- Thread starter
- #21
theboardref
thewhite_00 ESPN board
I say screw bowl games they are pointless. Cut off conference championships and make that week 1 of an 8 team playoff.
This is why only conf champs should go to the playoffs.
Win your division
Win your conference
Win your semifinal game
Win the championship game
=
That year's champion
I think that each conference should be 10 like the B12. They each team will play in that conference and the true winner of the conference will go on to a playoff. The big thing is each team should play each team in their conference.
No.
Speaking directly of the SEC, the problem in 2011 wasn't that we had a conference championship. It's the divisions, and that the divisions prevented the top 2 SEC teams from playing in the conference championship. It's happened in other conferences too.
IMO, I'd like to see more of a rotating schedule in the SEC, so that more teams from the conference are seen more often, and then the top2 overall teams in the SEC play for the championship.
If anything, the 2011 SECCG was evidence that the idea of conference champions only playoffs is extremely flawed. If Alabama had played LSU then, it wouldn't have needed to happen in the NCG.
Taking teams just because they belong to this division, or this conference is the problem. If we only had a few teams overall like the NFL it would make more sense, but that's not the way college ball works. Take the best teams always in all playoff type formats(championship games generally and usually being that).
The 4-team playoff SHOULD be conference champions only and Notre Dame if they run the table. This does the following things:
1. Reduces the gray area.
2. Prevents teams from avoiding upper crust competition within their conference, and getting rewarded for it.
3. Gives us a better chance to see how different conferences match-up against each other.
4. Provides an extra reward for completing your conference's obstacle course.
5. Makes conference championship week more exciting.
6. Promotes a more equitable system. Some teams play 12 games, others play 13 games. Winning your conference is something consistent.
But we all know some conferences will not go for this, and demand the committee put in two of their teams.
BTW, I have looked at the last 68 college football seasons. 63/68 teams seasons we have at least 4 conference champions in the top 8. The last time we had the fourth highest ranked conference champion with more than 2 losses was in the 50s.
No.
Speaking directly of the SEC, the problem in 2011 wasn't that we had a conference championship. It's the divisions, and that the divisions prevented the top 2 SEC teams from playing in the conference championship. It's happened in other conferences too.
IMO, I'd like to see more of a rotating schedule in the SEC, so that more teams from the conference are seen more often, and then the top2 overall teams in the SEC play for the championship.
If anything, the 2011 SECCG was evidence that the idea of conference champions only playoffs is extremely flawed. If Alabama had played LSU then, it wouldn't have needed to happen in the NCG.
Taking teams just because they belong to this division, or this conference is the problem. If we only had a few teams overall like the NFL it would make more sense, but that's not the way college ball works. Take the best teams always in all playoff type formats(championship games generally and usually being that).
ND should have to join a conference full time or be left permanently out. We are on the road to super conferences and new level of NCAA play where there is no space for independents. Sucks but that is the truth.
I totally disagree if the 4 major conferences had 16 teams each and all played a conference championship game then it would work perfectly. Yes Alabama would have been out but then they would have lost a game to the champion and not be given a second chance.
You justify the choice because Alabama won but how many one lost teams have been left out that in a playoff setting could have run the table? I'm think quite a few and if you look at all sports like the NCAA basketball championship it happens all the time.
The conference championships are the way to go it is an easy way to expand the playoff field without adding more games since the championship game would be round one.
Here's the rub.
In 2011 Oklahoma St lost a conference game the same as Alabama. The difference between Alabama and Oklahoma St is that Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country/conference, while Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team that wasn't even in the running for their conference.
Iowa State was 6-6, and bowl eligible. They had an SOS over .600 that season. That's not a bad team. Mediocre? Definitely.
How exactly is losing a justification? Alabama only beat 3 teams over .500. Okie State beat 7. Because they lost their division to LSU, they did not have to play Georgia or South Carolina.
I am not saying Alabama was a bad team in 2011, but they without a doubt banked off losing their division and didn't have to play and beat "meater" teams within its own conference.
Iowa St was only bowl eligible because Oklahoma St lost to them. If they had played a team worth a shit that night, they would have finished 5-7.
And I don't give a crap about your win% numbers. win% is the worse measure of SoS and doesn't say anything about who they won and lost too.
As for benefiting from losing it's division. Are you unable to read the part where I say get rid of divisions and take the top2 teams? Meaning Alabama would have played LSU as a rematch in the SECCG rather than the NCG?
All in all you completely ignored the point that with conference champions it's better to lose to a bad team than a good team and that is messed up. But of course you'll never recognize that because you are more worried about getting your own conference champion into the playoffs knowing damn good and well they are likely to not make it because they play in a weak conference that doesn't really deserve it and needs a hand out.