Skip to content

Winners & losers: post-playoff edition

Harvey Perlman AP

And, yes, hours after the official announcement, it still feels good — perhaps even drop-dead sexy — to use the words “playoff” and “major college football” in the same sentence without it veering toward an Onion-worthy post.

Of course, there are still issues that need hashed out.  Yes, even this four-team baby step is being met with scorn by the more-more-more crowd failing to realize that, even in its infancy, this just-birthed format is already infinitesimally better than what the BcS has wrought over the past decade-plus.

Even with a selection committee involved in the process… even with a way-too-limited field… even with every single argument against the specific playoff wheels that officially hit the pavement Tuesday, the game will be better off because of this first step.  Those who thought the powerbrokers would cannonball right into the deep end of an eight- or 16-team playoff pool?  They’ll eventually get over themselves and realize what a monumental day this was for college football and its fans.

Speaking of which, there were certainly some (a lot of) winners with the announcement of a four-team seeded playoff beginning after the 2014 regular season, and (not as many) losers stemming from the same glorious event.  So, well, here are but a few of them…

WINNERS

– THE FANS
When it came to a playoff poll on this site, you could count on anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of our readers being in favor of a change to the current system used to determine a “national champion.”  Other polls would range from 65-70 percent to, well, well above that mark.  The fans have clamored for it for years and, while it may not be what the majority wants, it’s certainly a day when the sport gave the fans that support it exactly what was wanted, regardless of the motive$ behind it.  Which, of course, leads us to…

– EVERY FBS* FOOTBALL PROGRAM
Will a four-team playoff likely exclude the non-power conferences to a greater degree than it had in the previous system?  It very well could.  With $500 million annually at stake — nearly triple of what was paid out under the old system — the members of those non-power conferences, diluted already thanks in large part to expansion wrought by the BcS, will be able to wash away their collective exclusion angst with crisp $100 bills.  As for the power conferences?  The rich merely got richer today — and separated themselves further from the have-nots.

– MIKE SLIVE & JOHN SWOFFORD
The commissioners of the SEC and ACC, respectively, were at the forefront of a push several years ago to implement some type of playoff, only to be rebuffed by the Jim Delanys of the college football world.  Even as they may not have gotten exactly what they wanted this go ’round, each of those two men and their staunch pro-playoff stances were vindicated.  And the sport is all the better for their collective and unwavering approaches to the offseason.

– THE BOWLS
We touched on this earlier but it bears repeating: the fact that, after there had been some level of discussion of hosting pre-title games at on-campus or neutral-site venues, the semifinals will be hosted by existing bowls on a rotating basis is a huge win for the Football Bowl Association.  The inclusion of six upper-echelon bowls in the playoff process is significant for the FBA, although raising the bar on bowl eligibility could be the death knell for postseason games that almost no one will miss.

– THE ACC
There are currently four “power conferences” in major college football: the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.  With just four precious playoff spots available over each of the next 12 years, that would seem to be a rough deal for a conference like the ACC, especially based on how this exact playoff format would’ve played out if it were in place over the past decade.  This conference, though, has four things in its favor when it comes to the future format: Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Virginia Tech, football-rich traditions which, while in “down cycles” at the moment nationally, give the ACC more than enough opportunity for its playoff water to find its level.

– DAN WETZEL & PLAYOFF PAC
Enough.  Said.  Other than there’s a fairly good chance that the sport wouldn’t be where it’s at right now, playoff-wise, without those two and the pressure they, and by extension the fans, exerted on the process.

LOSERS

– THE BIG EAST
Given the whole television contract negotiating thing, I should probably tread carefully here, but there’s really no gray area when it comes to this.  The Big East signed off on a deal that will likely preclude that conference, given the recent defections generally and specifically if Boise State reneges on its expected future move, from being a major or even minor playoff player for the foreseeable future.  If the Broncos follow through on their move, or if another Louisville circa 2006 is in the offing, the Big East may find a spot at a corner table, even if it’s just occasionally.  Other than that?  They should’ve been the loudest voices at the table for an expanded playoff field.  Or merely be satisfied with cashing that lucrative postseason check.

– HARVEY PERLMAN
The Nebraska chancellor and staunch anti-playoff intellectual (pictured) would’ve been fine with the status quo.  Or a Plus-One abomination.  He got neither.  Life is good.

– THE ANTI-PLAYOFF “CROWD”
Their stance is not one I could even begin to fathom let alone start to wrap my head around, yet the presence of that sentiment kept the sport from taking the righteous path for years or even decades.  The fact that some of the staunchest anti-playoff proponents were part of the group that actually implemented a playoff induces mild chuckling… and hope that those very people are actually beginning to “get it” when it comes to an issue that’s vitally important for the future of the game.

