Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea
Nick Saban advocates the time-honored plumb-bob method of determining a national champion. (AJC photo by Bob Andres)
Knock me over with a feather. The coaches who work in the league that just filled both slots in the BCS title game have queued up to say they don’t want a new four-team playoff to include only conference champs. From Nick Saban of Alabama, who told reporters: “It’s just like politics and self-interest. Somebody wants to create a circumstance that’s going to help their situation or conference. That’s not in the best interest of college football.”
This from the coach whose team won the national championship without winning its division. (No self-interest there!)
I don’t blame the SEC coaches. Their league plays the best football. There’s a chance a four-team playoff, if seeded according to merit, might include not two but three SEC teams. Which might not be fair to the other conferences, but who said even a four-team playoff will be fair?
The Big Ten, never a shrinking violet when it comes to self-interest, is lobbying for a champs-only playoff. Just for the record, the Big Ten hasn’t dispatched a team to the BCS title game since January 2008. Just for the record, league commissioner Jim Delany has grumbling constituents to placate.
Counterpoint from Florida coach Will Muschamp, speaking at the SEC meetings in Destin, Fla.: “”I don’t think [the impending] playoff needs to be the conference champions because in our league we might have four of the best teams in the country.”
Here we come to the nub of the issue. If college football is to remain the sport where — invoking the official BCS slogan — Every Game Counts, wouldn’t it look odd to have a four-team tournament that includes two or more non-champions? (New slogan: Every Game Counts Except Those That Don’t.) On the other hand, wouldn’t it look even odder if a four-team playoff is rendered the SEC Invitational?
College football has forever been the sport that makes the least sense. The long-sought playoff is an attempt to remedy that, but the drive for a playoff is less a considered course of action than a knee-jerk response to what just happened. What just happened was that the BCS title game became an SEC rematch that pleased no one except SEC loyalists. The playoff is supposed to spread the wealth. It might not spread it beyond Mike Slive’s football fiefdom.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the 2012 season works thusly: Alabama beats LSU 9-6 in overtime; Alabama finishes the regular season 12-0; LSU finishes 11-1 and runs second in the West; Georgia goes 11-1 and wins the SEC East and upsets Alabama in the conference title game.
Let’s also say that Southern Cal finishes unbeaten in the Pac-12 but the champs of the Big 12, the Big Ten and the ACC all have at least one loss. Let’s say you’ve got three once-beaten teams from the SEC ranked Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the human polls. Were there an open-to-non-champs four-team playoff in place — there won’t be by this fall, but we’re pretending — wouldn’t it be difficult not to select Georgia, Alabama and LSU? (Didn’t we learn from the 2011 BCS standings that a once-beaten SEC non-champ trumps a once-beaten Big 12 titlist?)
Understand: I’m not opposed to a playoff. What I fear is that a four-team playoff won’t be much different from the 1-versus-2 BCS “system” we all despised. Somebody (or somebody’s computer) will have to choose four teams, and the outcry from those not selected could be even louder than before.
With a four-team playoff, the expectation from non-SEC leagues is that their champs will be better positioned than in 1-versus-2. They might not be. Such is the cachet of the SEC that it figures to have at least two teams in the discussion every season unless there’s a champs-only stipulation included, but wouldn’t the whole thing lose credibility if there is? (Possible half-baked compromise: No more than two of the four teams can come from a single league.)
The trouble with a four-team playoff is that it isn’t quite a tournament. Eight would be far better. (Steve Spurrier prefers that format, FYI.) With an eight-team field, you could accommodate the five BCS league champs — let’s agree to drop the Big East from the discussion — and still have room for worthy runners-up and the occasional Boise State. An eight-team grid would offer both the appearance and the reality of inclusion. The only reason not to have an eight-team tournament is because it would mess up the bowls, which is no reason at all.
I know, I know. After going so long without a real playoff, we should be grateful for small favors. But college football, as is its wont, is trying to have it both ways: Grafting a playoff patch on to a postseason already bloated by who-cares bowls. Even as I hope for the best, honesty compels me to confess that I expect rather less.
