Why being a conference champion should not give automatic bids to a playoff

[sakau2007]

It's pretty simple: probation.

You create situations where you might end up with the 3rd or 4th best team in a conference gets an automatic bid because other teams in the conference had been cheating. See: Wisconsin in 2012, and very nearly UCLA and Georgia Tech a few years back. I think both teams were 6-6 and played for their conference titles. Both did lose, but had they won, it would be a shame for them to go over a 1 loss (or even 4 loss) conference non-champion.

 

[7Samurai13]

Other than 2012, how often does that happen? Not trolling, I am just curious if that has happened very often.

 

[RobToxin]

Counter-argument for conference champions being in the playoffs:

If you're not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

 

[7Samurai13]

Counter-argument for conference champions being in the playoffs:

If you're not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

Cue Sakau slobbering all over his "rivals" national title in 2011.

 

[sakau2007]

Counter-argument for conference champions being in the playoffs:

If you're not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

look at how many times a team that didn't win its conference won the national title in basketball. or how many wild card teams have won the world series or super bowl (hey, can't win your division, how can you be the best in all of the land).

that's kinda the point. playoff systems don't crown the teams that have been the best all season. they allow all teams above a certain threshold into a system and then everyone starts from 0. you may have some advantages from winning a division (maybe a bye, home field advantage, whatever)... but by and large, playoffs and the system we have used in college football use two different methodologies for determining its champion. the way college football is right now is to crown the best team. i kinda like that method.

 

[LawDawg]

Counter-argument for conference champions being in the playoffs:

If you're not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

It's clearly possible that the best 2 or more teams in the nation are all in the same conference/division.

And, this isn't an SEC thing ... you could easily see this happening in all conferences/divisions:

OU/TX
OSU/UM
VaTech/FSU/Miami
USC/Stanford/Ore

 

[sakau2007]

Other than 2012, how often does that happen? Not trolling, I am just curious if that has happened very often.

i don't know if it has happened any other time, but i know USC and Miami were DQ'd from postseason play and allowed inferior teams to play for their conference titles. Auburn in 1993 was DQ'd from the postseason as well despite being the best team in the conference.

There are probably other examples. Those are just the ones that I can remember in recent memory (and the one from 20 years ago because I obviously follow Auburn closely).

 

[757Hokie83]

look at how many times a team that didn't win its conference won the national title in basketball. or how many wild card teams have won the world series or super bowl (hey, can't win your division, how can you be the best in all of the land).

that's kinda the point. playoff systems don't crown the teams that have been the best all season. they allow all teams above a certain threshold into a system and then everyone starts from 0. you may have some advantages from winning a division (maybe a bye, home field advantage, whatever)... but by and large, playoffs and the system we have used in college football use two different methodologies for determining its champion. the way college football is right now is to crown the best team. i kinda like that method.

the difference in those scenarios is that the playoff is large enough that conference/division champs are automatically in, then the others get in after them...I'd be all for that, but if its only 4 teams in, it should be conference champs or bust

 

[cane_man]

Other than 2012, how often does that happen? Not trolling, I am just curious if that has happened very often.

2001 nebraska got in after getting skull fucked by colorado in their very last game before the ncg. CU went on to win b12. NU went on to watch the canes start subbing at the end of the 2nd q of a fucking ncg....on their way to another skull fucking.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

It's clearly possible that the best 2 or more teams in the nation are all in the same conference/division.

And, this isn't an SEC thing ... you could easily see this happening in all conferences/divisions:

OU/TX
OSU/UM
VaTech/FSU/Miami
USC/Stanford/Ore

If someone wins their conference or division, chances are they beat whoever the second-best team is either to get to or win the conference championship. So you are saying that they should have to potentially beat them again to win the national title?

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Counter-argument for conference champions being in the playoffs:

If you're not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

Not sure, maybe we should ask LSU

 

[oaknightshockey1]

2001 nebraska got in after getting skull fucked by colorado in their very last game before the ncg. CU went on to win b12. NU went on to watch the canes start subbing at the end of the 2nd q of a fucking ncg....on their way to another skull fucking.

I think that's a good example of why you should HAVE to win your conference championship. We were not the best in our conference, and it showed in the national championship.

 

[Codaxx]

It's clearly possible that the best 2 or more teams in the nation are all in the same conference/division.

And, this isn't an SEC thing ... you could easily see this happening in all conferences/divisions:

OU/TX
OSU/UM
VaTech/FSU/Miami
USC/Stanford/Ore

-
That is true. The only issue is using conference champs just makes sense. There are so few inter-conference games to truly know which conference is better. By using a conference champ, you can be reasonably assured that the best teams are there. Is there a chance the Pac or SEC has the 3 best teams in its conference? Definitely. I would rather have the tops from every conference meet than take the chance that one of the top teams was arbitrarily excluded based on perception. That is the important thing. IF you exclude #2 in a conference, he had his chance to win the conference playoff. Excluding #1 in a conference is different and arbitrary

 

[sakau2007]

At the end of the day, I'd be fine with allowing only conference champions in the playoff. But I'd lobby for Auburn to move to the Big 10 where the competition isn't as stiff. Urban Meyer felt the same way.

 

[RobToxin]

So, we have Auburn winning the Iron Bowl. Winning the SEC. Going to the playoffs.

And having to play Alabama a second time.

Meaning, Auburn would have to beat Alabama twice to be National Champions.

Alabama would only have to beat Auburn once.

Still liking this idea, Auburn fan?

 

[7Samurai13]

At the end of the day, I'd be fine with allowing only conference champions in the playoff. But I'd lobby for Auburn to move to the Big 10 where the competition isn't as stiff. Urban Meyer felt the same way.

Nick Saban found the SEC a lot easier than the Big10 which is why he ran from the Big10.

 

[LawDawg]

If someone wins their conference or division, chances are they beat whoever the second-best team is either to get to or win the conference championship. So you are saying that they should have to potentially beat them again to win the national title?

Yes, if those are the 2 best teams.

 

[LawDawg]

I think that's a good example of why you should HAVE to win your conference championship. We were not the best in our conference, and it showed in the national championship.

Pretty sure that was an anomaly in the BCS formula they adjusted for.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Nick Saban found the SEC a lot easier than the Big10 which is why he ran from the Big10.

Yeah, that was it. didnt have a thing to do with money at all.

 

[7Samurai13]

Yes, if those are the 2 best teams.

But the "two best teams" is an opinion. Take 2011 for example. Everyone says that Bama was obviously was one of the best teams because they beat three FBS teams with a winning record. Oklahoma State had a much better strength of schedule than Bama and won their conference. There is no way to prove one team is better than another without them actually playing on the field. It wasn't like we had one undefeated team, one 1 loss team, and everyone else was 2+ losses.