So OU and UT are screwed? Not fair. And this notion that a Pac 12 winner surely has to be better than a team that had only 1 loss in the SEC W (for example) and never got the opportunity to play in its conference title game is absurd. The best teams need to get in. Isn't that what we all want? The best teams getting the opportunity to compete? Or do you guys still want to see Boise State somewhere it doesn't belong?
How are they screwed? They both have a chance to win their conference. If they can't do that, it's hard to make the claim they are the best team in the country. If the SEC team was the best team in the country, it should have won its conference when it had the opportunity.
You're obviously missing the logic of SECircularity. Once you assume the SEC is the greatest conference, it doesn't matter what you do out of conference or what anybody else does - it's automatically loaded with great teams because of this, which is waht makes it great. - You don't have to really beat anybody outside the circle, you can just pretty much shout SEC and that's it. It worked for Alabama last year.
Okay, lets use the Big 12. OU & UT finish with a combined 1 loss. What if the loser lost on the road by 1? What if every other team in the country has 3 losses? Anyone can beat anyone on a given night -- that's why we play the games. Y'all are still trying to use the BS argument that regular season is a playoff. No, the playoff is now the playoff. The 4 best teams deserve a chance.
No - the regular season is the elimination round to get to the playoffs. No two teams play the same schedule, so measuring across conference is difficult to impossible. I have zero problem with a requirement that you win your conference to be eligible to win the national title. Losing by 1 on the road is no different than losing your playoff game to a Pac10 team in the Rose Bowl by 1. You lose and you have to rely on other what teams do. But at the end of the day, every team controls their destiny in a playoff system: you win every game you play and you'll win the national title. That's the most important thing.
You simply see it a different way. The 2 best teams in college football can obviously come from the same conference. Hell, the 2 best teams in the history of college football might reside in the same conference at any single time, but by your logic, they don't both deserve a shot. Instead, you'd rather see a possible 3 loss team from some other division compete. That just doesn't seem fair or logical to me. And does it really matter if the team that lost to #1 from the same conference cant beat #1 in a title game? We have a playoff now -- they deserve the right to play for #2.
They do deserve a shot - that's the point. They had a shot to win their conference and couldn't do it. So now someone else gets a shot.
This is no different than the years when the Kings/Lakers were fighting to play the Nets (or whatever **** team the East produced that year).
Oh yeah, "exactly" -- the setups are nothing alike! The 4 best teams should be in the final four, not 1 team from each conference that the Gods have deemed worthy. If one conference has a 1 loss team and a 0 loss team and all other conferences have 3 loss teams -- give me the best teams.
It's fair to criticize a knock-out format tournament as inferior to a true round robin (European football is the best example)....but criticizing it on the basis of fairness in that losing teams aren't admitted or are unable to progress - isn't one of them.
The team that lost in question would have lost before the playoffs began. Why call the 4 team playoff a "playoff" if the season is a playoff? "The regular season is a playoff" saying is a marketing gimmick coined by ESPN. Did you not just watch LSU vs Alabama in the title game? What if a 3 loss Pac 12 teams gets in over a 1 loss Big 12 team -- the kicker - that Big 12 team already beat said Pac 12 team in the regular season (which y'all seem to think is a playoff thus that game should have eliminated said team)? Best 4 teams should get in. Period. Hell if they have to do an eyeball test and use a selection committee to determine who the 4 best teams are so be it. Otherwise continue using the BCS formula and let the 4 teams with the highest percentage in.
How are the setups nothing alike? MLB is the closest - or especially was before the introduction of the wildcard. The 4 playoff teams were the ones that won the divisions. 100 win teams were left out if they were in the wrong division. It was exactly the same - win your division or don't complain. The NFL gets you 8-8 teams while leaving more deserving teams out because it rewards winning divisions. The NBA really doesn't, simply because there are so many teams in the playoffs. But you'll notice in all the leagues, they start with division/conference winners and only later added wildcard 2nd place teams. That's the same here - with only 4 teams, the only ones invited are the ones that win their own divisions.
It not about the best 4 teams in the nation. Its about the best team in the nation. It not fair that a team with a perfect record be left out of the title chase like Auburn did when they went undefeated and didn't get a shot at the BCS championship game. Was USC better than Auburn that year? We will never know.
same here, didn't watch it and didn't care. in the nfl everyone knows you need a qb to win. in college it's the opposite. mccarron and jefferson didn't exactly draw me in.
So? Who cares if the game was boring. Sorry it was boring - is that what you want, an apology? Hell millions of people watch soccer games and I find them to be completely boring. There's a thread about Taylor Lautner dating some chick and I have no idea who he is, I thought it was a chick, and apparently its some dude that millions of people care about -- not me though. Sorry you got bored bro, go play some XBOX360. 4 best teams should play or the entire conference structure as it stands should be altered. Right now it just doesn't add up.
I actually went to see moe. that night. They were not boring. Do you feel the same way about all sports? Should the NBA, MLB and NFL do away with conferences/leagues. I actually don't necessarily disagree with this.
On if its unfair 2 schools from the same conference can't go looking at it from both sides - As flawed as the college ranking sytem is with all its politics and conference self-aggrandizing, it does try to put the BEST teams at the top. In PRO SPORTS, I've been in favor of no divisions & conferences in PRO sports for a while. Years ago the Patriots won 11 games and didnt make the playoffs. While 8-8 San Diego did. (The Texans went 8-8 that year). Thatd straight indicate divisions are a PROHIBITIVE way of leaving out the best teams. (The Rockets would be in the playoffs the past 3 years just based on LEAGUE record that way ) - Then again, the argument is that there's "darkhorse" teams that should get the REAL chance. Cuz hypothetically the 2 best teams in a pompous power conference can BOTH go down in a playoff to a Jared Zabranksy led upset specialist. Like the undeated Utah team that beat #4 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl a couple years. Will see if the +1 can include something like that, though I doubt it.
