In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 228
Online now 1074 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If you have to win your conference or be runner-up to get into the playoff the SOS and "opinions" becomes irrelevant and the importance of the regular season remains in tact.
Get your minds off opinionated polls or selection committees people....they SUCK.
Why would you advocate making SOS irrelevant?
Geez are you kiddding? How is SOS relevant when you either have to win your conference or be runner up to get into the playoffs?
THERE ARE NO POLLS.
THERE IS NO SELECTION COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE NO "OPINONS"
The playoff participants are decided from ON THE FIELD RESULTS.
You didn't answer my question. Why would you want SOS to not matter? SOS being a factor is good for college football and the fans. The more SOS matters, the better matchups fans get to see in the non-conference schedules.
I'll bite, how would you pick 4 in say 1998 as an example?
5 conference champs, 4 of whom had the same record.
And keep in mind your claim was the SOS is irrelevant. But personally, that is how I would select the tie breaker.
OTOH, I'm not a fan of "invite everyone" systems that make the regular season less relevant and that happens when you expand (read water down) the playoffs.
If you go back and look at the top 8 in the final AP poll prior to the bowl games and compare that to the "conference champion and runner up" of the ACC, Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 (I'm even spotting you excluding the Big East, which I shouldn't) and then take a step back and ask yourself which of those 8 teams better reflects the 8 best team in the country, I think you'll change your opinion that hard and fast rules are better than a common sense approach.
Your approach would have excluded Texas in 2008, it would have excluded Alabama last year. Instead of 2008 Texas and 2011 Alabama (consensus top 3 teams in the country), in 2008, the ACC runner up was 9-4 (9-5 after losing to Vaderbilt in a bowl game) Boston College. In 2011, the Pac 12 runner up was a god-freaking-awful UCLA team that had to petition for bowl eligibility with its 6-6 record after getting destroyed by Oregon.
The most crooked "sucky" (to use your eloquent term) selection committee would not make the same inexcusable mistake to exclude a top 3 team from a top 8 playoff in at least 2 out of the last 4 years as your system would. Plus, your system provides ZERO access for teams in conferences outside of the Big 12/Big 10/ACC/Pac 12. No reason worthy teams from MWC, WAC, C-USA, or Big East should be excluded if they're deserving. The facts just aren't on your side here. Not even close.
You need to take a step back and start analyzing actual facts instead of raw emotions. Or, you could continue the incredibly persuasive argument style of CAPITALIZING random WORDS.
There is no four teams----THERE ARE AT LEAST EIGHT TEAMS.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports