Fairest Comparisons?

[Glendower]

Strip down the "preseason" out of conference crap games-- begin conference play on week 2 and have teams play as many of their conference mates as possible and, consider the conference championships to be, effectively, the first round of the playoffs. After that, conference champions from the big 5 conferences and 3 wildcards (which would be selected by a committee but, possibly, be less critical than deciding the top four) for an 8 game playoff. Since we don't have a good way to determine ranking (that's what the playoffs are for in this scenario), pairings for each round are determined randomly.

Yes, maybe there will be a #2 from a conference that is better than the top team from another, but so what? They lost their conference. They might pick up a wildcard slot, anyway, unless a non-power 5 conference seems to offer more interesting or worthy addition, but this isn't double elimination.

This way, it's not a question of ranking (which, without extensive and significant interconference play, are based on previous rankings reaching back to the preseason rankings-- they really just have to be in order to ascertain the value of a win or loss), just a question of performance during the regular season. Wins will still matter, etc.

 

[Branno]

Because a few non-SEC teams earned the opportunity to throttle LSU, but were denied.

Because the Bama/LSU rematch is the entire reason we have the playoffs in the first place. The outcome of that doesn't really matter when it shouldn't have been played in the first place.

I for one don't want my shiny brand new playoffs to turn into a 4 game second SEC championship.

Why shouldn't it have been played when Alabama dominated them and was the better team? Isn't the national championship supposed to go to the best team?

I agree with you guys and think OSU should have been in the title game but with the playoff I think preference should be given to conference champions but it shouldn't be an absolute rule, because if we're honest Bama earned that title even if they didn't deserve it.

They earned it in the same sense that Michigan "earned" a national championship in 1997. Alabama had their chance to win the SEC West and they lost. Oklahoma State had the same record, but won their Conference (yes they lost to Iowa St, but I still think the plane crash affected them for that game).

You cannot be the best in the country if you can't win your conference or even division. Imagine the asterisks next to our championships if we played Oklahoma for them instead of another conference.

 

[shyndy]

Because a few non-SEC teams earned the opportunity to throttle LSU, but were denied.

Because the Bama/LSU rematch is the entire reason we have the playoffs in the first place. The outcome of that doesn't really matter when it shouldn't have been played in the first place.

I for one don't want my shiny brand new playoffs to turn into a 4 game second SEC championship.

Why shouldn't it have been played when Alabama dominated them and was the better team? Isn't the national championship supposed to go to the best team?

I agree with you guys and think OSU should have been in the title game but with the playoff I think preference should be given to conference champions but it shouldn't be an absolute rule, because if we're honest Bama earned that title even if they didn't deserve it.

they earned the title but not the chance to be there

 

[BigRedBuster]

Something that always baffles me about college football. Everyone asks...."We need to know who the best team is". Why? Define " best team". Seriously.

Is it the one with the most wowsy flashy players? Is it the one that wins the prettiest? Is it the one with the cutest cheerleaders?

The term "best team" is an enigma that some fans for some reason think is important. If we need to know who the "best team" is, hey...have all the media go around and watch fall camp scrimmages. Have them vote from there and it's done. Simple and that would save a lot of kids injuries....etc. that happen through out the year.

What is important is the Champion and putting in place a system that every team knows what is needed to have happen to be able to be crowned the champion. Now, we have that in the Big Ten and other conferences. In the Big Ten, you win your division and then win the CCG. There isn't any arguing or bickering about who is "best". We know who the champion is.

This is why we simply need to let everyone know that if they win their conference, they are in. Now, if that's five conferences and we then need three wild cards then that can satisfy the people who just seem to need to debate something.

But, the fact is, sports are built around a championship. That is everything from little kids baseball to the NFL and Soccer World Cup.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

My understanding is that the Selection Committee is going to do something most AP and Coaches Poll voters don't do:

watch the games.

The numbers will be crunched and polls taken into consideration, but apparently a dozen people who understand football and appreciate fair play -- including Nebraska's own Dr. Tom Osborne and Barry Alverez -- will give select teams and important games the direct eyeball test.

 

[SouthAfricanHusker]

Because a few non-SEC teams earned the opportunity to throttle LSU, but were denied.

Because the Bama/LSU rematch is the entire reason we have the playoffs in the first place. The outcome of that doesn't really matter when it shouldn't have been played in the first place.

I for one don't want my shiny brand new playoffs to turn into a 4 game second SEC championship.

Why shouldn't it have been played when Alabama dominated them and was the better team? Isn't the national championship supposed to go to the best team?

I agree with you guys and think OSU should have been in the title game but with the playoff I think preference should be given to conference champions but it shouldn't be an absolute rule, because if we're honest Bama earned that title even if they didn't deserve it.

They earned it in the same sense that Michigan "earned" a national championship in 1997. Alabama had their chance to win the SEC West and they lost. Oklahoma State had the same record, but won their Conference (yes they lost to Iowa St, but I still think the plane crash affected them for that game).

You cannot be the best in the country if you can't win your conference or even division. Imagine the asterisks next to our championships if we played Oklahoma for them instead of another conference.

My favorite thing about that year was everyone saying the SEC D would have shut down OSU. The SEC D was all the rage. Then a few ears later MU and A&M join and everyone is averaging 40+ points per game. Fast break offense came to the SEC and now they can't play D. Maybe OSU wins maybe LSU does. But let's see a game that we didn't see in the regular season.

I don't know how LSU didn't split the title that year. They beat Bama in their crib. More wins than Bama. Conf champ. Only thing they did was lose at the wrong time.

 

[HUSKERFOREVER38]

SEC is overrated. Nebraska is like 16-1 against $ e c teams.

 

[HUSKERFOREVER38]

Lol@the $ e c