To be frank, it is not that big a deal to me that it be only be conference champions. But to me and others the 'best conference' and whether 'all conferences are not equal' should be decided on the field and not by voters and arbitrary formulas. I think there is sufficient strength in all the conferences and among the few remaining independent teams to have a legitimate NC game without having to resort to also rans in a conference.....all the anecdotes notwithstanding. If you want to be a national champ...then win the 'big game' within your conference first.

So do you all think we need 4 mega conferences that encompass all team in the BCS?

HitsRus;1206982 wrote:To be frank, it is not that big a deal to me that it be only be conference champions. But to me and others the 'best conference' and whether 'all conferences are not equal' should be decided on the field and not by voters and arbitrary formulas.

The composition of a conference is arguably arbitrary too, which is why I'm not a fan of any provision regarding a conference champion. It's just the best school out of 12 that decided to work together to make money.

Al Bundy;1206897 wrote:How do you know that they are 2 best teams in the country? In 2006, everyone in the country thought that OSU and Michigan were the two best teams in the country, and they played an extremely close game. They very easily could have had them play again, but it was determined that it wasn't in the best interest of college football to have the same conference play in the title game. As it turned out, Florida was better that year, it was not show during the regular season since the teams normally have very few, if any, common opponents.

There is no tournment, postseason, playoff, etc. that rewards wildcards, at-large teams, etc. before placing all conference or division champs in their tournment. If the tournament were expanded I could see including wildcards, but if you only have 4 spots, you have to take care of champions first.

I would disagree, especially with your last point. I think if it expands, that's when you can guarantee a spot for the conference champions because (with an 8 team playoff) you would have room for two teams that would not be conference champions but could get in with an at-large bid. This would help eliminate the issue of having a conference with a few good teams that could arguably be considered better than a different conference's champion. With only four teams, you just have to take the best four teams, regardless of conference. Since 2002, there were teams from the same conference in the top 4 after the last week of the season 6 times (2011, 2010, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002). By skipping over one of those teams because they weren't the conference champion just guarantees more whining and complaining and controversy. With four teams, you have to take the best four. With eight teams...then I would agree that you can give all the conferences champions an auto-bid with two at-large teams making the field.

Also...I thought people wanted a playoff so that mid-majors would stop getting screwed over and get a chance to prove things on the field? You put the stipulation that the only conference champions are allowed into the playoffs and the mid-majors will never get a chance to play in this new system. They will absolutely take a 1-loss SEC champion over an undefeated mid-major school every time.

sherm03;1206890 wrote:Why would me being a Notre Dame fan have anything to do with the thought that requiring that playoff teams must be conference champions? It's clear that since Jack Swarbrick was involved, there is a tie-in for Notre Dame. So whether or not that stipulation is there does not affect my team in the least, because there will be an exception made for ND if that stipulation is made.

All I am saying is that people wanted a playoff so that the best teams would be deciding it on the field for the championship. Now people are saying that what they really want is a playoff among just conference champions. It is possible that the best teams are in the same conference. Hell...it could be possible that the best four teams all play in the same conference. People wanted this change to eliminate controversy. Making the stipulation that you have to be a conference champion in order to make the playoffs does nothing to eliminate any type of controversy most years.

How can you be the best team in the country when you aren't even the best team in your own conference? That's why the SEC debacle championship game, which sprung a playoff type system since it was god awful, was a complete shame.

The Notre Dame comment was a joke. A provision allowing for Notre Dame is beyond idiotic. At this point, just make a special qualifier for Northern Arizona too since they've both won the same amount of BCS bowl games, conference championships, and both have the same odds of winning a title in this format; and that's 0%.

8 teams makes more sense. Move the Big East off the power conference list and make it the other 5 conferences champion; plus 3 at larges with priority given to undefeated mid majors. If there are none, give Notre Dame the 8 seed every year so they can get blown out when they actually play a good team.

Pure comedy. I'd watch.

sleeper;1207085 wrote:How can you be the best team in the country when you aren't even the best team in your own conference? That's why the SEC debacle championship game, which sprung a playoff type system since it was god awful, was a complete shame.

If the conference champ is truly the better team, they'll win in the playoff too.

I understand the argument that you want conference champs, but any system that would have used WVU, Clemson, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, or Oregon over last year's Bama squad would flat out suck. I want the best teams playing it out when the season is over.

slcoach;1207098 wrote:I understand the argument that you want conference champs, but any system that would have used WVU, Clemson, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, or Oregon over last year's Bama squad would flat out suck. I want the best teams playing it out when the season is over.

I think Wisconsin could beat Bama by 3 TDs. Prove me wrong.

WebFire;1207091 wrote:If the conference champ is truly the better team, they'll win in the playoff too.