By Mark Bradley
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
190 comments Add your comment
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:00 pm
The jeolousy on these boards of dominant programs and conferences is laughable and shows the true ignorance of football fans…WE have GT BOB complaining about the selection process in football, while in basketball as long as his 9 or 10 ACC teams make it into the NCAA Tournament he is all happy, but he fails to mention in that process it is still OBJECTIVE and he is fine with that because the ACC gets the advantage due to reputation in roundball.
Having his cake and eating it too.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:01 pm
Any plan that is not about the top 4 teams in the country is not a true playoff and their is no way anyone can argue it any other way.
I can easily argue another way. Choosing 4 random teams that pass the eyeball test is not the definition of a true playoff. Those teams didn’t have to meet any real criteria to get there. I am still waiting on anyone to give me an objective way to determine the 4 best teams. Can someone please explain how last year Stanford was better then Oregon even though Oregon beat them by 23 points?
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:04 pm
Whe the NCAA Basketball Tourney is selected through THEIR process everyon in the ACC is okay with that, because the ACC gets it bye of 9 or 10 teams in the tournament. They went from 32 to 64 to 68 and still have people whining because their team did not make it in. The same thing will happen in football, 4, 8, 16, 32, anything to get a weak team into the big boy show and to make all these cry baby fans feel good even though they should be more worried about their own weak programs to begin with.
285exp
May 30th, 2012
5:06 pm
@JDB
“Alabama was probably the best team last year but why should they get a shot over oklahoma state just because we perceive their loss to be less bad.”
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:07 pm
Your way only guarantees the right for one of your weak( very weak) teams to make it into the playoff while playing a regular season of weak opponents.
My argument has nothing to do with the ACC at all. The ACC would have only had one team make the playoffs in the last 7 years by using the conference champions model.
Jim 70
May 30th, 2012
5:12 pm
If you want to include non conference champs, then get rid of the league championship game, and why even have a league games. Four conference champs is fine, and eight would be okay, but you play a season league schedule for a reason, and then we want a league championship game – if you can’t win that, you aren’t qualified to be a national champion.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:13 pm
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
Alabama beat one ranked team last year in the regular season and then won a sham of a championship game with a month to prepare. They are by far the worst champion in the BCS era. Nobody has any clue how good they are in relation to the other teams in the country.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:18 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:13 pm
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
Alabama beat one ranked team last year in the regular season and then won a sham of a championship game with a month to prepare. They are by far the worst champion in the BCS era. Nobody has any clue how good they are in relation to the other teams in the country.
I guess GT Bob is carrying on the Furman Bisher model of bashing Alabama in every article. I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
OKSU lost to a poor poor team,
Oregon lost to LSU,
Stanford lost to a team that was on probation who lost multiple games.
He has no argument he is just anti SEC and Anti- Alabama is bias is showing like his stinger.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:19 pm
“his bias is showing….”
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
5:24 pm
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the SEC isn’t the best conference. My point is that it’s ridiculous to create a playoff model on how good you think teams are rather than if they earned a spot.
I’ll agree that it is often more difficult to be the SEC runner up than to win several of the other conference championships, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to play for the title. I’d even go as for as to say the SEC deserves its champ to always have a spot, but never 2-3 spot in a 4 team playoff.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:28 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
I have no idea who was better then them and neither do you. The only teams that you can fully say weren’t better then them were the teams they beat. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had to actually prove they were the best instead of just relying on ESPN to convince people that they were?
Wet Willie...keep on smiling
May 30th, 2012
5:30 pm
You GT folks are funny as hell speaking about a playoff that you will never ever be apart of in the future. The UGA fans should wish to get into the game any way you can! Just for a minute forget who played in the last 4 BCS games or how they got there! The best 4 teams period and I don’t give a rats azz what conference they came from should be in the game. Most years 2 of those 4 will have one loss. Keep slamming Alabama if it makes you fell better about your team since both GT and UGA suck and it’s documented for those that can read and Lord knows you fools believe your’re topshelf in academics. Reading the sheet you post proves otherwise.
