Should a 1-loss Runner Up Make Playoff over 1-loss Champ?

• ernest_t_bass

  

  Simple question. Should a 1-loss conference Runner up make the NCAA playoff over 1-loss conference Champ?
  
  I say not a chance in hell, should it ever happen. But sadly, it just may.
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;1661460 wrote:Simple question. Should a 1-loss conference Runner up make the NCAA playoff over 1-loss conference Champ?
  
  I say not a chance in hell, should it ever happen. But sadly, it just may.

  Never. If SEC fans want to complain, they can move to these alleged easy conferences and make the playoffs every year. Reality says otherwise.
• thavoice

  ernest_t_bass;1661460 wrote:Simple question. Should a 1-loss conference Runner up make the NCAA playoff over 1-loss conference Champ?
  
  I say not a chance in hell, should it ever happen. But sadly, it just may.

  Good question.
  
  Easy answer would be no.
  
  but I can see a legit case made for it happening.
• WebFire

  I've always thought it should be the best 4, regardless of conference. But I can see arguments for and against it. I think it would have to be determined case-by-case.
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1661472 wrote:I've always thought it should be the best 4, regardless of conference. But I can see arguments for and against it. I think it would have to be determined case-by-case.

  Except determining the best 4 when not every team plays each other makes it difficult. Conferences are an easy filter; not perfect, but in reality the best filter we have.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yes. If it is like last year.
  For example, if the SEC West is as good as it is so far and say Auburn goes unbeaten, but then loses to say a 2 loss Georgia in the SEC title game, on a close game at the end, they should get in over say Michigan St or even Ohio State.
  With that case, Auburn would have beaten more quality opponents.
  
  The B1G is so bad this year that they could easily get jumped by a SEC team that loses close and late.
  
  Or, even another case.
  Say Ole Miss runs the table so they are unbeaten and in.
  FSU is in, and say Baylor or TCU are in as unbeaten.
  Now let's say Bama goes unbeaten the rest of the way, destroys everyone, including Auburn and Miss St, but due to Ole Miss cannot play in the SEC Title game.
  They should still get in over Oregon or MSU, due to a better overall resume.
  It has happened before.
• gport_tennis

  16 team playoff is only fair way to do it. All D1 conference winners automatically qualify (including MAC, WAC, etc). The rest can be at large
• queencitybuckeye

  Why should a non-league loss count less than a league loss?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1661480 wrote:With that case, Auburn would have beaten more quality opponents.

  What makes them quality? Their inflated rankings?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  queencitybuckeye;1661482 wrote:Why should a non-league loss count less than a league loss?

  Mostly because SEC.
• thavoice

  ptown_trojans_1;1661480 wrote:Yes. If it is like last year.
  For example, if the SEC West is as good as it is so far and say Auburn goes unbeaten, but then loses to say a 2 loss Georgia in the SEC title game, on a close game at the end, they should get in over say Michigan St or even Ohio State.
  With that case, Auburn would have beaten more quality opponents.
  
  The B1G is so bad this year that they could easily get jumped by a SEC team that loses close and late.
  
  Or, even another case.
  Say Ole Miss runs the table so they are unbeaten and in.
  FSU is in, and say Baylor or TCU are in as unbeaten.
  Now let's say Bama goes unbeaten the rest of the way, destroys everyone, including Auburn and Miss St, but due to Ole Miss cannot play in the SEC Title game.
  They should still get in over Oregon or MSU, due to a better overall resume.
  It has happened before.

  I def can see where a 1 loss non conf winner would be rated higher and more deserving than a 1 loss conference winner. I know when it was just the top 2 teams for the BCS many thought only a champion of a conference should be in the champ game and I agreed with that.
  
