Seems they are finally making some changes to the BCS. I like the fact they are seriously considering the "Alabama rule" "Scott also favors a proposal that would allow only conference champions to participate in a playoff. Last season, No. 2 Alabama defeated No. 1 LSU 21-0 in the BCS National Championship Game, after the Crimson Tide didn't win the SEC or SEC West." http://espn.go.com/college-football...lection-committee-potential-four-team-playoff However I still think a committee is subjective and there will always be controversy if you just take the top 4. But strength of schedule, etc is now back in play. I love the conference champion rule, that would rule out a ton of the arguing. As most people feel you cannot be a national champion if you cannot even win your own division or conference. NFL references please leave at the door. Apples to Oranges. But glad to see the last several years (and yes we have been the beneficiary of the past so not casting stones) there is finally some change.
IMO the top priority at the moment shouldn't be forming a perfect system right away; it should be abolishing an inept, corrupt BCS system. To that end we can start with a simple 4-team, 2-round tournament and make incremental improvements in the future, so long as the old system is swept away. In the NC picture these conference championships and regular-season games have to start meaning something. But the argument against using only conference champions is that a weak 4-loss Big East champ would be NC eligible while a 1-loss SEC runner-up would be excluded.
you know the more and more I think about it, there was no way in hell LSU was going to win that game. It was a lose lose situation. This is the first time I have even mentioned it, since a few days after it happened.
Everyone's heads were in the wrong place for that game, fans and players alike IMO. Blackwell's comments confirmed that in my mind.
I was pretty confident we were going to lose on the fact LSU had everything to lose and Bama had nothing to lose. It is the double jeopardy effect. LSU had already beaten Bama. We already rode that roller coaster. To tell the team and the fans "Yeh all that didnt count try again" I thought was demoralizing for us and energizing for Bama. You could sense it the day before the game. Fact is Bama is a great team, to ask LSU to beat them twice was a tall order. Had Bama beaten LSU at home and we had the luxury of a do over I would think LSU would have won. Also I cannot ignore the fact our QB situation only compounded the situation. And quite frankly Miles was simply outcoached that one game. Pure and simple. But yes I always felt if we won it was going to be an upset. Bama was the only team last year that could have beaten LSU. To give them two shots at it was highly unfair. But it is what it is. 13-1 best record in football and an SEC championship is nothing to sneeze at.
"But the argument against using only conference champions is that a weak 4-loss Big East champ would be NC eligible while a 1-loss SEC runner-up would be excluded." No true they would be eliminated solely on the fact they have 4 losses. I agree the SEC is more difficult BUT I still firmly and always have (See UGA last time) if you cannot win your conference you cannot win a national championship. Last year it would have been Okie State and LSU. Which is what it should have been. If you go back in history this would work and the SEC would still have all its NC's
I'm not saying it's likely that a 4-loss team would get in, but they would technically be eligible, and it's a possibility to consider. I happen to agree on the conference champion point. This isn't basketball where we can have a 64-team, month-long tournament. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Agreed my friend. Your conference and conference championship are in my mind the "64 team tournament" It is possible though. Bama and Arky for example last year where what top 5. So technically 2 of the top 5 teams would have not been eligible. BUt you could argue had your chance, you lost. Bottom line is no one will ever be happy
I don't see why they can't just have a 16 team playoff, include the bowl games, and have a panel of independent voters choose who the 16 are. Just like they do in basketball. Like TT said, everyone can't be happy, however the system we have now is completely flawed. What if LSU would have rested everyone for the SEC championship game last season, and lost to Georgia. LSU would have probably played Okie State instead of Alabama. Alabama got a free ride to the championship game on our backs, and it bit us in the ass. Something has to change.
They will never do that because of the "cost" of traveling D1 football teams. They can do this in DII because usuallly they have 10 fans at these games. But for the big boys the money people will always want to protect the BIG BIG $$$$$ of the Bowl system and they will use the excuse "To much football for the student athelete" but it really comes down to $$$. I think the fact Alabama who didnt even win their own conference won a national title AND the fact that two SEC West teams where in the game and the other conferences where shut out raised the ire of many. Hence you are seeing these meetings now. If there is ANY good news to come out of us losing the rematch it was it caused many to say "enough" had LSU won I bet you 10 bucks we would hear "The system worked" But Bama who most felt had no business in that game and felt they got a break NO one else got or will ever get caused the powers that be to make a change. Slive is predictably one of the one dissensions from the conference only rule. But of course he is. He wants more SEC only title games. I see his point as well. I know if we were in Bama's shoes several of us would have been crying bloody murder like they were last year about "Deserving" another shot. So I dont fault Bama fans. I fault the system.
