Tommy Tuberville calls for NCAAF playoff system

Needle77 · #1 10-04-2006, 03:19 PM

ESPN Article

[ QUOTE ]
"I've about had it with this playoff deal," Tuberville said after a lengthy, emotional argument for a playoff. "We all understand in our conference how tough it is. In our conference, that's about the only chance we'd have to make it. ...

..."The problem we have is you have 120 universities that are I-A and probably 25 would say they have a legitimate chance each year," he said. "And you have presidents that for some reason look at it more as for the money than having a national championship on the field. They keep coming up with lame excuses about academics. Football players miss fewer classes than anybody."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what he wanted to say after they went 13-0 and missed the NC game? Anyway, a another big coaching name coming out and saying it. When will someone listen?

Austiger · #2 10-04-2006, 03:42 PM

It may seem odd that he would say this now and not 2 years ago, but he had his reasons for waiting till now. I can only speculate:

-He felt it would hold more weight now and that it would just sound like whining before.

-He felt like 2004 was an anomoly and it wouldn't happen again and now he's sensing now that it will.

-He thought that other coaches/fans/whomever would take up the cause and it wasn't his place because he would seem biased, and now he's frustrated that hasn't happened.

-The bowl contracts are closer to ending so the timing is better.

..but I'm almost certain it's this one:

-The extra BCS game and 12th game are a slap in the face from the presidents who have said they didn't want an extra game because of the time it takes away from student-athletes.

Regardless, I feel this is the strongest statement by a high-profile coach to date on a playoff system, and hopefully it will fuel the fire. This quote is great:

"Presidents take the money and go spend it, but they don't worry about the business of making it better," Tuberville said. "They keep coming up with excuses, yet we're playing [the national championship game] Jan. 8. It's hypocritical."

BWebb · #3 10-04-2006, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When will someone listen?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the answer in the same article:

[ QUOTE ]
...but he said he doubts it will happen in his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

MyTurn2Raise · #4 10-04-2006, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ESPN Article

[ QUOTE ]
"I've about had it with this playoff deal," Tuberville said after a lengthy, emotional argument for a playoff. "We all understand in our conference how tough it is. In our conference, that's about the only chance we'd have to make it. ...

..."The problem we have is you have 120 universities that are I-A and probably 25 would say they have a legitimate chance each year," he said. "And you have presidents that for some reason look at it more as for the money than having a national championship on the field. They keep coming up with lame excuses about academics. Football players miss fewer classes than anybody."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what he wanted to say after they went 13-0 and missed the NC game? Anyway, a another big coaching name coming out and saying it. When will someone listen?

[/ QUOTE ]

because a playoff system would suck and introduce even more doubt on a system that actually has the best title team year-in and year-out

Go through every season and try to pick out the top 4, 8, or 16 teams---it would be absolutely ridiculous and biased toward 'name' schools

It's unfortunate that Auburn didn't get to play the one year they went undefeated. But, the only reason they couldn't say they were national champs is because everyone wants to crown a national champ so bad. If the BCS didn't exist, there would have been zero problems with a dual title. For example, does anyone really doubt that both Penn St and Nebraska were national champs when they shared in the 90s?
This isn't a pro sport with 30 something teams. It's a sport with 117 teams and 2 national champs, in those rare occurances, isn't a big deal.

God forbid they should go to the crappy March Madness set-up where only twice in the last 30 years have #1 and #2 met for the title.

God forbid they should ruin the best regular season in all of sports by eliminating the importance of games. I mean, that's what has been so beautiful about the Texas-Ohio State games the last two years...the national title was at stake.

Go perfect or go home.
The national title is decided on the field nearly every year through a 12-13 game playoff. Why would anyone want to destroy that?

I do wish that if 4 teams somehow go undefeated, you could have a 4-team single elimination playoff.

