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
8:13 pm
Lets see,
Duke, Maryland, Virginia, N.C State
or
Indian, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa
or
Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon St, Washington St,
or
Cinncinatti, Connecticut, Syracuse, Rutgers
or
Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky,
Any one of those last 4 teams would be a tougher matchup ….
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:17 pm
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.
Bob,
You do realize the next step in this whole mess is to place about 50 teams in its own league and have players get paid, and have an NFL type league while attending school. It is coming, it may be another 10 years before it happens but we will see it happen next.
GT GRAD
May 30th, 2012
8:23 pm
It is really simple.
The BCS rankings (computer & polls) should completely ignore games against any teams outside of the Top 100. The Top 8 teams play using four of the BCS games as the first round. Second round games are played two weeks later and two weeks later (the weekend piror to the Superbowl) we have a true National Championship game!
It is sooooooooooo simple……………….come on guys; the solution is so obvious.
If your team is not in the Top 8……….play a better schedule and win enough games to earn a spot in the Top 8!
TechRon
May 30th, 2012
8:41 pm
I pretty much agree with Harold above, and I have been saying this for years. To make the top 15 bowl games into playoff games would make them twice as big as they are now. For the other 25 or so bowl games, which would have exactly the same significance that they do now, nothing would change. Georgia Tech and the arrogant Paul Johnson can go lose to Iowa State or Fresno State in a small bowl (with an unprepared and uninspired performance) and almost no one would care, as they do now. But in those other games that are part of the playoff system, the whole nation would be riveted on each of them. Commercial appeal would be huge and it would be a big winner for everyone. Do it.
You know, now that they are actually going to have a playoff, all the idiots who said it was impossible and would never happen have to finally shut up. Why exactly was it impossible? Why would it never happen when it is the product that the market has been screaming for ever since Notre Dame Tied Michigan State 10-10 and was voted the championship way back in about 1965? Incidentally, I think Alabama was undefeated that same year but ended up 3rd. Why was it impossible when all other divisions of NCAA football have a playoff? Why was it impossible when all other NCAA sports have a playoff or real championship?
The only reason is the bowls, especially the Rose Bowl. Why would everyone stand by and allow the Rose Bowl to run the show? Especially since with a real playoff system, the Rose Bowl would be even bigger?
It is old boy politics, and I guess enough of them have finally died off and gotten out of the way.
Bill Salokar
May 30th, 2012
8:47 pm
As long as their are humans voting in polls and man-made computer rankings, the system will be imperfect no matter how many games are in a playoff. But that makes college football what it is – something we can argue overt, pontificate about, and always imagine our team could have been there “if only.”
WestOfAthens
May 30th, 2012
9:06 pm
what is done, will be done.
How can you change things, besides being filthy rich with plenty of pull?
I am gracious for the fact the actual ‘discussion” is taking shape. Let it grow and ripen like your backyard garden. Hopefully we will reap the benefits.
HBTD
UGA VI
May 30th, 2012
9:14 pm
College football is not a democracy. It is a monopoly determined by a few old, laughing men smoking cigars in a darkened room. They don’t care what you like or think. It is all about money for the schools not what the athletes or fans would like to see.
There will never be a true college football National Championship.
Alabama had great team and won a pretty crystal football but their ‘championship’ is a myth. Even Tech has one of those things on a shelf.
Athletes should be paid too.
How many former players are dealing with brain trauma from their college days?
WTF
May 30th, 2012
9:24 pm
It should be all the conference champions so the puss conferences like the ACC & Pac 10 can feel some self esteem.
P. Bull Terrier
May 30th, 2012
9:42 pm
The biggest selling point for an 8 or 16 team playoff, aside from including more teams, is that it would reduce the need to pad the non-conference schedules with easy wins.
Look at high school football in Georgia as an example. The best teams load up their early season, non-region schedules with the best competition they can find to get themselves ready for the region schedules. You end up with match-ups like Brookwood-Valdosta, Parkview-Lowndes, Grayson – Colquitt, etc. to start the season because an early season, non-region loss or two doesn’t have any impact on a team’s chances of making the playoffs.
Instead of early season games like UGA vs. West Central North Dakota Technical State University, Alabama vs. George Walton Academy and USC vs. Georgia Tech, you could have more interesting matchups like UGA vs. Ohio St., Alabama vs. Texas and USC vs. LSU (or any other match-up you like) without eliminating half of those teams from BCS contention in the first week or two of the season. That is something that would be good for the fans and profitable for college football at the same time.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
9:50 pm
Playoff whiners don’t know jack about football. Of course there are a majority of fans who want a “fair chance” tournament scheme. That’s because the majority of fans are fans of losers. Everybody can’t be a winner — but you can still give ‘em all trophies, I guess.
Don’t know what’s so interesting about that…
Plumb Bobby
May 30th, 2012
9:59 pm
Top 4 teams, unless bama is there without winning anything. Simple!
MisterT
May 30th, 2012
10:06 pm
Mark, The SEC needs to consider the fact that they are completely hypocritical in their argument that “non-champs” should not be kept out. The SEC did not even put their “two best teams” in their own Championship game. Their own Conference Championship Game requires that the participants WIN their on DIVISION CHAMPIONSHIP for the opportunity to play for the CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP! If you don’t win your division (or conference), you don’t play for the next level.
THWg!
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:07 pm
If you really want to be fair, then every team should be assigned a number and we could just let the Lotto machine randomly seed the tournament. Can’t get more “fair” than that.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:09 pm
“The SEC did not even put their “two best teams” in their own Championship game.”
You’re right. They didn’t. That’s why this travesty shouldn’t be applied to the National Championship.
SiddyBoy
May 30th, 2012
10:46 pm
Let Steve Spurrier decide. He thinks he is the smartest person on earth. Actually he isn’t even the smartest person in SC.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
10:46 pm
Beast,
Cincy were awful in their one big bowl appearance, but didn’t their coach quit on the team and lie to them before leaving for ND?
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:53 pm
Yep… He’s really settin’ the world on fire at ND.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
10:58 pm
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:17 pm
You do realize the next step in this whole mess is to place about 50 teams in its own league and have players get paid, and have an NFL type league while attending school. It is coming, it may be another 10 years before it happens but we will see it happen next.
——
The IRS will be extremely happy with this.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
11:02 pm
If you wanted to have a truly elite league, there aren’t fifty teams out there who would qualify. Maybe about thirty.
Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Better Bettors
May 30th, 2012
11:19 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
eddie
May 30th, 2012
11:22 pm
I think this is without a doubt an improvement on the previous system yet no system will be perfect and you cant make everyone happy yet i think that the number of teams in the playoff should chosen every year and is determined by which teams are worthy of it but anyways i did an article on this http://ncaaplay.com/2012/05/nick-sabans-thoughts-on-a-college-football-playoff-actually-make-a-lot-of-sense/
Hal
May 30th, 2012
11:54 pm
I foresee pressure from the non-SEC conferences for inclusion of conference champions in the playoff scheme leading to the 4 super-conference model eventually. If it does, the Big East and ACC will be SOL.
Flounder
May 31st, 2012
2:52 am
“It should be all the conference champions so the puss conferences like the ACC & Pac 10 can feel some self esteem”
Get over yourself, tough guy. The SEC needs to accept the fact that, since so many of their teams are good (in football) and ranked highly every year, winning the conference title is just that much harder. But if the playoff system is not based, at least in some part, on conference champion invites … why have conferences in the first place???
College football playoff is a clear case of ‘I told you so’ – Chicago Sun-Times
May 31st, 2012
5:21 am
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Mike
May 31st, 2012
7:24 am
Holy Cow! This is incredibly stupid. We had 64 teams in the NCAA tournament and that wasn’t enough so they expanded that! Now the argument will be about why the 5, 6, 7, 8, etc did not get in. I could care less about the 3,4,5 teams. I only care that the top two teams battle it out for the title. And on the rare occasion when a 3rd team is clearly part of the conversation, then the “plus one” should settle it. This, again, is all about money. The “playoff” will be no better than the current system.
SEC football coaches: Put best four teams, not necessarily conference champs … – Tampabay.com | Global Sports Insiders
May 31st, 2012
7:46 am
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Voice of Reason
May 31st, 2012
8:26 am
8 teams is the way to go…anything less is not even a tournament and is just a band aide on a broken arm. An 8 team playoff also would NOT kill the bowl system…you still can have all of that. The overwhelming majority of those games mean nothing in the ‘championship’ picture anyway…still play them!
Old School
May 31st, 2012
8:35 am
Wow, the playoff hasn’t even been approved and the media is whining already that four teams isn’t enough. Why don’t we just get this over with and start out with a 64-team playoff? That way we can be like college basketball and just ignore the regular season.
Gordon
May 31st, 2012
9:07 am
Let’s declare the SEC team that looks the strongest on paper as the national champion and not play any of the games. Tailgating is still permitted at SEC schools on days that games would have been played.