(*with the official death to the BcS, I’ve decided to officially retire the “Div. 1-A (FBS)” designation.  It’s the least I could do.)

Permalink 59 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: American Athletic Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Conference USA, Independents, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Pac-12 Conference, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Sun Belt Conference, Top Posts
59 Responses to “Winners & losers: post-playoff edition”
  1. Tim Donaghy Institute of Refereeing says: Jun 26, 2012 11:32 PM

    Thank you SEC for making such a mockery of the former system that you generated enough momentum to push this thing over the top.

    Now send the trophy to Stillwater.

  2. Deb says: Jun 26, 2012 11:35 PM

    Um, JT, you might want to correct your list of the Big Four to include the SEC rather than the ACC … assuming that was a typo and not a sign of some bizarre mental aberration.

  3. Deb says: Jun 26, 2012 11:42 PM

    @Tim blah, blah, blah …

    Did you bother to read the article? If the fools in college football had listened to SEC commissioner Mike Slive, we’d have had a playoff long before last season and you would have had a chance to earn a trophy. Next time, try beating the unranked team on your schedule. No one gives you trophies, little boy. Our team earned the Waterford by cleaning the clock of the best team in football. Now dry your tears and play better next year.

    Roll Tide!!!

  4. secucks says: Jun 27, 2012 12:11 AM

    In other news the SEC has convened a competition committee to achieve the following objectives:
    1. Determine how it can fill over half of the seats on the selection committee
    2. Create the impression that playing four OOC FCS teams (including a late season game) is a truly challenging schedule
    3. Continue to proprogate the myth that the SEC is football’s best conference (despite statistical evidence to the contrary)
    4. That the BCS system that resulted in six consecutive SEC champions was fair and unbiased… Oh yeah, a special challenge being the BCS system was just replaced.

    Special note to @Deb. This is posting number four on this topic.

  5. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 12:16 AM

    @secucks …

    At least you’re admitting you have a problem :D

  6. geraldthecat says: Jun 27, 2012 12:26 AM

    Tim is an idiot. The SEC Is the most powerful conference, but the biggest losers are the players; the same percentage of a larger pie.

  7. rsmeans says: Jun 27, 2012 12:51 AM

    Well nothing will change of course except the SEC is likely to always have the two finalist in the NC game but all the idiots will find additional reasons to think their poor conferences are equal to the Giant. Best to forget the other flag football conferences and let them play for the female sports and simply let the SEC playoff for the football championship. Same outcome of course.

  8. John Taylor says: Jun 27, 2012 1:06 AM

    @ Deb: apparently, I suffered a serious brain fart and/or cramp at that point in the proceedings. Muchos gracias for the oh-so-gentle editorial nudge. ;-)

  9. tigersgeaux says: Jun 27, 2012 1:28 AM

    It looks like the well over 100 letters the southernpatriots’ family sent to FBS university presidents, and the couple I sent, along with a huge number of other fans, and the many telephone calls made by respective fans of teams throughout the U.S. at least did not hurt.

    I congratulate these fans who wrote letters, made telephone calls, called into sports talk programs all over this land, and kept the pressure up and increasing. I also congratulate our SEC Commissioner Slive who is likely now sitting on his rocking chair on his porch enjoying the night air and a huge cigar and Kentucky’s best, with a smile on his face. (forgive me for not remembering his favorite stogie and bourbon as southernpatriots posted it many months ago but I forgot). Good work all!

    As southernpatriots’ doctor posted–it is a good beginning.

    Yayyyyyyy!

  10. nickp91 says: Jun 27, 2012 2:27 AM

    big Winner is MIKE SLIVE & JOHN SWOFFORD and big loser is THE BIG EAST

  11. seanb20124 says: Jun 27, 2012 5:22 AM

    What about Notre Dame

  12. floridacock says: Jun 27, 2012 6:45 AM

    Pretty simple everyone. If you don’t like the SEC, just beat them. That’s all. How’s that been going for you?

  13. norcalirish says: Jun 27, 2012 7:39 AM

    I look forward to the chorus of inevitable complaints about this new system from all those that clamored for it. If you think this is an improvement you’re kidding yourself.

  14. dcroz says: Jun 27, 2012 7:47 AM

    Wow, and the SEC butt-hurt continues. Only the last of those six-straight national title games won by the SEC involved two teams from the league…and THAT wouldn’t have happened if Okie St., Oregon, Stanford, and Boise St. had not thrown up all over themselves in November.

