Kind of Impossible to win a conference or division as an independant.
that was my point.
Their wins came against some good teams. As the only unbeaten, they deserve spot. Wins at Michigan St, against Michigan, at Oklahoma and at USC. Granted the close games again poo u's, but still got w's. I just thinks it's bs that you can play for a National title based on the opinions of voters and computers, when you cant even be the best in your division as played out on the field. It's just a common sense issue. I know non division winners win championships all the time in all sports, but for playoffs in all those sports, automatic bids and buys and home field advantages are given to conference and division winners. Basically in college football right now, winning your conference is not that big of a gainer.
you are complaining that a team can make it to a national championship without winning their own conference championship. but nd does not have to win a conference championship. nd has some good wins and i am not really saying that they do not deserve to go to the mnc, but an sec loss is better than a lot of nd's wins.
championships are about the best two teams playing each other. without a playoff, it will always be up for debate.
let me ask you this, where do you think nd would end up in the sec?
Yes, I guess it is the one double standard I hold on my "conference champions only" ideal. But this year, Notre Dame has a heck of a list of good to great wins. They have the style of team that could be competitive in the SEC. Great defense. Serviceable to good offense depending on the day. I'd say they'd probably be about where A&M is, just a win away from the championship game.
I also want to make it clear that I think it is bs that Nooter Dame not being in a conference creates this sort of entitled way of thinking. It always seems like they have to do less to get that BCS at large. It's just in this case, it's pretty obvious to me anyway they've earned that NC appearance. I also think Notre Dame would be the legitimate champion-probably still an undefeated one-in any other conference in the country.
I dont have a problem with an SEC team getting to play for the title, but when it's two of'em, especially from the same division and having played each other, like last year, it's ridiculous in my opinion. Now this year's scenario had Nooter Dame lost, Alabama/Georgia vs Florida may not have been as bad if it was Bama because Florida didnt play them, but Georgia wouldve been a rematch. The thing I think is different about college football is that with the absence of a legitimate on the field playoff systetm comprised of 8/16 teams, there are better options out there that are the best in their conference than a rematch and a 45 day biased infomercial for the SEC.
The hypocrisy for me is all the anti-playoff guys do is talk about the importance of every game in college football and the regular season, but yet, for the second season in a row, the National title game nearly wound up being a re-match of not only conference opponents, but divisional opponents. They already played each other. Last year, and I know we didnt know it at the time, but that first Bama/LSU game was the most meaningless 1 vs 2 game in the history of sports.
As far as the best two teams being in the title game regardless of conference and/or division title, to me, it's just one of those things that "how do we know?" How do we know for sure that if Notre Dame loses, that Florida is better than Oregon or Kansas St. We dont really know for sure. Until it's settle on the field with a legitimate playoff (this 4team crap isnt gonna gain us anything but a week longer version of what we have now) made up of conference champions and a couple at-large births more SEC teams, this is the speculation and discussion we will always have.
