In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Those are still very subjective. Every SOS formula has different criteria, personally I feel Sagarin is the gold standard, and even that one has flaws, and is not public. The NCAA method for SOS is beyond terrible and that was used in the earlier bcs model, and was a complete sham.
I am just for settling it on the field. Use the least amount of subjectivity necessary.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
That game did matter. It should have cost us an opportunity at a BCS title. However, other gams that mattered are OSU losing to a 6-6 Iowa State team. Boise State losing to...I can't even remember. Oregon losing to a USC team that had nothing to play for. All games need to matter. Why should we be punished because we play in the same division as LSU? What if the system decided Oregon wasn't eligible to play for the BCS title after the loss to LSU on the opening weekend?
The idea that game didn't matter is complete bullshit. You can't lose to Iowa State and then try and ride the coattails of LSU beating Bama to try and find your way into the title game. Try holding onto a 17 point lead to an average football at best.
Yeah I have a hard time personally only getting behind a 4 team playoff. I always thought it needed to be between 6 and 12 teams to actually quiet most of the complaints. With only 4 teams you leave the door open for controversy or someone complaining. While 4 is a step forward it is not a big enough step. As for the regular season argument.... Strength of schedule should matter. It helped Alabama last year because it didn't matter that much.... So me saying that is not because I think Alabama played a tougher schedule than Oklahoma St last season.
Even College Basketball takes Schedule strength into the consideration... Although they also allow more teams(Back to the limitation of 4 teams). There should be a place for it. Winning a weak conference or a down conference one year should not be the overriding deciding factor in a 4 team playoff. Continue the debate I will be around after I eat.
This post was edited by SignalBama 2 years ago
Thats not very good arguing on your part.
I am saying that you can take every computer and opinion poll out of the equation, by making it ALL about on the field.
Instead you are looking at it backwards, that somehow someone in a smaller conference is going to get to play in a playoff. Again I say, so what? If they suck, they will lose. If they are good, they will win.
You continue to argue for something that relies on opinions. When all I want is every game to matter, because if you dont win your conference, you are not worthy of being considered a national champion.
Y'all can play the hypothetical game all you want but every team starts the season wanting to win its respective conference. No conference champ should be shutout of the championship because of bias. They could easily stipulate that a conference champion with 3 losses or more is eliminated and the next highest(of the top 5) be eligible. Problem solved.
What you eat, don't make me shit.
I am saying that the winner of a conference is more qualified than the team that finishes second in that conference.
If Oregon finishes second in the Pac, its not the winner of the WAC or MWC that is keeping Oregon out of the playoff. Its the team that Oregon finished behind in the conference that is doing so. It has nothing to do with other conferences, be they more or less worthy, and everything to do with Oregons conference, and how worthy they are there.
You should prolly call and let the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB that they are doing wrong. ASAP.
The purpose of a playoff is to make sure the real best team in CFB is crowned.
However, if that is your goal, to make sure that the best team wins the national championship, then you can't limit it to conference champions. You guarantee that there will be some years that the best team won't be in the playoff and therefore the winner has a hollow victory.
And I'm not saying this because I feel the SEC has a leg up- nothing says only the SEC can have 2 teams in the playoff. There's every reason to believe the SEC will have a down cycle and the Big 10 or PAC 12 will go through a cycle of dominance in which they place 2 teams in the playoff for several years and win several titles. And I'm fine with that because I want the best team to win.
If you want to require only conference champions to be allowed into the playoff then you want to rig the playoffs to give your team more advantages, and you're taking away the legitimacy of any title won under that system.
Its Saban that brought up how he is against an only conference champion tournament. I was responding to that.
If you dont want to talk about that, move on. It was in the original post, and thats all I was talking about. The relative fairness and unfairness of those types of playoffs.
One fluke year? No, this would have settled much more than that. Just go back to 2000, and look at what we would have gotten. We would have had some great football.
