Saban Fatigue/Fed Up?

[JR4AU]

This just the start of Stugotz rant.  At the end here where he calls out Minkah Fitzpatrick is when he started rolling.

He just sounds like a whiner.  One of the legions of talking heads with SEC fatigue, taking it out on bammer and Saban. 

[WiregrassTiger]

I think we should just crown Alabama as permanent champions and the rest of the schools play for second place every year in a playoff.

[jmar]

I think we should just crown Alabama as permanent champions and the rest of the schools play for second place every year in a playoff.

We are all winners.
I like it.

[Buzz Killington]

We are all winners.
I like it.

Somebody is not listening.  bammer the only winners...even they old coarch said he ain't nothin' but a drunk cheater winner.

[Godfather]

When you say "5 championship winners", do you mean the declared champions, not from a game?

Your words, they confuse.

Correct..the champions of the power 5 teams.  If there are no divisions there should be one standing at the top.

In this situation, Auburn would have been the winner. Let the committee decide who's more deserving of an at-large bama or UGA.

[Godfather]

I should have wrote conference winners my bad

[AUChizad]

or how bout the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards.

Even 5 + 1 wildcard with byes to the top 2 would be great.

And in that scenario in 2018, I STILL would have left Bama out for UCF. Ohio State also would have got the shot they deserved far more than Bama. Bama would be next in line for the wildcard probably in my world, although Wisconsin, Penn State, Notre Dame would have had decent arguments.

Big Ten got royally fucked this year at Bama's behest.

[AUChizad]

Correct..the champions of the power 5 teams.  If there are no divisions there should be one standing at the top.

In this situation, Auburn would have been the winner. Let the committee decide who's more deserving of an at-large bama or UGA.

As much as I'd love to Marty McFly back to nix the SEC Championship and the resulting shitty Peach Bowl outcome, I think championships are useful and serve their purpose. It's really the fairest way to determine. It's the first game of the playoffs. And the only way mathematically you could have each team in a 14+ team conference crown a winner in a fair way given that each team meeting up has played 100% of the teams in the conference combined (all of the west for the west team and all of the east for the east team) before facing off against eachother. That part ain't broke.

[Godfather]

As much as I'd love to Marty McFly back to nix the SEC Championship and the resulting shitty Peach Bowl outcome, I think championships are useful and serve their purpose. It's really the fairest way to determine. It's the first game of the playoffs. And the only way mathematically you could have each team in a 14+ team conference crown a winner in a fair way given that each team meeting up has played 100% of the teams in the conference combined (all of the west for the west team and all of the east for the east team) before facing off against eachother. That part ain't broke.

But it is broke.  My point wasn't about getting Auburn into the playoffs.  It was about the fact that everyone in the playoffs played an extra game except one.  That is a flawed system.

[Godfather]

In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS.  A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion. 

Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.

[AUChizad]

But it is broke.  My point wasn't about getting Auburn into the playoffs.  It was about the fact that everyone in the playoffs played an extra game except one.  That is a flawed system.

That should be counted against them. Ohio State should be in before them. UCF also had to play and win their conference.

Conceivably, the 6th team COULD get in without playing the extra game, but in my scenario #1 & #2 get a bye while they play the #3 team.

[AUChizad]

In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS.  A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion. 

Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.

Yeah, the idea that "We can have a playoff, but then it has to be 100% subjective and we just will have to put whoever in we damn well feel like" is a false choice that was sold to the fans. We were so desperate to get some form of playoff, most of us didn't complain much. But I agree we definitely should go back to the BCS system of ranking.

[Snaggletiger]

In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS.  A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion. 

Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.

My thought exactly.  The BCS ranking system seemed to get it right and was consistent.  Just leave that in place to select the 4 or 6 or 8 or what the hell ever.

[wesfau2]

In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS. 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BCS was too straightforward.  With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.

[Godfather]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BCS was too straightforward.  With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.

I get that it's all about money.  I was just talking figuratively. 

However the money that would be made with more teams in the playoffs, it surprises me that they don't do it.

[AUChizad]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BCS was too straightforward.  With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.

I 100% agree, but I don't understand why.

Why is it less exciting for viewers to wait to see what computers OBJECTIVELY determined to be the rankings rather than what a tiny group of clearly biased individuals with obvious conflicts of interests decide to radically shift to week-to-week practically on their whims?

Why is it not more exciting to see what the computers spit out based on constantly tweaked and perfected algorithms AVERAGED against what the subjective sports writers have to say? To me that's more interesting, not only because it's more scientific, but also more democratic (much more BCS voters than Playoff Committee voters), AND to me, it makes what the talking heads on ESPN are yapping about far, far more significant since their opinions are actually a factor in the matter.

[Snaggletiger]

Even in the BCS era, the talking heads were making their predictions and having whole shows on it.  While you could break down what all went into the BCS system, you still had to predict the outcome at the end of the day.  But the system was consistent and always seemed to get it mostly right.  Basically, what we've done is gone back to the way college football used to be.  While there is a 4 team playoff, it still comes back to opinions.  The eye test.  That method has royally screwed many a team over the years, including our beloved Tigers. 

Plus, my counselor says a slight increase in my medication should finally get my 1983 rage issues and nervous tic under complete control.

[wesfau2]

I 100% agree, but I don't understand why.

Why is it less exciting for viewers to wait to see what computers OBJECTIVELY determined to be the rankings rather than what a tiny group of clearly biased individuals with obvious conflicts of interests decide to radically shift to week-to-week practically on their whims?

Why is it not more exciting to see what the computers spit out based on constantly tweaked and perfected algorithms AVERAGED against what the subjective sports writers have to say? To me that's more interesting, not only because it's more scientific, but also more democratic (much more BCS voters than Playoff Committee voters), AND to me, it makes what the talking heads on ESPN are yapping about far, far more significant since their opinions are actually a factor in the matter.

With the cold hard numbers, the only ones arguing the placement are the fans of teams with no hope of overcoming the 6 formulas or whatnot.

The current system, with no definitive standard, is much more debateable.

I agree that it makes no logical sense if you want to accurately pick the champ.  I don't think the PTB give half a hairy shit about that.  They want money and exclusivity.  The addition of extra playoff spots means splitting that big ole pie up a few more ways.  You can bet that Orange/Rose/Fiesta and Sugar held their noses when adding Cotton and Peach.  They will certainly balk at any suggestion that the Poulon Weedeater bowl be mentioned in the same breath as the Grandaddy of Them All.  Or that those rubes get a share of their playoff money.

[The Six]

Plus, my counselor says a slight increase in my medication should finally get my 1983 rage issues and nervous tic under complete control.

More alcohol is not going to do you already damaged liver any favors. You need a better therapist.

As for who should get in all that...there's a problem if you make it automatic for conference champs. Say we get a year when Texas A&M goes 12-0 and wins the West and Tennessee wins the East with an 8-4 record. By some stroke of the Jimbo, UT returns a pick six in the closing minutes and wins the SEC CG. Now we have a 9-4 team in a field of 12-1, 13-0 playoff teams. You just handed someone an easier game in the first round.

Side note, that's exactly what happened this year. When Bama was lined up against Clemson, it gave them the best chance to make it to a "historic sixth appearance in the BCS/CFP era" title game because they knew the opponent so well. At least Georgia (I hate a Dawg!) had to go out west and solve the riddle of Baker Mayfield.

Is it wrong to root for a meteor shower in Atlanta Monday?

[Token]

I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?