    I imagine that the vast majority of the tears are coming from Big Ten “fans” since that conference by far has the most outsized undeserved sense of entitlement of any of them. Complaining that the SEC has a stranglehold on the national championship while insisting the Rose Bowl is still the most significant bowl game of them all when you don’t let anyone else besides yourself and the PAC-12 play in it smacks of rank hypocrisy, if not outright stupidity. And shove the “academics” garbage; the latest APRs show that the SEC is only slightly behind the Big Ten and is on par or ahead of every other conference in that measure. Though I’m sure like any other 10-year-old out on the playground who just lost the big kickball game against the homeroom across the hall, you’ll stomp your foot and start crying, “No fair! You cheated!” when it comes to even THAT measure.

    Nothing lasts forever, and neither will the SEC’s current run. But cheer up, Big Ten fans: maybe you’ll actually win another national title soon, and then the SEC can stop saying that it has won as many national titles in the last three years as you have in the last FORTY-FIVE.

  15. gorilladunk says: Jun 27, 2012 7:48 AM

    @tigersgeaux…yeah, I’m sure the letters written by LSU fans (in crayon, no doubt) made the difference to the conference commissioners and presidents. Unless you included 1,000,000 dollar bills in the envelopes, I’m sure those pieces of mail went straight to the circular file.

  16. tigersgeaux says: Jun 27, 2012 8:07 AM

    @gorilladunk….no, we don’t have any of those crayons, what is that? We use alligator’s teeth writing on a piece of the backside of bigots who lose their way.

    Each response we received back from NCAA FBS school presidents was positive and very gracious. Because of Nixon, there are no bills any longer higher than a $100 but we did pack our Model A with several boxes of them and sent them with the letters. I am sure that and a visit from the Swamp People persuaded the presidents.

    This is a great time to be a college football fan.

  17. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 27, 2012 8:09 AM

    We already have the complaints. They do not matter. There will always be those who are not happy with what they have.
    However, lets look and see if this will not be better.
    Lets take the same four teams who won last year and compare to the new system.
    (1) LSU
    (2) Alabama Last year LSU and Alabama
    (3) Oklahoma St. in the NC game
    (4) Stanford.
    Same four teams in 2014.
    LSU plays Stanford
    Alabama plays Oklahoma St.
    The two teams outside of the SEC can now beat Alabama and LSU. They can now put their abilities out in front of their mouths. Now we will know if the SEC has the best teams. I think that is great.
    I hope that the Big 12 has two teams up there but we will have to wait and see. During the 2012 and 2013 seasons it will be the same old crapola. I for one am looking forward to 2014. However, at my age I shouldn’t be wishing away the years. I haven’t done that sense I became 21!!!

  18. florida727 says: Jun 27, 2012 8:10 AM

    Well, JT, it’s a start. Glad to see them expand the rotation to SIX bowl games for the semi-finals, because that (obviously) lays the groundwork for expansion to a more elaborate playoff system in the future.

    I’d still have preferred to see them agree to a suggestion made on CFT (not by me, I’m stealing it for purposes of this post) for a 6-team playoff with #1 and #2 getting first-round “byes”. #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5 at two of the existing four BCS bowl sites. The semis at the other two existing BCS sites, then bid out the national championship game similar to the Super Bowl.

    But like I said, this is at least a start, and as fans we should be grateful that something was finally done.

    And as #floridacock stated, if you want to shut up the SEC fans, it’s really very easy to do… BEAT US ON THE FIELD. In 5 of the last 6 years, you had your chance, and FAILED. Don’t worry though. Sports has always been cyclical. The run will inevitably end. But for now, your “hate” comes off like a whiny little (rhymes with rich).

  19. savocabol1 says: Jun 27, 2012 8:49 AM

    So does that mean that future teams who dont win their own division, let alone their own conference wont be able to compete in the playoff? Man the SEC is gonna be pisssssssed.

  20. tigersgeaux says: Jun 27, 2012 8:52 AM

    rsmeans says:
    Jun 27, 2012 12:51 AM
    Well nothing will change of course except the SEC is likely to always have the two finalist in the NC game but all the idiots will find additional reasons to think their poor conferences are equal to the Giant. Best to forget the other flag football conferences and let them play for the female sports and simply let the SEC playoff for the football championship. Same outcome of course.

    **************************
    rsmeans:

    You were too kind and too generous.

