The Blue Board

Hell no to a selection committee.

How do you figure? If OoC games don't matter ('cause it's all about conference champs) why bother playing tough OoC games? Rest up instead.

Yeah. I don't see how that would lead to more "aggressive OOC scheduling" either.

Most teams play crappy OOC games because A) they need guaranteed home revenue or B) they need that easy game to get to 6-6.

I don't see how that is going to change with conference champions only.

Conversely, it would seem that it would behoove teams to schedule more agressive OOC in the committee selection because it will differentiate themselves from the other possible teams.

Because you don't know who the best four teams are. Neither do I, nor a panel of experts, until they hit the field.

BLF: I don't really care about the way those teams struggling to get to 6-6 schedule OOC. If you look at the way today's polls work, a loss is punished MUCH more than a win is rewarded. It doesn't make sense to schedule risky games, and with a selection committee you will see the same ideology.

Well, I'm not suggesting deciding who the four best teams are before they've played an entire season. At the end of 12 or 13 games, I think most people would have a pretty good idea who the best teams were based on body of work, whether that included a conference championship or not.

Last year, for instance, how close was Michigan State to winning the Big Ten? Very. And nothing against Michigan State, they had a good, solid team. But was that a team worthy of belonging in a four-team playoff at 11-2 with blowout losses to Notre Dame and Nebraska? I can't imagine preferring a system that puts that team in the playoff over a team like Stanford or Alabama, which lost one game each -- and very close games -- to top 6-7 teams.

Clearly last year the only conference champs that were worthy were Wisconsin and LSU. I'm not a fan of conference champs, but I'm also not a fan of a selection committee for only four teams.

Cherry picking seasons like that doesn't work. That was a rare down year in the B1G, and it takes a what if for that scenario to come true, as a solid Wisky team eon the big. Stanford and bama had their shots to win their conferences.

How about we rewind to 2008 when a second place SEC Bama team that got their doors blown off by Utah in the sugar bowl would've gotten in over much better Utah and USC teams who had the same record, and were conference champions. I would hate to see that happen.

See how it goes both ways? It's very rare that you will find a champion of one of the big conferences on the level of 2011 Michigan State.

They were 4th in the polls. Why would have it been different? A selection committee is just a mini poll.

Also, isn't this all about finding a NATIONAL champion? How can you be a champion of the nation if you can't be the champion of a region?

Thats fine, but if the whole thing is about crowning a national champion, the team that won their conference is going to rightfully play for all of the marbles and prove on the field how strong that conference was. If not, there is a clear lack of representation, and the inclusion of more subjectivity. I personally don't care who ends up ranked #2 at the end if the season, only who is national champion. If we get beaten by Oregon who wins the conference and goes to the title game but we look like a top four team, so what we had our shot.

I know that right now any USC team, no matter how strong they are, has to go undefeated to get a shot at the title. They still might not get in if B1G, BIG 12, or SEC teams are also undefeated. If its only top four, it will remain the same.

(BTW 06 Michigan got rolled in the Rose Bowl, 04 Texas lost to OU but was better?)

So how does the champ scenario work out?

SEC vs ACC
Big12 vs B1G

???