The BCS is dead. Johnny Football is gone. It is a new era, so what's your predictions? I foresee North Texas winning its division in CUSA, and a miserable year for TAMU
I've got to wait for the 2015 thread when USC will be off probation, can recruit a full freshman class and have a roster of 85. By the end of the year, they were playing guys off the practice squad, and still managed to play respectable ball & hold their own. I wish I was at school when I could have walked on and had a chance to play special teams due to the absolute lack of depth the past three years. It will be an interesting year in the Pac 12 as we see if Chris Petersen can run with the big boys, if Mike Leach's team continues to improve, and to see how Sarkesian does at SC (not that he could do any worse than this year). For me, he could go 2-10 as long as he beat ND and UCLA...
The current Offensive Coordinator Nussmeier at Alabama is reported headed for Michigan, and the rumor is Saban's new OC will be Lane Kiffin. In the words of the famous Keith Jackson, "Whoa Nelley!"
Shucks, I wanted to start this thread to get the SEC bashing started early! Oh well, guess I'll have to let this be my first post... Bobby Petrino Reportedly Set to Accept Louisville Head-Coaching Job | Bleacher Report I wonder if his contract will state personal use of two-wheeled transportation and/or of staff is forbidden. Hotty Toddy! Ole Miss SEC Football Champions 2014
Four playoff teams will be: Florida State Alabama Oregon Ohio State Baylor/OU/Auburn/Notre Dame/SC/Clemson/OK St. fans will howl at unfair the system is and only picks one from each region or conference with one major conference left out entirely. They will be right, the system should be expanded to perhaps 8 or even 12 teams. And we will be right back where we started with people complaining. That and Mizzou comes down a bit from this year. 8-4 with losses to Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and an early heartbreaking loss to Central Florida.
great predictions. I agree with everything except Mizzou losing to Florida, next year will be another Gator trainwreck. I haven't really followed the process at all, why is the playoff only four teams vs 8 or 12?
That would be a great four team playoff if tOSU still has Pryor. I would replace tOSU with Oklahoma, and not sure Bama will be the SEC team. I see them having a hard time replacing the QB this year. Ole Miss might be the surprise SEC representative, they have a really good team with lots of potential. BT
Thinking about this playoff system, I assume it has the same stupid lack of restriction the old system had. One single line in the regulations could save a lot of controversy "To be considered for the Four-team championship playoff, a team must have won its conference championship." Alabama would not have played LSU again for the BCS title after being beat by them earlier in the season a few years ago, and by definition in the playoff system only one team (the champion) per conference. Maybe not next year, but in the next few years you could have two teams from one conference. This would prevent that from ever happening.
Pretty dumb to have it required a team to win its conference to make it to the final four. Should just be the top 4 in the rankings make it.
I can hear the howls of protest from Saban and Co. when Oregon and Stanford make it into the playoff against say, FSU and Oklahoma... No words yet because the assumption is that a minimum of two SEC teams will get in. If the SEC starts with four of the top ten then they have a hard time knocking themselves out of having two of the top four. Look at this year as an example. The preseason top three from each side of the SEC were not contenders, except for Alabama. Since Auburn beat such highly ranked teams they got pushed up to the top of the heap. It doesn't really matter, with four teams it will be a better system than a two team playoff we have had for 15+ years. BT
My predictions for the top 4: Alabama LSU South Carolina Missouri Perhaps the SEC will win the nat'l title. Stanford may get in. Best
Since you have so thoroughly argued your point I suppose I must concede to your position. The only feeble rebuttal I can offer is that teams which fail to win their division within their conference are frequently sitting pretty, right at the best time of the year moving up in rankings by not playing. They miss playing that extra very good opponent the eventual conference champion does in the championship game. The non-playing team got into that position by losing (usually to the division champ) earlier in the year. Alabama was a BCS team twice due to this, winning the national championship a few years ago as I pointed out and of course this year. Kansas also backed into the BCS in 2007(?) this way. Taking the straight top four is also fraught with problems. Look at this year. A near-miracle win for South Carolina (coming back from 17 points in the fourth quarter and winning in double OT) against Missouri was the only thing that kept the SEC from having three of the top four spots going into the SEC championship game. An undefeated Mizzou would have been #1 or #2, with FSU the other. Auburn #3, Alabama #4. Auburn then beats Missouri as they did, it would have likely been FSU#1, Auburn #2, Alabama#3, Mizzou#4. Outside of the region, few would care about the championship in this case.
It all starts with the preseason rankings. Having 4 of the top 10 almost guarantees you at least one spot in the top 2. Since only Alabama has had a very good bowl win in the past two years it will be surprising to see the SEC get four top spots again, but that is probably how it will go. Like I said, it really doesn't matter, the best team should win out, and with four teams competing it is more likely that the top team will at least have a chance. It would be nice to see an 8 or 12 team playoff, but that is not happening anytime soon. The new system will be an improvement I think. It is funny that the most entertaining games of the BCS era were won by the non SEC teams (FSU and USC). Alabama has been by far the strongest team overall in the BCS era, but their style of football is one of the most boring to watch. BT
Boils down to this...basically, top 4 ranking vs 4 conference winners will neither decide who the "best" is. Expanding to 12 or so teams in a playoff would be more likely to find the best team. A conference winner by itself doesn't mean they should be able to win it all vs a runner up. i.e. 2 loss (prior to Rose bowl) Stanford Pac12 champ going ahead of 1 loss (prior to Sugar) Alabama in the playoffs simply because they won their conference if we applied it to this year. I'd prefer 6 BCS conference champs make playoffs + 2 (or 4 or 6) wildcard teams with first round byes for the top 2 seeds. I think with 4 team system, top 4 ranking would be better because if a team couldn't make the top 4 rankings, what makes people think they should even be considered #1? Stanford comes to mind on that one.
The only problem with taking the top 4 versus 4 conference champions is that the top 4 is largely influenced by preseason rankings which are not very good predictors of success. If your argument is that top ranked preseason teams that aren't good automatically fall out of the running, my counter argument is that the preseason rankings affect how upsets are viewed. In other words, Oklahoma did not get much respect this year for their in conference wins because they were against non ranked (or lower ranked) opponents. Alabama, on the other hand, got much credit for winning against in conference top 25 opponents, keeping their stock high, even after a loss to Auburn. We saw how the eventual matchup of the two teams turned out, and I would argue that if there were no preseason rankings then objectively different teams would be ranked when a 5 week-into-the-season poll gets released. All you have to do is look at how a team is adjusted after an unranked team wins over a ranked opponent, or how a ranked team gets adjusted after losing to an unranked / lower ranked opponent early in the season. A good example is the unranked Miami team beating a #10 Florida team. They quickly shoot Miami up to #16 immediately, and Florida drops to #17. Neither ranking is accurate, and the basis for the ranking is the preseason ranking of Florida screwing it up. If they had waited until week 5 to issue the initial ranking I think we would see much more realistic polls. BT
Agreed. Rankings shouldn't be released til several weeks into the season (i.e. the Harris Poll and computer rankings). AP/Coaches should wait that many week as well. But people still want to brag about their team possibly going "wire to wire" #1 in the polls and win it all like FSU 1999 and USC 2004.
