lhslep134;1207173 wrote: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.

The assumption that all games are bet on equally is wrong. There are certain teams/programs that get more bets on them. For example, Notre Dame is a popular team to bet on or against. Vegas would look at teams that get the most betting action.

Al Bundy;1207180 wrote:The assumption that all games are bet on equally is wrong. There are certain teams/programs that get more bets on them. For example, Notre Dame is a popular team to bet on or against. Vegas would look at teams that get the most betting action.

Do you have a more objective idea? I don't know any other solution that would be less political.

sleeper;1207130 wrote:So who's the better team: Bama or LSU?

Last year, or in the playoff? In the playoff, the team that won the NC is better because they had to beat the conference team plus another to win it.

Last year? No way to know except that one game was a conference game, and the other the NC game.

WebFire;1207257 wrote:
Last year? No way to know except that one game was a conference game, and the other the NC game.

And that Alabama outplayed them both times. 9-6 loss with 5 missed field goals. Just sayin'. I thought 'Bama was clearly the better team. I would have liked to have seen a playoff between Oregon, LSU, 'Bama, and OSU.

First you say this...

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.

But then you say this...

gyea36;1207142 wrote: likewise, teams like alabama that didn't win their conference last year do not deserve this privilege either.

You said it yourself. Anyone can win one game. So a team that is #1 all year long, but loses their conference championship game doesn't deserve the opportunity to play in this four team playoff? How does that make any sense?


For the record, I have been against a playoff from the beginning. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist (probably why I hate the DH rule in baseball). But if it's going to change to get the best teams to battle it out in a playoff...then get the best fucking teams to battle it out. Requiring that a team has to be a conference champion goes against the argument everyone made for a playoff in the first place. If that's the case, then we are changing just for the sake of change and to give the BCS schools an extra game to grab a shitload of money. It will do nothing to get us closer to a "true national champion" that people crave for some reason in FBS football, and will do even more to keep out mid-major teams from getting to participate. Think about it, if there is a one-loss B1G champion or an undefeated mid-major up for the last spot in the playoffs...who do you think is going to get it?

sherm03;1207455 wrote:First you say this...


But then you say this...



You said it yourself. Anyone can win one game. So a team that is #1 all year long, but loses their conference championship game doesn't deserve the opportunity to play in this four team playoff? How does that make any sense?


For the record, I have been against a playoff from the beginning. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist (probably why I hate the DH rule in baseball). But if it's going to change to get the best teams to battle it out in a playoff...then get the best ****ing teams to battle it out. Requiring that a team has to be a conference champion goes against the argument everyone made for a playoff in the first place. If that's the case, then we are changing just for the sake of change and to give the BCS schools an extra game to grab a ****load of money. It will do nothing to get us closer to a "true national champion" that people crave for some reason in FBS football, and will do even more to keep out mid-major teams from getting to participate. Think about it, if there is a one-loss B1G champion or an undefeated mid-major up for the last spot in the playoffs...who do you think is going to get it?

If you are a traditionalist, why wouldn't you support conference champs. If you go back before the BCS. the national champs were either conference champs or indepenents. The idea of giving conference runner-ups a national title is not a view that makes sense for a traditionalist.

Al Bundy;1207498 wrote:If you are a traditionalist, why wouldn't you support conference champs. If you go back before the BCS. the national champs were either conference champs or indepenents. The idea of giving conference runner-ups a national title is not a view that makes sense for a traditionalist.

You're right. And I see what you are saying. But I also don't like change just for the sake of change. If the point of the playoff system is to get the best teams on the field to find out a national champion, then the best teams should be on the field to decide the national championship, regardless of conference.

sherm03;1207522 wrote:You're right. And I see what you are saying. But I also don't like change just for the sake of change. If the point of the playoff system is to get the best teams on the field to find out a national champion, then the best teams should be on the field to decide the national championship, regardless of conference.

I would argue that the playoff should be made up of the most deserving teams, which is not necessarily the same thing as the best teams.

sherm03;1207522 wrote:You're right. And I see what you are saying. But I also don't like change just for the sake of change. If the point of the playoff system is to get the best teams on the field to find out a national champion, then the best teams should be on the field to decide the national championship, regardless of conference.

I guess where I struggle with this is how do you know that they are the best teams? If SEC teams keep playing SEC teams, are they #1 and #2 because ESPN tells us that they are? I would rather say that team X has won this conference over a 3-4 month period, and they should play team Y that has won their conference over a 3-4 month period. If the field were expaned, I would be ok with allowing non-champs, but if it is limited to 4 teams, I think conference champs have to be taken first.

Al Bundy;1207541 wrote:I guess where I struggle with this is how do you know that they are the best teams? If SEC teams keep playing SEC teams, are they #1 and #2 because ESPN tells us that they are? I would rather say that team X has won this conference over a 3-4 month period, and they should play team Y that has won their conference over a 3-4 month period. If the field were expaned, I would be ok with allowing non-champs, but if it is limited to 4 teams, I think conference champs have to be taken first.

BCS conference champions last year were Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, LSU, Oregon.

Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Oregon were better and more deserving teams than Alabama because they won their conferences?

karen lotz;1207546 wrote:
Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Oregon were better and more deserving teams than Alabama because they won their conferences?

