ducktilldeath said:
sycasey said:
ducktilldeath said:
LunchTime said:
They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.
That is just plain stupid.
Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.
I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.
What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.
Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.
If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?
The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?
If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.
What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.
But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.
Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.