Ramblnwrek
May 31st, 2012
10:05 am
While I would really like the 8 or even 16 team playoff models most here go on to describe, there are a couple of points most tend to gloss over:
1.) In December, there are finals. I know most people’s attitude towards this is less than enthusiastic. But remember the same people writing these types of articles are ths same ones that will write the article about how academics are taking a back seat to athletics (even more so than now) in the interest of getting in the playoff they so deperately want right now.
2.) No commissioner is going to give up reagular season games. Ever. Period. When we talke about money and football, the home game is king. Even my arch-rival UGA makes money when they play Alabama State or Citadel. This is the real reason why the SEC wont go to a 9 game conference schedule, they would have to give up a home game either every other year. Too much money lost. This coming from a conference where a significant number of teams make well over $100 million in football, but the lost of a single home game is too much of a loss. Extending the season goes into the other argument that “these are not PROs and thus not paid for all of the injury” argument which I will leave at that.
Thursday’s F. C. King Links « Loser with Socks
May 31st, 2012
10:40 am
[...] midst-of-cross-country-run- for-wounded-veterans.html Les Miles and the geography of tradition Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea Stay classy, Ohio state 10 Steps to Better College Football Livin’ SEC Notebook: League wants [...]
good grief
May 31st, 2012
11:36 am
no playoffs unless you’re a conf champion. that puts an emphasis on winning your conference and makes the conf champ games that more exciting and essentially another playoff game. Plus, that way we get to see how teams from across the country fair against each other….unlike last year which was awful seeing a rematch between two team not only in the same conf but the same stinkin division too
SEC football coaches: Put best four teams, not necessarily conference champs … – Tampabay.com
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
[...] coaches want proposed playoff to include best 4 teams, not …Washington PostUSA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Lexington Herald Leaderall 236 news [...]
College Football: 10 Greatest Defenses in the BCS Era – Bleacher Report | My Football Search
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
[...] playoff to be limited to conference championsPalm Beach PostWashington Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 240 news [...]
Spurrier: Pay players $3500 to $4000 per season – SI.com
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
[...] playoff to be limited to conference championsPalm Beach PostWashington Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 241 news [...]
Column: Grim images rain on football’s fiesta – Fox News
May 31st, 2012
3:18 pm
[...] playoff to include best 4 teams, not …Washington PostPalm Beach Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 241 news [...]
M'ville Braves Fan
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
There are very few scenero’s that make any sense. DivII and DivIII have playoffs why can’t DivI??? They can. In the SEC for example, The East and West have 7 teams each. Play all teams in your division(6 games), 2 games against the other division and two out of conference games for a total of 10 games. Conference Championship Game with winner getting automatic berth. Conferences that do not have a CCG do not get automatic berths. At large berths are based on SOS, SOV, OSOS and OSOV. The polls have very little to do with this since they are just a popularity contests. The computers are programmed to measure criteria that sometimes do not equal the best competition. So they are out. Strength Of Schedule(SOS) is based off overall records of your opponents, Opponents SOS(OSOS) is the records of your opponents opponents. Same with Strength of Victory(SOV) and Opponents SOV(OSOV). Then you have a 16 team playoff. This would mean the Champion would play a max of 15 Games. Currently the SEC Champion plays 12 Season games, CCG and Bowl Game then the Plus 1 which makes……DA DAH 15 Games. Instead of having a month off in Dec have one week off between CCG and start of Playoffs which would mean a month of competitive playoffs and if you still want Bowl games that works like the NIT in NCAA BB. This would work.
College Football: 10 Greatest Defenses in the BCS Era – Bleacher Report | Better Bettors
May 31st, 2012
5:15 pm
[...] ReportEasy part is saying yes to a college football playoff | The RepublicThe RepublicAlas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panaceaAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Naples Daily News -STLtoday.com -The Northwest Florida [...]
Nick L.
June 1st, 2012
12:05 am
If this kind of system is good enough to elect our President every 4 years, I suppose it’s good enough to figure out who the best college football team is, too. Or, not.
matt
June 5th, 2012
1:08 am
I wish this would been done last season because i dont think LSU and Alabama was that good. When you play teams with weak offenses it is easy for a good defense to look great and the bottom line is there was no great offenses in the SEC like there was in the BIG 12. I think OSU or Stanford would of walked all over LSU and Alabama and showed the fact that neither of them was good enough to go up against a great offense and win. I think if LSU played Stanford and Alabama played OSU it would of ended up being OSU and Stanford playing for the national title and we would of had an exciting game to watch instead of a couple teams with no offense and a game where you put the newspaper in front of your face and say boring a bunch of times.