#1bamafan
May 30th, 2012
5:31 pm
I know there is no perfect championship in football. The NFL (Superbowl) does not always crown the best team but sometimes the hottest team the last few weeks. The regular season has to count and if The NCAA can come up with a good system, I would back an eight to sixteen team playoff using the bowls. I look foward to College Football, no matter what the BCS produces…RTR
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
5:33 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
Maybe no one was better. We will never know because they never played a team that was even close to them in talent.
You guys keep using words like better and best. Tell me why the second best team in the SEC was the best team in the country?
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:37 pm
Well, we know this much. The dogs will never be in the top 4 unless the field is chosed in February or March. The dogs might crack a top 8 field but only if they continue to play the BS SEC!SEC! Least schedule they play. On further thought, no they wouldn’t becuse Bama or LSU will kick their butts in the SEC!SEC! championship game and the dogs will scamper off with their tails tucked tight.
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:40 pm
Ohio State/Michigan or Oklahoma/Texas or Bama/LSU or USC/Oregan
That’s who the nation would want to see year in year out. The rest of the SEC!SEC! is delusional but they learned that from the dogs.
285exp
May 30th, 2012
5:42 pm
Ah, the all powerful ESPN is responsible for convincing all the dupes that Alabama is worthy to be in the BCSCG? 42 of the 59 coaches in the coaches poll, including Les Miles and Mark Richt, voted Alabama #2. The AP had Alabama ranked #2 going into the game, but I guess all those sportwriters were mezmerized by ESPN too. People were talking about LSU being one of the greatest teams of all time, having beaten the PAC 12 champion, the Big East champion, and Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia. And Okie State couldn’t beat Iowa State, but they deserve to play for the national championship. Right.
ValidReal
May 30th, 2012
5:49 pm
I say we let the sports writers pick the two teams they think are the best and let them play all season long. The team with the most wins is the national champion. If they end up tied we give it to Notre Dame.
Dawg in AL
May 30th, 2012
5:56 pm
The main reason for a playoff is to let it be decided on the field. The best team does not necessarily always win, but that is what makes sports great. When given your chance you have to perform. Every team should be given their chance and by taking conference champions you would guarantee all were given a chance. Your initial chance was given in that you had the opportunity to win you conference and you next chance would be the opportunity to play in national playoff. All decided on the field, not the polls.
It needs to be decided on the field. That is why you play the game. You cannot let writers and coaches determine who is worthy of being champion. If so why not just use the initial poll and cancel all games, declare a champion in September.
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:04 pm
I think we need conference champions in order to make the regular season remain meaningful. Maybe 6 conference champs along with 2 at large teams decided by a committee or based on a similar ranking system as the BCS. 4 teams is a step in the right direction, but I think we need at least 8 teams to decide a true champion without everyone crying about the SEC dominating the 4 team field.
Big 10 Welfare
May 30th, 2012
6:05 pm
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:40 pm
Ohio State/Michigan or Oklahoma/Texas or Bama/LSU or USC/Oregan
That’s who the nation would want to see year in year out. The rest of the SEC!SEC! is delusional but they learned that from the dogs
So, your Buckeyes were thrashed 41-14 by a delusion??
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:11 pm
Buckeye,
Am I delusional in remembering a 41-14 thrashing of THE Ohio State University by the Mighty Gators in Glendale a few years ago? Am I delusional in remembering a 24-14 beating Oklahoma took by the Mighty Gators a few years ago in Miami?
Look in the mirror for a delusional fan of an overrated program.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
6:18 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:28 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
I have no idea who was better then them and neither do you. The only teams that you can fully say weren’t better then them were the teams they beat. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had to actually prove they were the best instead of just relying on ESPN to convince people that they were?
And how sure are you that ESPN forced and convinced EVERYONE that Alabama and LSU were the two teams THEY wanted in the BCSNCG? You aren’t because you definitely were not in ANY meetings where they all got together to discuss it were you? Did not think so. You and your conspiracy theories.
