After the second best championship game in any sport that I have witnessed (UT over USC is near impossible to top), the BCS seemed to have “gotten it right” in its last go around. Some may argue that a Michigan State team with a single 4-point loss and every other win by double-digits was the second best team, but nevertheless the Seminoles had the best season as well as fielded the best all-around team.
While the BCS’ job in its last year may have seemed easy, the new College Football Playoff would have had one of the toughest decisions of any season (had it been in effect) in recent memory. The CFP’s responsibility is to have its committee select the top four teams in a seeded, single-elimination tournament. After the dust had settled from the conference championships, the consensus top-3 teams for a theoretical tournament were Florida State, Auburn, and Alabama. The fourth team was a wild card in itself between Stanford, Michigan State, and Baylor. The committee would have chosen Stanford as the last team in, and would their selection have been the correct one?
I know that hindsight is always 20/20, and it is impossible to tell the future. However, if we cannot learn from what could have been as to what actually happened, then the correct decision will not be made. In this instance, the two “wild card” teams Alabama and Stanford promptly went and were defeated by one team (Oklahoma) that had no business in the discussion, and another team (Michigan State) that was the last team out. The next team out after the Spartans, Baylor, also was soundly defeated, except by a team (UCF) that was not even in the conversation even though they probably should have been. What does this all mean?
As college football fans and analysts, our minds carry bias over: whether it is from season to season, game to game, or even team to team within a conference. An SEC fan is going to think his team played the hardest schedule while a Big XII fan will argue for his own. It also carries over to the ESPN bloggers and such because if you look at their inter-conference predictions they tend to be more upset minded with their own conference. With that in mind, the selection of the four CFP teams should try to be made with the least amount of subjectivity and prejudice, while sticking to factual theories. That is why I have come to the realization that only conference champions should be allowed in the playoff, as it is set at 4 teams (I do agree that it should be 8 teams, at which point this argument becomes unnecessary, but that is for another day).
This is where the Aggies, Razorbacks, and Crimson Tiders start shouting about the SEC’s “dominance” and such. Yes, the conference has dominated the title game; I am not trying to argue that they have had the majority of the best overall teams the past 8 years. What people don’t realize is that the second SEC team in a BCS bowl is a paltry 3-5 over that stretch, including an 0-5 record against teams currently in the power-five conferences. Think about that: the second team from the SEC that would have gotten into the CFP failed to beat a team that (in almost every occasion) was not even in the discussion of the top-4. Moreover, in general, the SEC was 3-6 against teams in BCS games overall against the Big XII, ACC and Pac-12. So what is this telling us?
What I am trying to say is that while the conference has been the best, it is not nearly as overly dominant as perceived. Take this year for example: we would have seen an Iron Bowl rematch in the semifinal of the CFP, and left a deserving Michigan State team out of it completely. After the bowls, it is plain to see that the Spartans have every right to be a part of the tournament, while Alabama was beaten by two touchdowns (if someone wants to argue that you can’t judge this by bowl wins/losses, let me remind you that those wins are exactly why you are arguing for the SEC’s dominance). What this really means, is that it is impossible to tell the best team in the country without giving each team its fair shot. The second place SEC team controlled its own destiny: it either lost in the SEC Championship or to the eventual winner during the regular season. Why should they get a second chance and other teams should get none at all?
This harkens back to 2011 when Alabama beat LSU in an All-SEC BCS Championship Game. This was the absolute low-point of the BCS to me. The whole slogan for the system was that “every game matters” and people preach that about college football and how it has the best regular season since every game matters so much. You know, except for the game in which LSU beats Alabama, IN Alabama, but still had to play them again in the title game. That game made the whole system a complete farce: the two teams very well could have been the best two in the country, but who the hell could know that if they don’t play anyone else? What was decided and settled on the field with absolutely no partisanship or discrepancy? LSU winning against the Tide and earning its right to the final game. I mean, do we not remember what started the SEC’s streak? The BCS barely popping Florida ahead of Michigan in what would have been the same rematch scenario: both teams are thought to be the best, but if they would have played again, Florida never would have gotten a chance.
