teams get tired. So what? Go play your four teams with a winning record for a title shot and call it good for the game. What are you saving up for? The two games Bama played all season against top ten caliber teams? Or, one every month and a half of the season.

---

Oh, now you think im talking about bama. you think im saying what i would do. this is why your not bright. its not what you or i want. its what the coaches want.

quote:

---

Because the question is what is good for the game

---

No its not. its what the coaches want.

.

quote:

---

Great games are great for fans, which is why we even have these games.

---

youre naive.

quote:

---

If it was up to the coaches, they would play no tough games and get crowned champions and they'd all be undefeated, so they can keep their jobs forever. But that would be bad for football and bad for fans.

---

coaches schedule an one hard OOC game b/c thats all they need for a championship.

quote:

---

The questions is not "what is good for Bama?" but "what is good for the game of football and its fans?"

---

No its not. The question for a coach is, always, first and foremost, "how do i keep my job?" Thats it.

quote:

---

Exactly the problem with the current system. It rewards a crappy schedule but not too crappy). Play somebody. Prove it on the field. Hell, I'd prefer a committee select teams over the BCS formula, and they could act like the basketball committee and reward teams that play tough games. But that's the next step.

---

thats a completely different argument than the one you were making previously.

quote:

quote:

---

Well, you're clearly not doing it now. But playing a tough game and winning it gives value to your conference title.

---

no it doesnt. if i get in the playoffs just by winning a conference, i dont need that title to have anymore value.

quote:

---

If the SEC goes, say, 12-5 vs. the Big Ten in the regular season, it demonstrates the value of the SEC title better than if you went 3-1.

---

Value between conferences doesnt matter if all you want is a conference champion.

quote:

---

Actually, the AD does.

---

No, he doesnt. he may sign off on it, but coaches make the decision.

quote:

---

But you are advocating for a weak schedule, so you must want it.

---

The crux of the matter. You think pointing out a by product of system is advocating for a weak schedule? REALLY?

quote:

---

Unless you're lying. Alabama schedules games against patsies. So will LSU this year, and it sucks.

---

This makes no sense, but you have failed to see the difference between what i am advocating and what i say will happen.

quote:

---

Actually, you kind of do. Demand your team play good teams.

---

Yeah, ill drop a note in saban's suggestion box. You really are naive.

quote:

---

LSU has built a culture in which the fanbase demands tough games.

---

And as soon as those tough games kept you from getting to a title, that would change.

quote:

---

We want to play Florida. We want to play Oregon. We show up to these games and pay lots of money for them. AD's react to money, even though the coaches don't like playing UF every year.

If you don't demand good games, you won't get them. LSU fans are pissed about this schedule and the AD will hear about it. Especially from our pocketbooks.

---

funniest thing you've said yet. You really think the fans have power dont you?

quote:

---

Good. I didn't know your schedule because I don't follow Bama. I'm not as obsessed with them as you are with us. Play good teams.

---

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

quote:

---

Again, coaches don't make schedules.

---

Yes, they do. AD's may have final say, but its the coaches pulling the strings.

quote:

---

And I've listed the incentives repeatedly and for like 7 pages,

---

Your "incentives" involve nothing in reality. only what you want as a fan. They're stupid.

quote:

---

if you can't read, that's your own damn problem.

---

Says the guy who cant figure out the difference between "advocating" and simply saying what will happen.

quote:

---

I'm not going to keep saying it. Look at how teams schedule in basketball. Much harder OOC schedules for the best teams.

---

two reasons. one, playing a couple of hard games in a row in basketball is not the same as football. two, basketball doesnt require one to win a conference to get to the playoffs, so it behooves one to play a good ooc schedule.

quote:

---

Coaches don't schedule. AD's do.

---

If you really believe this there is nothing anyone can do to help you.

quote:

---

And yes, they want great games so people will pay them money.

---

People like championships more.

A

quote:

---

superior product brings in more revenue.

---

Not enough to justify costing yourself post season appearances.

quote:

---

And why wouldn't you want, as a teacher (which is what coaches are supposed to be), to challenge your kids?

---

Because coaches are paid to win. not challenge kids. no one says, when a coach gets fired, "don't fire him, he CHALLENGED HIS KIDS!"

