@McMurphyESPN: Saban: “I don’t think you should have to win 6 games to go to a bowl game"

Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN)
7/17/14, 1:41 PM
Saban said teams should schedule harder games, then selection committee would rank best 70 teams for bowls, even w/out winning record

Just what we need, more selection committees to slant the selections to all P5 teams even 0-12 P5 teams.

BCS - CFP - P5 - whatever you want to call it is becoming more crooked than FIFA!

Saban isn't going to coach much longer. He has gone to classes to improve his TV profile and he's starting to toss out some opinions designed generate chatter.

Another year or two he's going to be paid well as a TV personality.

Please just break away and then have an "everybody goes to a bowl game!" system. We aren't dumb Saban. Schedule harder games = schedule more P5 games but not be faulted for a crappy record.

If Saban had several several 6-6 years the bama's would run him out on a rail after they removed his statue.

(07-17-2014 02:11 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Just what we need, more selection committees to slant the selections to all P5 teams even 0-12 P5 teams.

BCS - CFP - P5 - whatever you want to call it is becoming more crooked than FIFA!

That is exactly what they want. The P5+ND would take up 65/70 bowl spots, revenue and exposure. They would argue they are not excluding the G5 because they have fove spots. Supporters would argue they deserve it because the G5 brings "nothing to the table".

I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

Sounds like Saban is already under contract with ESPN to use his position of influence to speak ESPN's talking points in exchange for a cushy TV job later. The guy has gone complete gadfly.

(07-17-2014 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

Not really. The P5 schools that usually finish 4-8 only got their four wins because they beat an FCS school, 2-3 bottom feeders and sometimes another really bad P5 school. Meanwhile, a lot of the G5 schools end up 7-5 becaue they have to schedule 2-3 tough P5 school games (usually all on the road) and then drop a game or two to the top teams in the conference (who also beat P5 schools).

Bottom line: if you don't have a winning season you don't deserve to go to a bowl game. Also, there are enough bowl games now that teams that finish with a winning record deserve to go to a bowl game.

(07-17-2014 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

I'd be fine with excluding G5 who are 6-6 if their sos isn't above a threshold. I'd also be fine not counting any FCS win which would also limit some P5 teams too.

On other point to make.

When CFP was first being fleshed out. ACC and Sun Belt proposed that the new system should consistent of a four team playoff and 16 bowls. Using whatever method everyone in the country would be rated 1-20. Then 1-4 go to the playoff and 5-20 go to the enhanced bowls under the brand name. Historic match-ups would be respected but the 20 highest rated teams would go to the elite bowls without regard to league affiliation and the committee would do its best to respect history and geography in placing teams in those bowls.

Not really that far of a leap from what Saban lays out.

No G5 reps on selection committee. Their opinion that a 3-9 P5 is better than a 7-5 G5 gets them a bowl game. The P5 just can't tolerate an unstacked deck can they.

(07-17-2014 03:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No G5 reps on selection committee. Their opinion that a 3-9 P5 is better than a 7-5 G5 gets them a bowl game. The P5 just can't tolerate an unstacked deck can they.

Use computers

I've seen the ability of a P5 to sell tickets when they fire a coach for going 6-6. Other than New Orleans or Shreveport might be happy to take a 4-8 LSU, most bowls aren't going to be that excited about teams with a losing record.

(07-17-2014 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

Maybe so, maybe not. But I don't think they're deserving of post season play.

(07-17-2014 03:07 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Use computers

Yup, ... and write the code such that P5 > G5.

(07-17-2014 02:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  @McMurphyESPN: Saban: “I don’t think you should have to win 6 games to go to a bowl game"

Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN)
7/17/14, 1:41 PM
Saban said teams should schedule harder games, then selection committee would rank best 70 teams for bowls, even w/out winning record

hasn't lost mind, just wants to make sure P5 can further shut out the G5.

The G5 can't improve their lot if they continue to pretend they can compete routinely on the field.

The cards are stacked against the G5. I'm of the opinion that the only way to create a level of parity, or an alternative, is to take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and institute a lottery based on geography.

Every time the P5 plays a G5 team the G5 team comes out behind, even after the check clears. If big name teams like Alabama and such were forced to travel to places like Lafayette etc there would be an explosion of growth, and I'd prefer to drive or fly to those places than give my tickets to FCS teams visiting in Tuscaloosa again and again.

Just my 2 cents.

Saban pretends to want to play tougher OOC opponents but he's in a P5 conference that only plays 9 of 56 (16%) of their OOC games against other P5 teams. He is full of it. His conference also plays 47 of 56 (84%) of their OOC games at home because they can buyout FCS and G5 competitors thanks to the FBS contracts with ESPN that guarantees G5 programs will remain relatively poor to P5 programs and will be beholden to buyout games. He is full of it.

Taking away decisions made on the field by the players and replacing them with decisions made by corrupt men off the field is the problem, not the solution.

(07-17-2014 03:18 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

Maybe so, maybe not. But I don't think they're deserving of post season play.

If we want to pretend bowls are for "deserving" teams only, we would set the "deserving" cutoff a lot higher than 6-6. Maybe 8 wins vs. FBS opponents gets you in and 7 puts you in a pool of teams that get evaluated to decide whether they were a deserving 7-5, or a team that beat only cream puffs and lost to every legitimately good team on their schedule. "Deserving" is a standard that would have a lot less than 70 eligible teams every year; it would be more like 30 or 40.