  Two undefeated teams in the conference championship game and one has to lose. That may be better than a 1 loss team who won their much weaker conference. With 4 teams in the playoff though I dont see where a legit conference champion with 1 loss would not make it over a 1 loss conference runnerup
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it... with 5 "major/power" conferences, the only pure way is to have an 8 team playoff. Take 5 conference champs (make Big 12 have a championship game), and then the 3 best left over. Hell, if there are 4 teams from the $EC in that 8 team playoff, at least each of the 5 power conferences have representation.
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;1661494 wrote:I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it... with 5 "major/power" conferences, the only pure way is to have an 8 team playoff. Take 5 conference champs (make Big 12 have a championship game), and then the 3 best left over. Hell, if there are 4 teams from the $EC in that 8 team playoff, at least each of the 5 power conferences have representation.

  Yep.
• HitsRus

  

  I'm a firm believer in that you need to be a champion to be in the hunt for the title as a prerequiste. If you are not champion of your league, you can't be national champ. And if you "independent...then you have to be the best of the independents, or, better still, make the independents affiliate with a league if they want to play for the NC.
  
  Screw the 8 team( or more) playoffs. You can't make the top 4?....you have only yourself to blame.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  HitsRus;1661502 wrote:Screw the 8 team( or more) playoffs. You can't make the top 4?....you have only yourself to blame.

  In my opinion, this is not true when you have 5 power conferences. The ONLY way to show who is better is on the field, vs. each other. How do we honestly know that the SEC isn't god awful this year? We watch them play each other, and we watch them beat up on cupcakes (unless you're Mizzou, and lose to Indiana).
• Heretic

  

  ernest_t_bass;1661494 wrote:I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it... with 5 "major/power" conferences, the only pure way is to have an 8 team playoff. Take 5 conference champs (make Big 12 have a championship game), and then the 3 best left over. Hell, if there are 4 teams from the $EC in that 8 team playoff, at least each of the 5 power conferences have representation.

  I'd agree with this.
  
  For the most part, as things are now with only the top four teams involved, I'd agree that only conference champs should be involved. As Hits just said, if you're not good enough to win your conference, you shouldn't win the national championship.
  
  With that said, I'm not a fan of absolutes and the way college football is set up plays into that big-time with the conference championship games that have become necessary in this day of larger "super-conferences".
  
  Where a team can be excellent all season long, but fall in an upset to a lesser team in that game. Why should they be punished by being put behind the champion of an inferior conference? Especially in a world where one of the Power 5 conferences doesn't have to go through a championship game?
  
  For another point, remember the final years of there being six power conferences? During that time, both the Big East and ACC were pathetic to the degree where their champions were considered easily the worst of the six and tended to be matched up with each other in the BCS, so none of the real champions would be stuck with them. There's no way I could endorse a team from a conference at that level as a Final Four playoff team, regardless of their record in comparison with 1-loss teams from conferences which are playing at a higher level. With 5 power conferences (and Notre Dame, who is the only independent team essentially considered to be on a par with them by the decision-makers), it'd be tough to get things in that situation (right now, the Big 10 is the only conference really falling into that zone), but it is possible.
• sleeper

  

  Navy has won more bowl games than ND has in the last 20 years. ND is on par with bottom feeder Sun Belt schools in reality.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Heretic;1661507 wrote:Where a team can be excellent all season long, but fall in an upset to a lesser team in that game. Why should they be punished by being put behind the champion of an inferior conference? Especially in a world where one of the Power 5 conferences doesn't have to go through a championship game?

  Many may say that Miami was the better team in 2002, but OSU won on the field, played a better game, etc. Hell, Miami had the game won. Miami doesn't get an "Almost" trophy. They get nothing, b/c they weren't the best when they needed to be. Sorry, but a national champ needs to be the best when they need to be the best, and that starts at the conference championship game. The "post season" starts at the conference championship game. You lose, you're out (in this format).
• sleeper

  

  Miami, still crying about that loss 12 years later.
• thavoice

  ernest_t_bass;1661525 wrote:Many may say that Miami was the better team in 2002, but OSU won on the field, played a better game, etc. Hell, Miami had the game won. Miami doesn't get an "Almost" trophy. They get nothing, b/c they weren't the best when they needed to be. Sorry, but a national champ needs to be the best when they need to be the best, and that starts at the conference championship game. The "post season" starts at the conference championship game. You lose, you're out (in this format).

  maybe they should market it that way for the championship games.
  