    We won’t give up the ladies’ sports….Alabama just won the National Title for Softball…ladies roundball–TN 2008, 07, 1998, 97…ladies track–LSU dominant since 1987 (15 titles, with SC & Au getting 1 each)…ladies tennis–FL…ladies golf–AL…ladies gymnastics-AL & GA Dominant!… and oh, let’s not forget the SEC men’s baseball–from 1990 -2011 with 9 titles…that is SEC..we are not going to give our ladies championships away either! come on ladies!

  21. drummerhoff says: Jun 27, 2012 9:23 AM

    Count the ACC as a loser.

    With only four playoff spots, ask yourself this: What is a more likely outcome, the 2 SEC teams making the seeded format or one ACC team?

    The ACC champion will have to go undefeated to get in a 4 team playoff … and when was the last time that happened?

  22. roundup5 says: Jun 27, 2012 9:31 AM

    Some of you SEC folks better realize that conference strength, runs in cycles, e.g., Miami years, Nebraska years, etc, etc. When you are down, you will look back and say, What happened? It’s coming! Believe me!

  23. fcmlefty1 says: Jun 27, 2012 9:48 AM

    “Count the ACC as a loser.

    With only four playoff spots, ask yourself this: What is a more likely outcome, the 2 SEC teams making the seeded format or one ACC team?

    The ACC champion will have to go undefeated to get in a 4 team playoff … and when was the last time that happened?”

    Sadly, it still would/will depend on which ACC team it was. 11-1 ACC champ Florida State would still most likely get a spot, based on thier accomplishments from the early 1990’s. An 11-1, say, Wake Forest still wouldn’t/won’t get the benefit of doubt.

  24. diablos67 says: Jun 27, 2012 10:08 AM

    Just where is the playoff in this? And just what is the criteria to getting in? Will it still involve coaches voting(always a fair and impartial group)? A selection committee is being selected and I’m sure the powers that be won’t want to see a small school like Boise State get in, they’ll more than likely push thier vote over to USC or something like that. No I foresee there to be lots of legal wrangling from those who are just on the outside.

  25. rubbernilly says: Jun 27, 2012 10:18 AM

    JT, I think you meant that this new system is a whole lot better (“infinitely”) than the BcS, and not just minutely better (“infinitesimal”).

    If so, I agree.

    …but I’m still going to push for something better (8 teams, min).

  26. florida727 says: Jun 27, 2012 10:29 AM

    “The Nebraska chancellor and staunch anti-playoff intellectual…”

    JT, for the record, “anti-playoff” and “intellectual” are mutually exclusive terms, never to be used in the same sentence. Thank you.

  27. Jennie Oemig says: Jun 27, 2012 10:50 AM

    I get that this could be a step in the right direction, but why not just make the leap to an actual 16-team playoff? http://98ontheblack.com/2012/06/27/playoff-schmayoff-bcs-needs-a-real-tournament/

  28. dkhhuey says: Jun 27, 2012 11:13 AM

    As expected, the playoff announcement is a second old and years away from a trial run and people are already bitching about it. Sadly this mentality will eventually kill college football as we know it.

  29. jvigliano says: Jun 27, 2012 11:54 AM

    “Infinitesimal” means too small to be measured. JT, is that what you really meant? Or did you mean to say “infinitely better”, beyond measure?

  30. drarb says: Jun 27, 2012 12:23 PM

    I am part of the anti-playof group, not because of the SEC or other reasons – this stupid system will diminish even more the concept of student-athelets. Lets be honest if were going to have a playoff and call them what they are – right now they are meat on the hoof so the University makes a bundle. For all those who want the playoff and then bitch about the SEC cheating or the Big Ten being pompous or whatever, you have just guaranteed the same behaviors set in stone – Thanks.
    By the same way about the Basketball Tournament, for the exact same reasons.

  31. gret9 says: Jun 27, 2012 12:36 PM

    Imho, college football is the best sport in this country for one simple reason….every regular season game matters. The 4 team playoff preserves this for the most part so I’m okay with it. But you go to 8 or 16 and suddenly you are going to have some 3 or 4 loss team in the playoff and gets hot and wins the National Championship. That would leave college football like the NFL where it seems more ofthen than not some 9-6 team, after being mediocre for a 4 month span, is crowned Champ because they got hot for 3 weeks….no thank you.