Naive doesnt begin to describe you.

quote:

---

Are we to teach them the lesson that we should avoid things that are hard?

---

Coaches are there to win games and championships. all other considerations are second. whether you like it or not is inconsequential. thats the way it is.

quote:

---

Then stop claiming other conferences "suck".

---

you really dont get the point of the comparison do you? You think me saying a conference sucks has anything to do with what a coach thinks about it? ARe you fricking serious?

quote:

---

You clearly do care and it's the basis for your argument why Bama's resume was better.

---

You are not smart enough to figure out that my argument of why bama was better has nothing to do with the side effects of letting only conference champions in a playoff.

quote:

---

It's practically the whole argument, "we played in the SEC." Without that, you have little to hang your hat on.

---

you still cant figure out its two different arguments. thats fricking funny.

quote:

---

We also don't make the college football playoffs, but we are debating the merits as if we did. That's a cop out. At the end of the day, we can't make the playoffs either, so arguing that "I don't make the schedule" as the basis for your argument on why you don't want tougher schedules voids the rest of your argument on the entire topic. We are debating what is best for college football. If we were in charge, what system would we adopt and why. Saying "I reject this hypothetical because it isn't real" misses the entire point of the discussion.

---

Its not a cop out to say, OOC schedules would suffer in the event only conference champions are allowed in. Discussing side-effects is part of discussing merits you dolt.

quote:

---

beating a team twice (which is always hard to do no matter the opponent.)

---

this is a flat out lie.

The record for rematches between ranked teams is 10-10.

So you're saying that you honestly wouldn't have minded being ranked #2 and left out of a 4 team playoff while Oregon, a 2 loss team LSU waxed, and Wisconsin another 2 loss team qualified instead? I'm sorry but I'm just not buying that.

I love how Bama fans are "delusional" because we have the audacity to simply suggest there ought to be wildcard teams like every other major pro sports playoff system. "Delusional" is trying to argue that allowing a wildcard provision to the playoff system will somehow render the regular season meaningless while completely ignoring the fact that the win your conference or else system people want makes out of conference games totally meaningless. At the absolute minimum it provides a disincentive for teams to schedule good OOC opponents because it's better to not risk a loss to a good team. Just schedule non conference cupcakes because all you have to do is win your conference. If UCLA would have upset Oregon in the Pac 12 title game and LSU would have lost 9-6 on Nov 5th then a team ranked outside the top 15 (either TCU, Clemson, or West Virginia) would have made the proposed 4 team playoff while #2 LSU would have been left out. If the division winners only provision is dropped then LSU would go instead. In most years it will still involve 4 conference winners and it will pretty much always include only 1 wildcard team for strange years like 2011 and 2008 when Texas lost a weird Big 12 tie breaker to Oklahoma. How this system is unreasonable to some of you is beyond me

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the lowest ranked team that would have made a 4 team playoff of conference winners only each year since the BCS started with their record. No one had more than 2 losses.

98: #5 UCLA 10-1
99: #4 Alabama 10-2
00: #4 Washington 10-1
01: #8 Illinois 10-1
02: #4 USC 10-2
03; #7 Florida State 10-2
04: #6 Utah 11-0
05: #6 Notre Dame 9-2*
06: #6 Louisville 11-1
07: #4 Oklahoma 11-2
08: #6 Utah 12-0
09: #4 TCU 12-0
10: #5 Wisconsin 11-1
11: #10 Wisconsin 11-2

* (obviously did not win conference, but Independents read Notre Dame, won't be excluded because they are not in a conference.)

quote:

---

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the lowest ranked team that would have made a 4 team playoff each year since the BCS started with their record. No one had more than 2 losses.

98: #5 UCLA 10-1
99: #4 Alabama 10-2
00: #4 Washington 10-1
01: #8 Illinois 10-1
02: #4 USC 10-2
03; #7 Florida State 10-2
04: #6 Utah 11-0
05: #6 Notre Dame 9-2*
06: #6 Louisville 11-1
07: #4 Oklahoma 11-2
08: #6 Utah 12-0
09: #4 TCU 12-0
10: #5 Wisconsin 11-1
11: #10 Wisconsin 11-2

---

That should shut up secfan and govtide.