  Those truly are the first round of the playoffs.
• sherm03

  

  I think it comes down to what the goal of the playoffs is. Is the goal to find out the best team in college football? Or is the goal to find out the best team among the conference champions?
  
  For years, people called for a playoff so that the champion "can be decided on the field." I'm fine with that line of thinking. But if that's the line of thinking you subscribe to, you also have to realize that it's realistic to say that 2 of the top 4 teams can come from the same conference. In a four team playoff, where the objective is to put the four best teams together to crown a National Champion, there should be no prerequisite that you have to win your conference title. By adding that as a requirement, then you are changing the objective to determine who the best of the conference champions is.
  
  I've said it before, other sports and leagues take this into account by having enough room for a conference or division champions and at-large bids. In a situation where the number of playoff teams is less than the number of conference champions available, then all spots should be considered at-large bids.
• Azubuike24

  

  I agree with an 8-team playoff. However, I also wish there was a way to prevent bias WITHIN the conference. We hear a lot about bias for a specific league OUTSIDE, but you also have to look at the inside schedule to see the same thing.
  
  2014 Wisconsin and 2014 Michigan State. Say they win vs LSU and Oregon. Wisky doesn't play OSU, PSU, MSU or UM. Say they would've gone 11-1, losing to say, Minnesota. They end up winning the Big Ten Championship over Michigan State, who entered 11-0 with wins over all of those teams (and Nebraska). Both finish at 11-1, and despite the head to head loss, there are arguments to be made that the path getting there was completely unbalanced and flawed.
  
  I know it's impossible when the conference has more than 10 teams, but I DO see the argument as to why the Big XII opts to not have a title game. All 10 teams play each other once and the best record out of those 9 games gets their conference champion bid. Period. If the playoff is 8 teams in the future, might as well eliminate conference title games and play another regular season game. Heck, the B1G should just go to an 11-game conference schedule and play everyone once.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^^Well I think that is it....that if you want an 8 team playoff, then you have to eliminate some early season games...or the conference championship.
  

  I think it comes down to what the goal of the playoffs is. Is the goal to find out the best team in college football? Or is the goal to find out the best team among the conference champions?

  
  How can you be the best team in college football if you are second in your conference?
  The question you want to ask is...do you want the best team in college football for the entire season of the given year...or do you want to crown the national champion on who is the hottest team at the end?
• thavoice

  HitsRus;1661570 wrote:^^^^Well I think that is it....that if you want an 8 team playoff, then you have to eliminate some early season games...or the conference championship.
  
  
  
  
  How can you be the best team in college football if you are second in your conference?
  The question you want to ask is...do you want the best team in college football for the entire season of the given year...or do you want to crown the national champion on who is the hottest team at the end?

  That can be said about alot of sports but not really CFB because the teams will have 0 or 1 loss so it isnt like some team who streaks late to sneak into the playoffs/postseason and makes a run. Can happen in College hoops and other sports, but not really applicable to CFB.
  ....about your comment of how can you be the best team in the country if you are second in your conference? They are not deciding whom the best team is, they are trying to take the best 4 teams and put them into a playoff and see what shakes out.
• sherm03

  

  HitsRus;1661570 wrote: How can you be the best team in college football if you are second in your conference?
  The question you want to ask is...do you want the best team in college football for the entire season of the given year...or do you want to crown the national champion on who is the hottest team at the end?

  Just because you lost in a conference championship game does not mean that you still can't be better than 2 conference champions from other conferences. What if a team absolutely dominates for an entire year, but an injury in the last week of the season sidelines their QB for the conference championship game? They lose the game, but the QB would be healthy for the following week. Are you going to say that team wouldn't be better than a conference champion because of one fluke week?
  
  How about this scenario? Team A loses to a bottom feeder in their conference during conference play in the regular season, but goes on to win their conference championship with 1 loss. Team B goes undefeated throughout the year, and loses in their conference championship to another undefeated team. Team A deserves to get in over Team B just because their loss was earlier and not in the conference championship game? That doesn't make sense to me.