Quoting LSUFanZone... Understandable, was just comparing it to what he was talking about. Well, I would say the Giants really didn't belong in the playoff if we're going to pretend we're comparing apples to apples. Shouldn't a playoff be about a team's entire body of work, not simply their last game? Quoting Hawker45... In an 8 team scenario, it should be the bcs six conference champions and two champs from other division I leagues. Again, it may not match some voters perception of who's worthy and who's not... but it does match champions based on on-field performance only, which is the way it should be, imvvho. At the same time, it rewards on field performance for that one game and not necessarily for the entire season. With 8 team we could still end up with a #20 BCS team and a #50 nonBCS team. I don't see what you'd totally throw out ratings based on expert opinion and/or statistics pulled from on field performance. Can you really say there is absolutely no value to ratings? I seriously believe that if we'd have #1 facing #2 in the SEC championship, and that if we'd end up with the #4 team beating the #20 team for the championship, a lot of folks would be upset and wonder why college football can't get things right. It seems silly to completely ignore ratings. Quoting Nutriaitch... Those of you saying only one member from each conference just kicked the #3,4,& 7 out of the playoffs in favor of the #8 team. I'm sure that'll go over real well with the fans and presidents. I seem to remember non-champions getting little sympathy from the world of college football. If a team can't win its conference I believe the world will be mostly unsympathetic. I'd still leave non-champions a way to get in, but it would be slim. Quoting alfredeneuman... Even if there's an 8-team playoff, there is still no way to decide who those 8 teams are on an equitable basis. This year just solidifies that point. If the format simply went to a +1, that still doesn't decide who is the best. For every argument for a playoff, there will always be a counter-argument. I think there are equitable ways to choose teams. There will always be a counter-argument, so the ultimate goal should be what is best for college football. Leaving Auburn out in 2004 is not what is best for college football. A playoff would decide the best team on the field. Imperfect as that is, it is infinitely better than simply not allowing all deserving teams to play for the NC. As I see it... 1 01 Oklahoma [B12] 2 02 Florida [SEC] 3 05 USC [P10] 4 06 Utah [MWC] 5 08 Penn St [B10] 6 09 Boise St [WAC] WEEK1 6 Boise St @ 3 USC 5 Penn St @ 4 Utah WEEK2 BCS BOWL 1 Oklahoma vs 4 Utah BCS BOWL 2 Florida vs 3 USC WEEK3 BCS BOWL 1 Oklahoma vs 2 Florida left out 03 Texas [non-champ] 04 Alabama [non-champ] 07 Texas Tech [non-champ] 12 Cincinnati [BE] 19 Virginia Tech [ACC] -- Buffalo [MAC] -- E Carolina [CUSA] -- Troy [SBLT] -- Navy [IND] Texas didn't win ON THE FIELD when they needed to. Same with Alabama and Texas Tech. The rest didn't have championship caliber seasons.
Georgia being left out last year, and UT this year for a HIGHER RANKED team from their own conference is a tremendous difference than being left out for a team slotted 5 places behind you from a different conference.
Texas and Texas Tech won on the field the exact same amount as OU did. Alabama I'll agree with since it was a championship game that they lost. But Texas and TT? Victims of a faulty tie-breaker. Had the Big 12 used the SEC tie-breaker, UT was in the CCG.
I think you've got a point here. I can see a lot of people saying that if #9 Boise St is in, why not Texas. But... Boise St won their conference and is ranked in the top 10. Texas did not win their conference. Texas played a harder schedule, but Boise St did not lose. I think college football would be better off including nonBCS teams into the NC mix and minimizing the representatives from BCS conferences. Diversity is a good thing to have in a playoff, along with Cinderella stories. Talk to the Big 12.
seriously? If you're going to let in a considerably weaker team purely for the sake of diversity, the entire country will riot.
The important point here is at least everyone will start the year with an exact roadmap on how they can win the national title. First, win your conference. After that, you're guaranteed a shot at the title (at least for BCS conference teams)
The entire country will riot because an undefeated Boise St gets to play for the NC before Texas, who did not win their conference? I don't think so. I think more folks would be upset that the ACC is not represented. But that was determined by a season falling short of championship level football. Anyway, it's not purely for the sake of diversity - it makes sense that nonBCS teams should have a shot at playing for the NC. Making the top 10 for a nonBCS team is a big accomplishment considering that they have to do so playing weaker conference opponents. Boise St would change positions with Texas at the drop of a hat. Texas wouldn't be so eager to join their "easy road" to the playoff.
#9 gets in over #3 yeah, everyone would be pissed No way you'll ever convince me (or the rest of this country) that what Boise did this year was more deserving than what Texas did, or Bama for that matter.
So, what value do you put on conference championships and what value do you put on ratings. A lot of people put a lot of weight in conference championships. A lot of people put a lot of weight in ratings. Some compromise between the two should be made.