So who's the better team: Bama or LSU?

playing in the national championship game is an earned privilege that goes to the team that most deserves it. anyone can win one game, the obstacle is to be granted this privilege. the MAC champ could beat the SEC or B1G champ on any given day, but have they earned the right to have that opportunity? I'd say no. so IMO teams like boise state do not deserve the privileged chance to win one game for the national title based on their schedule. likewise, teams like alabama that didn't win their conference last year do not deserve this privilege either.

sleeper;1207128 wrote:I think Wisconsin could beat Bama by 3 TDs. Prove me wrong.

I can't prove you wrong so obviously you are correct.

gyea36;1207142 wrote:playing in the national championship game is an earned privilege that goes to the team that most deserves it. anyone can win one game, the obstacle is to be granted this privilege. the MAC champ could beat the SEC or B1G champ on any given day, but have they earned the right to have that opportunity? I'd say no. so IMO teams like boise state do not deserve the privileged chance to win one game for the national title based on their schedule. likewise, teams like alabama that didn't win their conference last year do not deserve this privilege either.

So an undefeated Boise doesn't deserve the chance to prove they are the top team in the nation? Ever?

This is why we are getting a playoff because people think that mid-major's can't be the champs. I hope a mid-major wins in the first playoff, I doubt it. But I wish.

slcoach;1207149 wrote:I can't prove you wrong so obviously you are correct.

Let's be friends.

pnhasbeen;1207150 wrote:So an undefeated Boise doesn't deserve the chance to prove they are the top team in the nation? Ever?

This is why we are getting a playoff because people think that mid-major's can't be the champs. I hope a mid-major wins in the first playoff, I doubt it. But I wish.

Boise with their currect schedule doesn't deserve a shot in a 4 team tournament. A mid-major has to play all top teams non-conference to deserve a shot. Boise has turned down oppotunities to play some of the big boys over the years because they knew that they would be exposed.

We are getting a playoff because of what happened last year with 2 SEC teams being placed in the championship.

Al Bundy;1207156 wrote:Boise with their currect schedule doesn't deserve a shot in a 4 team tournament. A mid-major has to play all top teams non-conference to deserve a shot. Boise has turned down oppotunities to play some of the big boys over the years because they knew that they would be exposed.

We are getting a playoff because of what happened last year with 2 SEC teams being placed in the championship.

His post was saying that a mid-major doesn't deserve a shot even if they take care of business. I don't agree with that.

I do agree with you that those teams need to do what they can to get a big dog or two on their schedule.

sleeper;1207085 wrote: Northern Arizona

They have an absurd amount of sexy looking girls up there in Flagstaff.

lhslep134;1207158 wrote:They have an absurd amount of sexy looking girls up there in Flagstaff.

No doubt brotha.

Saw this on Twitter so I can't take credit but:


Make the selection committee Vegas oddsmakers. Seriously. They analyze college football more and better than ANYONE ELSE. If they named the top 4 teams I would feel pretty confident that those are the 4 best teams, regardless of conference affiliation. I can't say the same about any other selection committee.

lhslep134;1207162 wrote:Saw this on Twitter so I can't take credit but:


Make the selection committee Vegas. Seriously. They analyze college football more and better than ANYONE ELSE. If they named the top 4 teams I would feel pretty confident that those are the 4 best teams, regardless of conference affiliation. I can't say the same about any other selection committee.

Vegas would likely just try to exploit the perception to make more money rather than pit the true 2 best teams.

Here's the proposed bracket....:rolleyes:

sleeper;1207163 wrote:Vegas would likely just try to exploit the perception to make more money rather than pit the true 2 best teams.

Some oddsmakers might do that, sure, but I would bet a bunch of them would be objective because they'd be honored to be the selection committee. Vegas is going to make money no matter who is playing in the playoff, so they would be a lot less political than anyone else IMO.

lhslep134;1207167 wrote:Some oddsmakers might do that, sure, but I would bet a bunch of them would be objective because they'd be honored to be the selection committee. Vegas is going to make money no matter who is playing in the playoff, so they would be a lot less political than anyone else IMO.

I love going to Vegas, but if you think that Vegas oddsmakers would put honor above making a buck, you are way off base.

sleeper;1207163 wrote:Vegas would likely just try to exploit the perception to make more money rather than pit the true 2 best teams.

No doubt. They are about making money, not putting the best teams in the title game.

Al Bundy;1207169 wrote:I love going to Vegas, but if you think that Vegas oddsmakers would put honor above making a buck, you are way off base.

Even if that's true, it's truly irrelevant. No matter what 4 teams (assuming we're talking about big time programs here) are in the playoff people are going to be betting on it.