The Blue Board

The better team doesn't always win the championship. I would argue that there is no way to determine who the better team is so it should go to the most deserving team. Bama was not most deserving of being in the NC game because they couldn't even win their conference. Given how it played out I believe they deserve the NC since they did win but I don't think they should have been their in the first place.

And no I wouldn't give Arkansas St. a shot, AQ for top conferences only but like I said, to truely make that work you need 8 teams. And in my system Bama probably makes the tourney anyways as an at large.

Any major conference champion would have been more deserving. Top conferences would be the BCS conferences. Up in the air whether you include Big East in that or not. I'd lean to not but I might be biased.

Any of the conference champs could have possibly beated Alabama, we don't know because Bama never played any of them. And even if Bama was the better team I still don't believe they were a more deserving team.

Not surprised that you declined to answer the questions.

Teams that were more deserving then Bama of being in the BCS title game at the end of the regular season: Clemson, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Oregon, possibly WVU.

Top Conferences: Big Ten, ACC, SEC, Pac12, Big 12, possibly Big East.

Who could possibly beat Bama... anybody. That's why they play the game.

:facepalm:

...I bet this guy actually believes this. So Oregon and possibly WVU were more deserving despite losing more games and both being anal raped by LSU? OSU is the only argument and they should have held on to their 17 point lead against the Iowa JV team.

Oklahoma State is the ONLY team that ANYONE can say deserved a shot besides Bama.

Even then, you had 59 CFB coaches and 115 random members of CFB media,former players,coaches,administrators, six seperate algorithms all come to a collective conclusion that Alabama was more deserving.

IMO, a playoff only works when you can have multiple games, a la MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. Think about college sports that have the "regular season champ" and the "conference tournament champ." What is people's gripe with the conference tournament champ? That said team can suck all year but put together a string of decent games and win. And quite frankly, if you don't play multiple games in a series, how is a playoff any different? I realize football =/= any of the above sports, but it still stands IMO. I love the Super Bowl but I don't weight the SB winner as heavily as I do the World Series or Stanley Cup champion.

Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times or more is a trend.

Then how do you explain OSU/ISU?

If you can't look at what I said and find that answer, then it's not worth asking.

On a relative scale, I'd have to say the SEC has the most parity, but in terms of the CFB, it's still ish.

So yea. Still irrelevant.

By the way, Top SEC teams don't lose to Kentucky or Ole Miss (Iowa State equivalent). They lose to each other.

LSU won a title in 2007 with a loss to Kentucky and Florida won in 2008 with a loss to Ole Miss .. do you even pay attention to the SEC?