It was pretty obvious that MOST coaches, sportswriters, beat writers and voters thought those two teams belonged in the game, but Let’s all bow down to know nothing GT Bob who we all know holds a major grudge against anything Saban, Alabama or SEC because he has no brain power to think of anything else.
By the way GT Bob, I made it clear in my last donation and last Athletic Alumni meeting that I was not in full support( partial support) of the CPJ and things had to change or we would see even a greater drop in donations and support.
jarvis
May 30th, 2012
6:23 pm
So it can be any conference champion? So if 1-3 all won their conference and 4-7 didn’t, we would have the 8th ranked team in the country that won the WAC in the playoff?
That’s what the Big-10 is saying?
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
6:28 pm
I couldn’t agree more, Dawg in AL. The main goal of a the playoff should be fairness and if any Div. 1 team cannot win the national championship regardless of how well they play then it’s all for naught.
JBD
May 30th, 2012
6:40 pm
I want to see the polls get thrown out but thinking about it, even if you have only conference winners, you still have to determine which ones are used. The ACC winner most likely will be disregarded but what if FSU goes undefeated and all the big 4 conferences all have a 1 loss team. There would still need to be a ranking or a subjective poll to choose the 4.
I want to see all subjectivity and polling out but there is no good choice so you mine as well take the 4 best perceived teams.
JBD
May 30th, 2012
6:44 pm
The ideal situation in my eyes would be to move to the 4 conference set up into 4 pods each. You play your own “pod” and 1 other so every team in your pod plays the same conference schedule. Each conference adds a semi-final game so the conference semi-final and championship game work as a psuedo playoff. Then the 4 conference winners play. That would base everything on field performance and get rid of polling.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
6:47 pm
I have this to say in response to Muschamp, Slive and the “four best teams” SEC proponents. Why do three of those teams, who have already been eliminated in conference play and/or the SECCG need to keep playing? To prove what? The “four of the best teams in the country” is subjective until it is sorted out by a national playoff. This 4-team playoff, however implemented, is going to be as controversial as the BCS.
My preference in watching the regular season is the SEC, but after the SEC championship is decided on the field, I do not care to see SEC vs. SEC matchups. I have questions remaining from last year’ so-called national championship game. How can a game played more 5 weeks after the season determine anything in context to the previous 12 (or 13) games? The playoff will hopefully not start in January.
As long as the powers that be limit this playoff to 4 teams, it will only be a small improvement over the BCS. I would much rather see schools that desire to compete in football consolidate into 4 conferences as seemingly the only alternative to expanded playoffs (which is nonsense as the FCS just expanded their playoff *again.*. The regular season games within conferences, and certainly the conference championship games, should be considered potential elimination games. The traditional contests such as Georgia vs. Georgia Tech carry their own meaning. Furthermore, try and please the fans by scheduling more quality out of conference opponents. If it’s too hard to play all those though teams, then shorten the regular season.
Big 10 Welfare
May 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
Here’s my question: what is the basis for assuming that no more than 1 of the 4 best college football teams in any given season can reside in a single conference? Is there a law of nature that supports the proposition that these 4 teams will be distributed evenly among the conferences? Unless someone can answer that question satisfactorily, then a playoff based on that assumption will be flawed, controversial and illegitimate from its inception.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
And now that I’ve gon back and read all of Mark’s article, I agree 100%.
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:57 pm
Nothing short of a tournament involving every team will satisfy everyone. I think 8 teams is about the best we can hope for, but at least we have a start with the 4 team format.
230gr Full Metal Jacket
May 30th, 2012
6:58 pm
I can’t believe it!! I FINALLY agree with Mark on something!!!!!!!!!!! But in all seriousness — anything less than an 8-team play-off is unacceptable. A 16-team tournament would be much better (with an 11-game regular season).
I do find it a bit irritating though, that folks seem to just automatically assume the SEC will retain it’s current dominant position — which most assuredly is NOT going to happen. It wasn’t that long ago that the SEC wasn’t a particularly good conference — they only looked good against each other. That indeed changed dramatically, but as all things seem to do, it goes in cycles. In the 1990’s Teams like Miami, FSU, and Nebraska were winning everything, but they peaked and then went down quickly while other teams rose. This is already happening in the SEC. They are already down to being a 2-pony show (Face it, no one from the SEC except Bama and LSU is nationally relevant anymore, and they haven’t been for several years already — and you can count on a downturn at both of their premier programs within the next 2 years!). But all of that is a moot point if they woill just do as Mark said and have a 8-team playoff that includes the SEC, ACC, Big-12, Big-10, and PAC-12 champions plus 3 at large teams picked based on record and strength of schedule. They do it in virtually EVERY other level of football, from Pee-Wee league to the NFL, but only DIV-I tries to be different — which results in iDIV-I football being the most ridiculous sport in America!! I think most would agree that rarely does the best team in college football get a chance to even play for the NC. It’s like politics comes before on-the-field performance.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
6:59 pm
If the “top 4 teams” had been picked in 2010 we would have had Auburn, Oregon, Stanford and TCU.
In 2009 it would have been Alabama, Texas, Cincy and TCU.
I’d guess that there would have been a great deal of moaning by fans of certain schools – although nothing to beat the fans of the #5 ranked team (pre-bowls) in 2007
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:00 pm
You aren’t because you definitely were not in ANY meetings where they all got together to discuss it were you? Did not think so. You and your conspiracy theories.
Its not conspiracy theories. Do you really think that the coaches in America have any idea who the best teams are besides the ones they play? They are biased towards their own conference, they don’t even have time to watch the other games and some have admitted to letting assistants fill out their vote. Somebody has to influence these coaches, and ESPN is the main source. Rankings should only ever be used as a display of public perception. They should never be used to decide anything meaningful.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
7:08 pm
Time was when the Associate Press did not include the bowl games in their final poll ranking. There were many fewer bowls in those days, and also at least one conference prohibited their champion from attending a bowl in consecutive years (that was the Big Ten.)
Easy Breezey
May 30th, 2012
7:10 pm
Dont need to change a thing till my bleoved ACC gets its head and rear wired together so FSU or Miami or VT or GT can make some national noise. …..Im the other county heard from…..;-)
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
7:11 pm
Paul in NH,
Can you imagine Cincy in the “Final Four” of football? They got exposed by UF, much like Hawaii a few years earlier by UGA.
BCS Mythology
May 30th, 2012
7:12 pm
You mean we get another mythical national champion?
SEC football coaches: Match best four teams, not conference champs, in playoff – Tampabay.com | My Football Search
May 30th, 2012
7:18 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:24 pm
RTR22
“LSWho is still sooooo bitter about the woodshed beating in Jan that their leadership is making Fools of themselves in Destin today….Check out some of their quotes from the AD and HC. Too funny…”
Do you have proof that LSU is bitter over the BCS title game? If anything LSU fans are not happy the way the season ended. I don’t think you would be either if were number 1 since the last week of September and went 12-0.
The only thing I can agree with you on about the comments at the meetings this week is Miles saying only division games should count. He and Spurrier are wrong about that. Nothing else that LSU has stated at the meetings has been out of line or “too funny” as you say.
I admit that Bama outplayed us and outcoached us on January 8. Can you admit that you were outcoached the prior 2 meetings?
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:25 pm
Actually the Tigers were 13-0 during the regular season.
Saban Never Sleeps
May 30th, 2012
7:30 pm
Mark, your implied assumption is that all conferences are created equally and as the SEC has proven again and again…Al Conferences are not Equal. Why even include the ACC in any discussion? As far as I am concerned the PAC 12 and Big 10 have disrespected Southern Football for decades and now are not only eating crow but getting their arse handed to them on a regular basis….all expect uga of course and the embarassment against Mich St.
sting_em
May 30th, 2012
7:35 pm
Sixteen may be too much for college football with conference championships. I wish they would go back to a 11 game schedule. If they went to a 12 game schedule and gave the top 4 teams that have won their conference championship a bye. Then give the remaining two or three spots to the highest ranked teams. Also, no more than two teams per conference.
charles s.