If 3 teams go, it's a much more interesting case.

bernie · #5 10-04-2006, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
God forbid they should go to the crappy March Madness set-up where only twice in the last 30 years have #1 and #2 met for the title.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really a basketball fan, but March Madness rocks. It'd be nice if CFB could adopt something like this. One big problem is that MM plays alot of games in a relatively short time which isn't really possible with CFB.

[ QUOTE ]
Go perfect or go home.

[/ QUOTE ]

You kind of have to do that in March Madness, don't you? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
God forbid they should ruin the best regular season in all of sports by eliminating the importance of games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's the best regular season in sports.

I think the games would still be important. Maybe some late season games might lose a little. But then, most late season games are conference games and more damaging to lose, poll-wise, than earlier games.

But, how important was the Big12 title game, when OU got their assess kicked by K-State? Apparently, not very important. Thankfully they changed that.

Not to mention, there are many Bowl games that, unless your team is in it, seem pretty meaningless. BUT, it does help spread some money around to lesser teams.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a sport with 117 teams and 2 national champs, in those rare occurances, isn't a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm not really concerned with a playoff. The BCS adding another game should actually help some of the smaller schools. Personally, I think there are too many bowl games.

Now, if someone could just explain how BYU got the NC in '85...(Buddy of mine just showed me how the Huskies got screwed out of that one [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

b

lastchance · #6 10-04-2006, 05:23 PM

4 team playoff would be greater than 2 team NC in almost every case. Who doesn't want to see OSU get another shot at Texas? Who doesn't want to watch Reggie Bush and the USC offense against competition worthy of them? Who likes having Auburn in 2004 have no shot at the NCAA championship (though I think they're overrated)?

I think 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4 would also be very compelling matchups, while still giving us the 1 vs. 2 a very large amount of the time, especially when it is clear who 1 vs. 2 is. And after 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4, if 1 and 2 lose, they'll generally have the same # of losses as 4 and 3 anyway.

Just one extra week. Two more games. Better matchups.

Needle77 · #7 10-04-2006, 05:24 PM

I think the point of Tuberville saying what he was saying is the fact that the SEC in particular is the least likely out of all the BCS conferences to have a National Championship. I don't think there is much arguement to the fact that its the best conference in football.

lastchance · #8 10-04-2006, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point of Tuberville saying what he was saying is the fact that the SEC in particular is the least likely out of all the BCS conferences to have a National Championship. I don't think there is much arguement to the fact that its the best conference in football.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. The best 5 conferences are generally interchangeable at the top over the long run. According to Sagarin, SEC the past 2 years has actually been the worst of the top 5 group. They generally play crappy Nonconference schedules against free win types of teams. A SEC 12-1 very generally means less than ACC/Pac-10/Big 12/Big Ten 12-1.

Another rant: Either conferences should have a title game or they shouldn't. This causes unbalance.

MyTurn2Raise · #9 10-04-2006, 05:28 PM

hmmmmm....first there is argument that it's the best conference
Sagarin's ratings, for instance, have it 3rd

also, they mostly schedule crap out of conference which makes up for the 1 or 2 tougher games they might face in conference.
Look at what USC has on their schedule. Look at who Ohio State played. While, the SEC is the best IMO, they are not that much better.

MyTurn2Raise · #10 10-04-2006, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
4 team playoff would be greater than 2 team NC in almost every case. Who doesn't want to see OSU get another shot at Texas? Who doesn't want to watch Reggie Bush and the USC offense against competition worthy of them? Who likes having Auburn in 2004 have no shot at the NCAA championship (though I think they're overrated)?

I think 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4 would also be very compelling matchups, while still giving us the 1 vs. 2 a very large amount of the time, especially when it is clear who 1 vs. 2 is. And after 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4, if 1 and 2 lose, they'll generally have the same # of losses as 4 and 3 anyway.

Just one extra week. Two more games. Better matchups.

[/ QUOTE ]

go through and try to choose the top4 every year
how does one decide between #4 and #5, #6, etc? That is the controversy machine. Teams that lost deserve nothing and should be grateful if they get another miracle chance.