  32. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 27, 2012 1:06 PM

    How can so many people compare football with basketball? A football player can not play two to three games in one week. If they expect them to do that we will have to have three or four teams from each university. A four team playoff is perfect. I do not remember when we had teams 5-20 that deserved to be in the NC game. That is stupid.
    I know some people really like basketball, but when we get to the March madness, they play 5 or 6 games at a time. It is difficult to keep up with just one team.
    Because of all the teams they chose to be in the games, WV got in. They did not need to be there. If they had been in the NIT, they may have had a chance. I am always for WV but that was dumb to say the least. I do not want WV to play for an NC that they have no chance of winning. Put each team where their on the field season puts them. If they can not win enough games during the season then they do not belong in the NC.
    No matter how hard some people try, you can not compare apples to oranges. Teams who play 6 or 7 cupcake games a year can not keep up with people who play a more difficult schedule. Maybe later on but for now FSU can not compete with Alabama anymore than Wake Forest can.

  33. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 1:23 PM

    @gret9 …

    First, to a real NFL fan, every game matters. I watch every single NFL game that I can tune in–whether or not any team I care about is playing. It’s the freakin’ NFL. It matters. I don’t watch college games that are irrelevant to me. I’m not emotionally invested to the same degree.

    Second, in a four-team field, you’re still going to have a situation in which a single loss can put you out of the running. One thing I like about the NFL is that an opening-day loss doesn’t end your season. That won’t change in college ball. Instead of being one of the last two standing, you’re trying to be one of the last four. The regular season won’t lose its importance.

  34. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 1:58 PM

    @JT …

    Always happy to be of service ;)

  35. gret9 says: Jun 27, 2012 3:20 PM

    Deb,

    As I said in my original post, I am okay with a 4 team playoff because the importance of the regular season, the one of the many things that makes CFB far superior to the NFL, is protected. What I want CFB to stay away from is an 8 team or 16 team playoff. When was the last time anyone felt the 16th ranked team in CFB was the true national champ? But in a 16 team playoff, if that 16th team gets hot for a few weeks at the end of the season they could be crowned National Champions.

  36. beedubyatoo says: Jun 27, 2012 4:25 PM

    Bring back the College Bowl where only the intellectual schools can compete, i.e., The Ivy League and The Big 10.

  37. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 4:34 PM

    @gret9 …

    Sorry … misread you on the four-game playoff. CFB’s superiority to the NFL is a subjective thing. Since the NFL is the #1 sport in America, not everyone shares your view regarding the irrelevance of the NFL regular season.

    I support an eight-game playoff–could live with 12, but my ideal is eight. However, we’re never going to get to a point in CFB where 7-6 would make the playoffs in a four- or eight-team field. You might have a two-loss team win the title, but I’m okay with that … as long as the two losses weren’t to an FCS team and an unranked team. If you lose to the top-ranked team by a FG in OT, that shouldn’t knock you out of the running. Throughout the history of the game, few title winners have been undefeated. Many have had at least one loss. The notion that teams must be undefeated virgins to merit a title is fairly recent.

    People talk about wanting every game to count. But if your team is ranked first and drops by an extra point to #3 in week two. How, then, do the rest of their games count? When the attitude is that one loss should put you out of the running, then no game after a loss counts. So the “every game must count” rhetoric has no real-world meaning as long as teams are routinely eliminated from championship contention after a single loss.

    Great teams win when the world is watching and the pressure is on. If you can’t run the table, you don’t deserve the trophy. The agony of defeat is part of being a fan. I’ve rejoiced as my teams won and agonized as we lost championships. No one gets a free ride. If the other team has the hot hand, that’s the way it goes.

  38. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 4:37 PM

    beedubyatoo says:

    Bring back the College Bowl where only the intellectual schools can compete, i.e., The Ivy League and The Big 10.
    ————————————————-
    Several SEC schools outrank some of your Big 10 schools academically. And the Pac 12 schools knock out the Big 10 schools. But yeah, let the Big 10 play the Ivy League. That should make for some entertaining football. The Big 10 might actually win a game competing against Harvard and Yale. But then they’ll have to put up with the sore losers in the Ivy League posting about how stupid they are.

  39. dkhhuey says: Jun 27, 2012 4:57 PM

    Stop with the ‘keeping the integrity of the regular season’ argument. That argument is dead buried last year when Alabama got into the championship game!

    @Deb, Tide fans, SEC fans – Please, I am not trying to start a jihad conversation – I simply pointing out the facts. LSU beat Alabama in the regular season and won the SEC (if I’m not mistaken) and proved to be the better team during the regular season!

    If anybody was truly concerned about preserving the sanctity of the regular college football season results, Alabama should not have been in that game! Period!!

    The playoff system pretty much guarantees this will happen year after year so it pretty much invalidates/devalues the regular season.

  40. floridacock says: Jun 27, 2012 5:02 PM

    @florida727
    disagree with only one point…..It is NOT really easy to do

    And all you people so concerned about academics and athletics remember, it is NOT the National Collegiate Academic Association!

  41. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 27, 2012 5:49 PM

    I do not understand how the Big 10 is so much smarter than other conferences. Last week when the scores came out there were some high scores in every conference. Then there were some low scores in every conference. Example, Michigan. I thought they were in the Big 10. On the other hand Alabama and WV both had better scores than Michigan.
    Now maybe we can get back to talking football, while the schools with low scores try to get better by playing schools like Harvard. Hope that works for you. Put Nebraska in the Big 12 or the SEC and the rest of the Big 10 doesn’t look very good.

  42. foreverlsu says: Jun 27, 2012 6:00 PM

    @ Deb says “The Big 10 might actually win a game competing against Harvard and Yale. But then they’ll have to put up with the sore losers in the Ivy League posting about how stupid they are.”

    That is classic, Deb! Very nice!

  43. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 6:02 PM

    @dkhhuey …

    I don’t know what you’re trying to start, but as I said to gret9, the complaints of those who claim to care sooo much about the regular season ring hollow when a team can lose its season opener and be disqualified from any hope of competing for a title. That single loss renders the rest of the season irrelevant. Somehow that never bothered any of you until Alabama earned its way into the title game. Could you be anymore hypocritical?

    Since you and a few others want to persist in pretending Alabama was stomped in that regular-season meeting, here are those stats:

    1st Downs LSU=15 ALA=17
    Total Yards LSU=239 ALA=295
    Passing LSU=91 ALA=199
    Rushing LSU=148 ALA=96
    Penalties LSU=7-56 ALA=6-73
    3rd Down Conversions LSU=3-11 ALA=5-13
    4th Down Conversions LSU=0-0 ALA=0-0
    Turnovers LSU=2 ALA=2
    Possession LSU=29:54 ALA=30:06

    What’s not noted on the stats are Bama’s four missed FGs. But it’s evident that was an evenly matched game. We lost by a FG in OT to the #1-ranked team. I give LSU, and especially Eric Reid, all the credit for stepping up when it counted. Reid wanted it more when the game was on the line. But let’s not pretend that was a thrashing.

    All the other teams had to do for that title shot was was win. But Oklahoma State lost to an unranked team. And every other contender lost to lesser teams by greater margins than Alabama. And if your commissioner hadn’t squealed like a stuck pig when Mike Slive tried to get a plus 1 a couple of years ago, Oklahoma State still would have had a shot to play Alabama for that number two position.

    Those teams have only themselves to blame for not making that title game. But like their fans, they aren’t man enough to own their own losses. It’s easier to pee on Alabama’s parade. Make you feel better? Congrats. But we know we earned our title shot. And we proved we earned it by outplaying the number one team 21-0 and only allowing them one foray over the 50.

    No, you haven’t started a jihad, dkhhuey. But you’ve demonstrated yourself to be a poor sport who can’t give a great team its due because it upset the “sanctity” of the regular season. What a sanctimonious pile of horse manure! :roll:

  44. foreverlsu says: Jun 27, 2012 6:12 PM

    @dkhhuey

    As an LSU fan, and I can speak for many, Alabama was the clear choice to be in that game. Les Miles said immediately after the reg. season win that he would be honored to play Alabama in a rematch.

    I’m all for preserving the regular season but not to the point of sacrificing the relevance of a championship game by putting an OSU team in just to give someone else a shot at LSU.

    The goal was to get the top two teams in and it was an obvious choice. OSU and Boise had every opportunity to beat the unranked teams on their schedule but simply blew it. Alabama’s only loss was in OT to LSU which simply does not compare to OSU losing to Iowa freakin State.

  45. dkhhuey says: Jun 27, 2012 6:34 PM

    @Deb – again, calm your jets! I am absolutely not be hypocritical at all! That would be if I supported an OSU / Michigan rematch in 2006 – which I didn’t for the same reason I didn’t support Alabama getting another shot at LSU – They both had their chance in the regular season and they blew it! You shouldn’t get another chance in the championship game to play the same team that beat you in the regular season then declare yourself the champion and say the regular season counted! THAT is my entire point!!!

    You can absolutely lose a game in the regular season and still qualify for the championship but as within all sports, you’ll need some help. If there are 2 or 3 undefeated teams ahead of you then it’s tough sh!t!!

    Climb off the defensive wall and stuff the attitude up your ass! I was absolutely NOT not attacking your beloved Tide – I am merely pointing out that the system of respecting the results of the regular season were killed last year by what played out – not who played!