May 30th, 2012
7:48 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:55 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
And the Big 10, Pac 12, also, right? This sounds like another vote for my idea of having the SEC create its own football subdivision, that way they don’t have to worry about all of those other horrible teams that shouldn’t be allowed on the same field as them.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:00 pm
When ANY team in the Big East, ACC, Big 12, PAC 10, Big 10 can lineup and play the SEC schedule week in and week out and /or any of these So called Power Schools can line up and play with the No.2 or No. 3 or even No. 4 team in the SEC we can all use the word “fair’/ Do not dare use the word “FAIR” when it comes to College Football. The SEC was royally screwed for years by the biased Media and Coaches from the North until coaches like Bear Bryant, General Neyland, Shug Jordon, and later with Bobby Bowden, Vince Dooley would line up an offer to go play those teams and lay the spanking on them in their place. In the past 10 years the dominance turned, the SEC went out -hired the best coaches, paid the best coaches, built the best facilities, recruited the best players and now win with that combination and the Television people want to broadcast those games in front of packed houses even when two teams down the pecking order in the SEC are playing each other on a saturday night.
In the SEC Football is a way of life and we revolve our weekends around “what time is kickoff on saturday?” while in many other places it is more about making an appearance at the game. Basketball in the Northeast is like college football is in the south and I have no problem with that, just do not try to tell me the ‘fair” thing to do is put only conference winners in the playoff when we all know that other conferences do not hold their water compared to the SEC and winning the SEC is much tougher to do than playing Washington St. Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon St, or Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, or Virginia, N.C. State, Boston College, Duke, Maryland, etc …In the SEC even our little sisters are good enough to beat you on saturdays.
;
BigCat
May 30th, 2012
8:00 pm
This is real simple. Folks are going to complain who is #9 in an 8 team playoff. If you can’t finish #4 in the polls then you don’t deserve a shot at #1. It’s going to look a lot worse for say, a 15th ranked conference champ team, to get in than two teams from the same league. Either your top four or your not. Pretty simple.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:02 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:55 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
And the Big 10, Pac 12, also, right? This sounds like another vote for my idea of having the SEC create its own football subdivision, that way they don’t have to worry about all of those other horrible teams that shouldn’t be allowed on the same field as them.
The way the last 6 years you would be right on the money. The SEC has owned College Football and I am sure you will try to argue that as well.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:04 pm
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:24 pm
RTR22
“LSWho is still sooooo bitter about the woodshed beating in Jan that their leadership is making Fools of themselves in Destin today….Check out some of their quotes from the AD and HC. Too funny…”
Do you have proof that LSU is bitter over the BCS title game? If anything LSU fans are not happy the way the season ended. I don’t think you would be either if were number 1 since the last week of September and went 12-0.
The only thing I can agree with you on about the comments at the meetings this week is Miles saying only division games should count. He and Spurrier are wrong about that. Nothing else that LSU has stated at the meetings has been out of line or “too funny” as you say.
I admit that Bama outplayed us and outcoached us on January 8. Can you admit that you were outcoached the prior 2 meetings?
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
I will admit that LSU “outkicked” Alabama the first game in 2011, Alabama took the other 50 yards from LSU in the second game.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
8:07 pm
The way the last 6 years you would be right on the money. The SEC has owned College Football and I am sure you will try to argue that as well.
Then you agree with me that there is no reason for the SEC to keep playing division 1 football? Lets be honest, there is no chance that any non SEC team would ever beat an SEC team so what is the point in having those games? Creating their own football subdivision would allow them to control all of the money as well. It could become a sport unto itself. Maybe the SEC champion could even play the Super Bowl champion. Of course they would have to spot them some points to make it fair.