That's two questions with polar opposite answers, no and yes, respectively.

karen lotz;1207546 wrote:BCS conference champions last year were Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, LSU, Oregon.

Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Oregon were better and more deserving teams than Alabama because they won their conferences?

Last year was only a 2-team playoff. I see that you didn't include Oklahoma State in the question part of your post.

queencitybuckeye;1207549 wrote:That's two questions with polar opposite answers, no and yes, respectively.

Explain how they are more deserving then, because they won lesser conferences?

queencitybuckeye;1207534 wrote:I would argue that the playoff should be made up of the most deserving teams, which is not necessarily the same thing as the best teams.

Fair enough. But the argument that most people made was that they wanted the National Champion decided on the field. Limiting that to just conference champions does not allow that to happen. It lets you decide who the best conference champion is. Bottom line is that some conferences suck and are not as good as others. Their conference champion may be a middle of the pack team in a tougher conference. So I think a playoff...in which you cannot guarantee a spot for every conference champion and at-large bids...needs to consist of just the best teams.

Al Bundy;1207541 wrote:I guess where I struggle with this is how do you know that they are the best teams? If SEC teams keep playing SEC teams, are they #1 and #2 because ESPN tells us that they are? I would rather say that team X has won this conference over a 3-4 month period, and they should play team Y that has won their conference over a 3-4 month period. If the field were expaned, I would be ok with allowing non-champs, but if it is limited to 4 teams, I think conference champs have to be taken first.

How do you know what the best conferences are? If all conference champions finish undefeated and win their conference, how do you determine which of those 6 deserve an invite to the playoff?

I would rather say that consensus says that Conference A is strongest, and consensus says Conference A's #2 is better than Conference B's champion. So therefore Conference A's #2 should get a playoff invite over Conference B's champion simply because they are a conference champion.

I am of the opposite thinking of you in your last statement. I think if it's 8 teams, then you can go ahead and guarantee spots for conference champs, and allow for 2 at-large teams. But with 4, you have to simply take the best teams.

Al Bundy;1207553 wrote:Last year was only a 2-team playoff. I see that you didn't include Oklahoma State in the question part of your post.

I assumed OK State wasn't included in the question part because it was assumed that they would have gotten a bid for the playoffs with this format.

Al Bundy;1207553 wrote:Last year was only a 2-team playoff. I see that you didn't include Oklahoma State in the question part of your post.

Out of the 6 conference champions, Oklahoma State and LSU were the only 2 that had seasons that would definitely have placed them in a 4 team playoff. The rest of them would be at best in consideration for the 4th playoff spot. The other 4 each had at least 2 losses and the best non conference win among all of them was over Auburn.

Winning a conference does not mean you are one of the top 4 teams in the country. Not all conferences are equal.

If you limit it to only the conference champions, you have essentially made it an 8 team playoff with the quarterfinals the conference championship game.

sherm03;1207562 wrote:Fair enough. But the argument that most people made was that they wanted the National Champion decided on the field. Limiting that to just conference champions does not allow that to happen.

I disagree with the notion that subjective general consensus trumps objective results.

It lets you decide who the best conference champion is.

It determines the best among a group with objective credentials, yes.

Bottom line is that some conferences suck and are not as good as others. Their conference champion may be a middle of the pack team in a tougher conference.

I can prove I'm a conference champion, how do you prove your 2nd place team in a different league is better? Because most fans think so? Give me objective over subjective every time.

So I think a playoff...in which you cannot guarantee a spot for every conference champion and at-large bids...needs to consist of just the best teams.

And of the two, I go the opposite direction. Again, best != most deserving.

BR1986FB;1207166 wrote:Here's the proposed bracket....:rolleyes:

LOL. Yeah...they are the best conference ever...we don't need no stinkin' other conferences.

Sonofanump;1207592 wrote:If you limit it to only the conference champions, you have essentially made it an 8 team playoff with the quarterfinals the conference championship game.

Except two of those conference champions are eliminated...despite winning...because they will not make it into the bracket.

queencitybuckeye;1207593 wrote:I disagree with the notion that subjective general consensus trumps objective results.


It determines the best among a group with objective credentials, yes.


I can prove I'm a conference champion, how do you prove your 2nd place team in a different league is better? Because most fans think so? Give me objective over subjective every time.


And of the two, I go the opposite direction. Again, best != most deserving.

You are right...most deserving =/= best. But if the ultimate end game is to crown a "true national champion" (which is the main reason why people wanted to switch to a playoff format in the first place)...then wouldn't the best be needed to get that "true national champion?"

sherm03;1207774 wrote:Except two of those conference champions are eliminated...despite winning...because they will not make it into the bracket.

Be a better conference. Best four conference champs are in. Post season starts at the conference championship games.

Sonofanump;1207808 wrote:Be a better conference. Best four conference champs are in. Post season starts at the conference championship games.

Why do the best four conferences get in...instead of the best four teams?

sherm03;1207815 wrote:Why do the best four conferences get in...instead of the best four teams?

Most sports reward conference or division champs before at-large teams. In baseball for example, the Indians currently have the 6th best record in the AL but would be the 3 seed if the playoffs started today.

sherm03;1207815 wrote:Why do the best four conferences get in...instead of the best four teams?

Yeah, my bad on assuming the best four teams come from the best four conferences, that would be erronous. In theory, last year the B1G would have been left out, but the other three would have been represented.