Skip to main content

In light of Alabama's win, the college football playoff needs some changes...

Did the best team win the college football playoff this year? That's debatable. Did the Alabama Crimson Tide deserve to win the title, though? Without question, no. According to the playoff selection committee's own guidelines, conference championships are a critical component to a team's resumé. While I've never been a huge fan of conference championship games, given the current format, this is how things are. Having said that, Alabama didn't win their conference championship game this year. Not only that, they didn't even compete in the SEC title game. Due to their in-conference loss to Auburn in the Iron Bowl, the Crimson Tide finished the regular season 3rd in the Southeastern Conference, behind Georgia and Auburn, respectively. While the winner of the SEC title game was a shoe-in (and deservedly so) for the four-team playoff, how does it make any lick of sense to select the 3rd seed from the conference as the #4 team in the playoff?

Let's delve into this a bit deeper. Georgia had one loss, split two games with Auburn, and won their conference championship. Auburn had three losses, split two games with Georgia, beat Alabama, and played in their conference championship game. Alabama had one loss, was defeated by Auburn, and did not play in their conference championship game.

So, let me get this straight. The winner of Auburn/Alabama was to play Georgia in the SEC title game. Auburn won the game, before falling to Georgia, and Alabama then sneaks into the playoffs? Say what? So does that mean, if the Tide had defeated Auburn, only to lose to Georgia, Auburn may have snuck into the field of four? I'm sorry, but something is screwy here...

To illustrate this even more clearly, allow me to showcase this series of events like a bracket:

SEC Semifinals
1) Georgia
Bye

3) Auburn
2) Alabama

SEC Finals
1) Georgia
2) Auburn

Playoffs
3) Georgia
4) Alabama

So essentially, while both Georgia and Auburn had to square off against one another for a second time for the right to hold the SEC championship trophy, Alabama was rewarded a bye week for their defeat against in-state rival Auburn. I'm sorry Tide fans, but that's f**ked up...

Given this illogical series of events, some changes need to occur in the college football playoff system. They need to either do away with conference championship games, as it seems to often times unintentionally damage one participant's resumé, while at the same time benefiting an outsider's odds. If not, then we need to expand the field to at least 6, if not 8. We then wouldn't be as apt to making such illogical selections like Alabama this past season. We'd have more flexibility on league runners-up. This year, we would likely have had the following teams in a field of 8: 1) Clemson, 2) Oklahoma, 3) Georgia, 4) Alabama, 5) Ohio State, 6) USC, 7) Wisconsin, 8) Central Florida. Even if we do away with conference championships, expanding to a field of 8 may be a wise move in the long run. Regardless, while Alabama played well in their two postseason games and may very well have been the best team, they didn't deserve to get into the playoffs in the first place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"