The Blue Board

Ummm, we're talking about polls that came out after every team had played at least 12 games, not preseason polls.

Yes after the regular season including CCG's were over, and post bowls.

So your previous post was meaningless.

How does a 4 team playoff of only conference champions prove it that much better ? I mean you listed more than 4 teams you thought could have hung with or beaten number 1. You keep making the argument that it would not be the right way to go.

I think the (understandable) Alabama football fatigue is playing too strong of a role in this debate. Let's take last year out of the equation. Let's look at two other slightly similar scenarios: first - the year (I think 2008) where Texas and Oklahoma were both in the top 4. Oklahoma was the higher ranked of the two (despite losing to Texas, but they did win the Big 12). If you were to put together a four team playoff, Florida and Oklahoma both deserved a shot as champs, but who should have rounded out the top four? Texas beat Oklahoma, was ranked #3, and had a great season. I don't see how you can deny them a spot in the playoff when they only had one last second loss to the third leg of their three way tie atop the big 12 (Texas Tech). That was probably the best year the Big 12 ever had SOS wise. Texas deserved a shot.

What about 2006? 1. OSU, 2. Florida, 3. Michigan. Another example where the Big 10 had a strong league that year, and OSU and Michigan were two heavyweights who played an incredible game down to the wire. Florida and OSU deserved their spots, but how to you deny Michigan a spot in the top 4 after a one loss season in a great league? Their one loss was a "good loss", and they were ranked #3.

These are just two recent examples that don't involve Alabama where a conference champs only format would deny more deserving teams a shot at a playoff that they "earned on the field". Having one loss to an undefeated or one loss opponent who went on to win one of the top conferences in CFB should not disqualify someone if they had a strong enough season to end in the top 4. Why should Texas or Michigan be punished for playing in the Big 12 or Big 10 in years when they more than likely contain multiple NC worthy teams? SOS should be rewarded above anything else, especially in terms of measuring losses. There is such a thing as a good loss, and those should be considered well before we consider conference champs who had awful losses, more losses, etc.

Which one? The one where the ACC champion would have gotten in over UA last year?

This just makes your conference schedule matter that much. It pays to be a winner.

In 2008 you would have had Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Utah, though I believe that if this proposed system was in place, then you would have had some minor voter influence to put Utah down to 7, then Texas would have made it in. Hell nobody politics the voters better than Mack Brown, so I have no doubt that this would have occured, but even if they didn't, Utah was very good themselves. If you go just by top-4, then USC is left out for Alabama, and we can all look back and see how flawed that would have been.

You bring up 2006, Michigan had their chance, and in hindsight we can see that they and Ohio St were just beneficiaries of playing in a weak Big-10 as Florida hammered Ohio St, and USC beat up on Michigan. If you just go by the final poll then you have Ohio St, Florida, Michigan, and LSU. Under the conference champ top-6 model, you have Ohio St, Florida, USC, and Louisville. Again, if this model was in place I have even more confidence that the voters would have put Wisconsin ahead of Louisville to get Michigan in that playoff, than I do of 2008 to get Texas in.

Okay that is ridiculous. Often there are at least two highly ranked matchups in bowl games and at least one where both teams are top 10- that is obviously going to lead to some shakeup in the post season rankings, including the top 4. Not to mention if whichever team loses the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup loses badly they may fall to No. 3 or 4.

Your premise is flawed.

And yes, someone will always be left out of the top 4, that's the idea: to exclude those who don't deserve a chance at the title. Occasionally someone who does deserve a chance will be left out- that will happen no matter how many teams are in a playoff. But I would much rather have a playoff where a deserving team is left out than one who isn't deserving get in.

And a conference chanmpionship is nice, but in no way should it be a qualifier for winning the national title just because you feel your team has to win their conference in order to have a chance at a national title, when in reality the fact you play and lose to terrible teams has much more to do with it.

Ideally a larger field would be better. I agree with you.

#1 method would be the Euro Soccer method where everyone plays everyone twice, home and home and the team with the best record at the end is champ. That is of course not feasible.

#2 is a playoff, 16 team would be ideal for CFB 11 conference champs and 5 at larges

What we are going to get is 4, Some would want the top-4 in the final bcs poll, others would want only conference champs. I personally feel that the 4 highest rated conference champs given that they are ranked in the top-6 is a very fair compromise, and the only addition that I would put in is that #1, goes in regardless.

Unlikely that a 9-3 team would be in the final top-6, and therefore would not qualify under the compromise.

Best is a subjective term. Champion on the other hand is an objective one. Do you know the difference between subjective and objective?

Objectivity means crap when the divisions/conferences in CFB are not even relatively equitable in terms of quantity and quality.