  46. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 6:49 PM

    @dkhhuey …

    I have to run … to Bible class LOL

    Honey, where have you been? I’m a lovely good sport to your teams. But when you go at mine, Defensive R Us.

    Was absent from the debate in ’06, so can’t comment on that. But I really don’t understand why people have an issue with rematches. To me, they’re AWESOME! Even when we lose … see Steelers/Ravens 2011.

    foreverlsu says:
    @dkhhuey

    I’m all for preserving the regular season but not to the point of sacrificing the relevance of a championship game by putting an OSU team in just to give someone else a shot at LSU.

    What he said … and brilliantly, I might add.

    Bye.

  47. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 27, 2012 7:00 PM

    If dkhhuey is right then noone deserved to play LSU. They should have been given the trophy without playing as they were the only team to go without a loss.
    Saying you can lose one game and then saying you can not lose one game unless you are in a different conference makes no sense. Your name says it all, Huey. That is what your comments sound like. A bunch of huey. That is what they say when they are calling the pigs.
    You can not have it both ways. If you can lose one game and still get in , it must be a close game with a ranked team. Not someone that is not even in the top 50.
    LSU would have liked playing you as that game they would have won.

  48. dkhhuey says: Jun 27, 2012 7:24 PM

    @mountaineer – my ENTIRE point was the following:

    You CANNOT say the regular season matters and be in favor of the results that actually invalidate the season results.

    For example:

    Team A beats Team B in the regular season. Team A is 1-0 against Team B in the regular season. Team B is 0-1 against Team A in the regular season.

    If they never play again that season, Team A was the better team, end of story.

    If they meet again in the championship game there are only two outcomes that can occur:

    Team A beats Team B again. That makes Team A 2 – 0 against Team B for that season. That makes Team B 0 – 2 against Team A for the season. CLEARLY Team A is the better team.

    The 2nd outcome: Team B beats Team A in the championship game. That makes Team A 1 – 1 against Team B for the season. That makes Team B 1 – 1 against Team A. They are tied for the entire season!

    Here is my original statement: “Stop with the ‘keeping the integrity of the regular season’ argument. That argument is dead buried last year when Alabama got into the championship game!”

    IF you actually keep the integrity of the regular season in tact with the results of the championship game: Team A is 1 – 1 against Team B for the season. Team B is 1 – 1 against Team A for the season. They are a tie and if the regular season ACTUALLY matters then 2 things can occur to keep that true. Either both Team A and Team B are awarded Co-Championship awards, or they play a rubber game to determine the sole champion.

    IF you say that Team B is the only champion, even though they are both 1 – 1 against each other during that season then you are saying one of two things:

    1 – The championship game is actually more important than the regular season game. OR
    2 – The regular season game did not count

    Either way, #1 which discounts the win in the regular season, or # 2, totally eliminates the win – you have just made the regular season game irrelevant in the head to head competition to determine the champion – and THAT was my sole and only point I was making!

    I am ONLY stating that given the above scenario, you cannot say that the regular season results are still intact and have maintained the integrity of the games played because they absolutely do not.

  49. secucks says: Jun 27, 2012 8:27 PM

    @mountaineer – Not to depart from my usual mission to bash the SEC myth of superiority, there isn’t a problem with undefeated team A playing one defeat team B provided that the defeat suffered by team B wasn’t to team A.

    In college football, being a conference champ should and does mean something. Teams that are conference champions get to to to the most prestigious bowl games where they get the opportunity to play other conference champions.

    If you examine the poll-based consensus NCs for the past 20 years you’ll find that out of 20 years there has only been 7 teams that have been consensus National Champions.
    1995 – Nebraska
    1998 – Tennessee
    1999 – Florida State
    2001 – Miami
    2004 – USC
    2005 – Texas
    2009 – Alabama

    For the other years, which includes 5 out of the last six there are polls that show 2 and even 3 different top #1 teams. Although the “other” polls may be obscure these polls are no less obscure than 10, 15 or 20 selection committee members attempting to figure out what 4 teams get to play for the NC.

  50. dmcgrann says: Jun 27, 2012 9:08 PM

    I really don’t see a whole lot of change, just different tacks to take in arguing about which is the best team.

    Playoffs don’t really do much unless everyone involved is willing to accept the results of the playoff games and everyone is willing to accept the selection of the teams that get into the playoffs. Look at the recently completed CWS – Arizona beat South Carolina for the national championship. The end of season rankings for the two were 14 and 11, respectively. Granted, it’s a different game and all, but I just don’t get the feeling from college football fans that they’re really ready to accept the results of a four team playoff without a bunch of grief., especially when it hasn’t been determined who’s picking the teams.

    When you begin to get into “Team A beat Team B the first time, but not the second time and Team C beat both of them”, you start to get into the old rationale that has folks claiming that some team like Appy State is the best team in college football because they beat Michigan, who beat so-and-so, who beat so-and-so, who beat so-and so. That’s entertaining speculation, but not exactly accurate.

  51. Deb says: Jun 27, 2012 10:30 PM

    Six months after Alabama won the title with a dominant performance, I’m tired of silly twits who still want to whine that the Tide didn’t belong in the game. But dmcgrann is right. Nothing will change with the introduction of playoffs. People will still find reason to claim the champ isn’t the champ, the playoffs were rigged, the SEC is stupid and overrated, Saban is Satan, Urban is Satan, this or that team didn’t belong in the game Period!! (but I’m not attacking your team :roll:), the playoffs undermine the “sanctity” of the regular season (sanctity … seriously?), and people who defend attacks on their own teams should shove it up their asses.

    Fortunately, none of that will decide who gets the trophy. :D

  52. dkhhuey says: Jun 27, 2012 11:30 PM

    Deb – I told you to shove your attitude up your ass and it had nothing to do with your defending your team. It had everything to do with you throwing some ridiculous little spoiled brat tantrum because I brought up a point about last year’s football season. Your response of insults and anger was just a weeeeee bit overblown… looking back over the other threads where you’ve been engaged with other posters – I’m not all that surprised!

  53. Deb says: Jun 28, 2012 12:37 AM

    @dkhhuey …

    I don’t go quietly into that good night when attacked, even when it would be in my best interest to do so. You take aim at me, my teams/players/coaches/conference and I fire back. As they say, if you can’t stand the heat …

    You knew when you posted that Alabama had no business being in that game, it was an inflammatory comment. That’s why you tried wimping out of it with that jihad nonsense. My response was warranted. Your comeback was vulgar, and I handled it with more good nature than it deserved. I’d love to see how you’d respond if six months after winning the title with a decisive victory, I announced Ohio State didn’t belong in that game Period!! But standing in the other person’s shoes isn’t a skill commonly demonstrated on the football blog. And now, rather than being an adult, you find it easier to go the kindergarten route of “no one in the playground likes you. So there!”

    Yes, sometimes I have been over the top and have a boatload of regrets about my interactions with some commenters (though not you). But at least I’m woman enough to own my behavior, to take it as well as dishing it out. In making my points, I don’t have to fall back on those “other posters” from “other threads” that have nothing to do with the current issue to try and justify myself. Nice touch, big man.

  54. dkhhuey says: Jun 28, 2012 1:27 AM

    Wow – you played the victim and martyr cards all in the same post – impressive!!!

  55. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 28, 2012 8:47 AM

    It is funny how I watched a game, between Alabama and LSU, which I thought Alabama won. Then I, in my stupidity, thought that LSU told Alabama what a fine game they played. Guess I was wrong as Ohio and Oklahoma knows better.
    Sounds like sour grapes to me.
    The victim and martyr cards are all taken, none left for Alabama fans. Being in the Big 12, I do hope that the state of Oklahoma gets over the loss and moves on to many victories this coming year. All except against WV.
    I am beginning to think after the NC game next year we will still be talking about this last year.
    No matter how much trash talk, Alabama is the winner. They will always be the winner of the 2012 NC game. The winner of the blog will not change that.

  56. Deb says: Jun 28, 2012 1:37 PM

    @mountaineer50415 …

    Thank you for a classy post that says it all. Yes, LSU manned up after the game, and we Alabama fans have no reason to play victim or martyr. That’s just the smoke and mirrors trash talkers pull out to deflect from their bad behavior because manning up isn’t in their skill set. And no one has done more trash-talking about the SEC than pouty Big 10 fans.

  57. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:13 PM

    My pleasure Deb. You seem like someone I would love to have as a neighbor. If I never meet you here, see ya after crossing the Jordan. May God walk with you through each day.

  58. Deb says: Jun 28, 2012 2:51 PM

    Thank you so much. I feel the same way about you. God bless you.

  59. afsgtret says: Aug 18, 2012 10:14 PM

    14 nc bull. how do you count 1941 as a nc when the ap ranks you 20th and you come in 3rd in the conf. 1973 ap ranks you 4th and you lose to notre dame. 1934 not mentioned, but you still claim it over minn that everyone voted for. come on back with “we should have had it in 1960″. ap didnt think so.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!