So that leaves us with the conundrum of picking four of the five conference champions. Some years, like this season, it will be quite easy: the Big XII beat each other out of contention, so Florida State, Auburn, Michigan State and Stanford (by virtue of much better wins than any of the Big XII teams, although all of a sudden Baylor’s thrashing of OU made it look a lot better but the loss to UCF worse) are in the playoff. Other years it might be tougher deciding between a couple of one-loss champions for the last spot, and hopefully that scenario would lead to an 8-team playoff. To show that this is not some “the world against the SEC” theory, I am a Big XII team’s fan and openly admit that no one deserved to be in the top-4 this season. Just as in some past years there were probably two or even three of the top-4 teams in the nation within the conference, but only the top one would move forward. It is the only fair and logical way.
While this rule may leave the second best team out of the tournament should they lose their conference to the best team, it would almost assuredly include the best team since conference strength changes so much. That’s the real kicker with college football: each team is at least 25% different year to year. It is impossible to know the strength of the teams between conferences until the best of each plays each other. To assure that each team is given a proper chance, only one team per conference should be allowed in.
Will this happen? Almost assuredly no, because the powers at be do not want to anger the money-maker programs that will usually qualify as this wild card team. So could two SEC teams get in next season, and meet each other in the championship game? Yes, I could see this happening, but honestly I think it is more likely a repeat of this season, where two would get in and neither win a post-season game. Hopefully then, the committee and NCAA will look at the situation with no prior preconceived notion and just facts.
SEAHAWKS -8 over Saints
This line is one of the hardest I have seen in a while. I do not think that the Saints can win the game in Seattle, but their backdoor cover potential is so high in a playoff game. Since 2004 there has been one massive upset of a more than a touchdown favorite in the division round every year except one. This is the popular pick for that to happen this year, but Seattle is just too solid at home. I’ll take the Seahawks and their defense to make a play late to preserve the cover.
PATRIOTS -7 over Colts
Anything more than 7 (where it started this week) and I would be a little more fearful, but right at a touchdown I like New England. This is also a popular upset pick as people start telling the future legend of Andrew Luck and how he slew Tom Brady in Foxborough. Lest we forget that even Peyton did not make it to the AFC Championship game until his 6th season, and did not beat Brady in the playoffs until his 9th. Suddenly, the Patriots are the “favorite-dog” as in everyone thinks they are too injured and old to beat this young, upstart Indy team. That seems just the spot that Brady and Belichick thrive.
PANTHERS +1 over 49ers
Do you want to know how many home underdogs have lost in the divisional round in the past 12 years? That number would be zero. There are not that many instances, but I cannot buck a trend like that. I also think that Collin Kaepernick is getting entirely too much credit for his performance last week. I mean, he threw would what have been a game-ending pick-six directly at the Green Bay corner, who just flat out dropped it. If that was Tony Romo I am 100% sure he catches it, returns it for a touchdown, and breaks Romo’s arm or something on the way. Somehow Kaepernick got lucky yet again, but at some point it will run out.
BRONCOS -9 over Chargers
Last week I was all over San Diego and if I had not been so stubborn about my pre-season pick I would have picked them to win. Nevertheless, for all of the same reasons I picked them to beat Cincy, I will pick them to get throttled by Denver. I mean do we really think Peyton will get befuddled by the same defense twice within a month and a half? Let alone can San Diego shut Denver below 30 for the THIRD time this season? I think it will be a shootout, and I will always take this Broncos team in a game that creeps toward 100.
Since I was stubborn about the Packers and Bengals, I know switch my Super Bowl pick to the Patriots versus the Seahawks. Lock it in. Until one loses this weekend.
10-Point Teaser of the Week:
Broncos/Chargers OVER 42.5, Patriots +3, Panthers +11
Last Week: 2-1-1
Overall: 137-115-8
No comments:
Post a Comment