USC and LSU in 2003 would have happened
2004 tourney of USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah
2008, Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Utah (Utah here would have been a controversial pick, and if this system was in place, I think the voters would have put them lower to put Texas in)
The huge controversy in 2000 would have been settled and we would have had Oklahoma, Miami, Florida St, and Washington
That is some great football, and settles any nonsense. Conference champs top-6 would have insured that a vastly superior USC team got in over Alabama who was ranked higher due to sec bias only. This is why I like this as opposed to polls only. Because what happens on the field matters more than opinions.
Your first sentence is factually incorrect.
So the rest of the post is not really relevant.
Playoffs are for champions to be crowned. The wholly subjective matter of "best team" is something that can only be talked about, and never really proven, especially in a one game situation like a playoff presents.
This is where the top-6 qualifier comes in. If you are a conference champ, but not in the top-6, then you don't get in. If this system was in place last season, Alabama still would have gotten in the playoff.
Huh? I think your making my argument for me. Kinda like Baltimore did by being a 'wild card'.
But that is not college football. Some teams choose to play 1AA teams for a glorified practice while others do not, some teams play 6 road games, some teams play only 4. Some conferences play 9 games, others only 8. It isn't equitable across the board, and polls are even more inequitable. It is what it is, and choosing conference champs may not be completely equitable, but it is more equitable than any other scenario we could come up with, outside of forcing more inter-conference play among the major conferences.
This is how non-conference champs get into the playoff. The proposed system is not limiting to only conference champs, just gives conference champs preferential treatment. If you are conference champ, but not ranked in the top-6, then you do not get in. So, as I said, if this system was in place last year, we would have had, LSU, Oklahoma St, Oregon, and Alabama. as #4 Stanford, and #6 Boise St were not conference champions.
That pretty well says it.
Any way you slice it, 4 teams being able to fight it out, is certainly much better than only 2. If Bama was left out last season, they would have no room to complain since LSU would have been in it, and Bama lost to LSU.
The point is that the conference champion may not be the best team and exlcuding the, for example, no 4 ranked team for a loss to the no. 1 ranked team is asinine, particularly if it's a 1-3 point loss.
That No. 4 ranked team, if included in the playoff, could win it and therefore win the national championship. Why exclude them if they are better than the other team that would be included?
Taking only conference champs means insinuating that the two best teams in the country could not possibly be in the same conference, much less division. Are you okay with saying that, AM?
Ecept 9 times out of 10 there aren't six teams that deserve to be in a playoff. And you start entering into the area where the preseason ranked No. 1 and No. 2 can afford a late loss to terrible teams and make it into the playoff.
2 reasons. #1 There is no way to know for sure, and #2 they had their chance and lost.
What happens on the field of play has to trump perception. Green Bay was the best team in the NFL last year, but they were not champs. The best team often in not crowned the champion. We are not out to find the "best team" we are out to crown a champion.
Yes and the system could be similar by changing some of the verbiage. The college game doesn't have leagues but do have conferences already setup. So instead of wining your league (like in the NFL) you just have to win your conference. Sadly unlike the NFL though there would be no need for extra 'conference chanpionship' game.
You are correct in that no scenario purposed in this thread is equitable. I trust pollsters though. Most of the time, all things equal, they side with conference champions. The reason Bama ended up in the BCS title game was only because of the collapse of OSU, Stanford, Oregon, and Boise State. Pollsters believed Bama and LSU were the top 2 teams in the Country that simply happened to also be in the same division. Does anyone in this thread actually believe this was not the case?
There are way too many examples of pollsters sending conference champions to the title game for anyone to believe that they are trying to get it right. No two schedules are alike as you pointed out. Simply mandating(by rule) that conference champs are only allowed into the 4 team playoff certainly means you are going to end up with a top 3-4 team nationally being excluded and a 3-4 loss conference champ making it in. In that scenario, it is much better to be in a crappy conference than a challenging conference.
Also, you can't simply pick and choose which conference champs go. excluding the ACC champ(it has been suggested in this thread) is every bit as biased as anything being purposed here.
depends. possible, but that team would still have to win it's conference to guarantee it's place in a playoff. Also it is only the sec who plays terrible non-conference teams late in the season.
We have a winner.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports