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

• sleeper

  

  sherm03;1661558 wrote: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.

  lol. Best team in the country, but can't even win its own conference. Do you not understand what a filter does? The point is to determine the best team so if you can't even win your own conference then you are not the best team; the logic is not that hard.
  
  For example, say Auburn and Alabama are the best teams ON THE PLANET. They would absolutely DESTROY even NFL teams. They play each other and Alabama wins; boom, solved Alabama is the better team so why do we need to even bother with Auburn anymore?
• sleeper

  

  ....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.

  Except the conferences are deciding who the best team is and crowning them a champion. Why do double the work?
• sleeper

  

  sherm03;1661577 wrote: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.

  Your scenarios are garbage as usual. I'm not sure why the concept is entirely lost on you; win your conference and you solidify that you are THE BEST team from your conference. You are better than every team in your conference. Who cares about the second place guy? They had their chance to PROVE THAT THEY WERE THE BEST and they lost. THEY FUCKING LOST. THEY LOST. It's called a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP; keyword: NATIONAL.
• sherm03

  

  sleeper;1661578 wrote:lol. Best team in the country, but can't even win its own conference. Do you not understand what a filter does? The point is to determine the best team so if you can't even win your own conference then you are not the best team; the logic is not that hard.
  
  For example, say Auburn and Alabama are the best teams ON THE PLANET. They would absolutely DESTROY even NFL teams. They play each other and Alabama wins; boom, solved Alabama is the better team so why do we need to even bother with Auburn anymore?

  Because we've added that we want to have playoff where the best 4 teams play to see who the champion is. If Alabama and Auburn are the best teams on the planet, they are better than the conference champs from other conferences. Why is the loser excluded because they are forced to play the other best team on the planet earlier than the other teams who benefit from being the best against weaker opponents?
• sleeper

  

  sherm03;1661581 wrote:Because we've added that we want to have playoff where the best 4 teams play to see who the champion is. If Alabama and Auburn are the best teams on the planet, they are better than the conference champs from other conferences. Why is the loser excluded because they are forced to play the other best team on the planet earlier than the other teams who benefit from being the best against weaker opponents?

  Because they lost. THEY LOST THE GAME. Why is so hard? lol. It's not about determinign the top 4 teams, its about determing the best NATIONAL TEAM. They lost the game; move on.
• sherm03

  

  sleeper;1661582 wrote:Because they lost. THEY LOST THE GAME. Why is so hard? lol. It's not about determinign the top 4 teams, its about determing the best NATIONAL TEAM. They lost the game; move on.

  So you just want the playoffs to be the best 4 conference champions...and not the best four teams. That's what this post means.
• sleeper

  

  sherm03;1661583 wrote:So you just want the playoffs to be the best 4 conference champions...and not the best four teams. That's what this post means.

  Why would it be any other way? Are you seriously this dense? Do I need to explain the most SIMPLE LOGIC in the world again?
• sherm03

  

  sleeper;1661584 wrote:Why would it be any other way? Are you seriously this dense? Do I need to explain the most SIMPLE LOGIC in the world again?

  Dude. Fucking relax. It's not the end of the world when someone disagrees with you. I believe that, even if you are not the best in your conference you can still be better than the champion from a shit conference. Not sure why you're that dense.
  
  I'm not alone in that thinking. The NFL, MLB, NBA, and pretty much every other sport that has playoffs feels that same way. That's why there are wild card teams. In my opinion, when you only have 4 teams that can make a playoff, you need to make all 4 teams wild card teams. We just have a difference of opinion here. There's no reason for you to be a complete douche about it.
• lhslep134

  

  I think saying it "should be" this way or that way is the wrong approach. In most years, there will probably be at least 3 of the 5 conference champions, most likely 4 or all 5 of them, with playoff-quality resumes. In some years, it's very possible that there are only 2 or 3 worthy conference champs. In that scenario I have no problem with a conference getting a second team.
  
  I'm curious to see how much weight the committee gives winning your conference this year, although I admit saying that now might not matter if the chaos continues.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sleeper;1661580 wrote:Your scenarios are garbage as usual. I'm not sure why the concept is entirely lost on you; win your conference and you solidify that you are THE BEST team from your conference. You are better than every team in your conference. Who cares about the second place guy? They had their chance to PROVE THAT THEY WERE THE BEST and they lost. THEY FUCKING LOST. THEY LOST. It's called a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP; keyword: NATIONAL.

  2012 National Title game.
  Just because you do not win your conference does not mean you cannot win the national title.
  And you cannot say, ,"Oh that doesn't count it is the SEC." BS. It happened, it is possible for a team to make the playoff without winning their conference.
• HitsRus

  

  so what if it happened? It's bullshit. There should be no mulligans. You have a chance to qualify for the national championship by winning your league...if you are second in your league how are you the best in the nation? Why should the team that beat your ass in the conference championship have to turn around and beat you again? That team had a chance to beat a contender and prove its' championship caliber and failed. Someone else gets the shot.
• sportchampps

  What really needs to happen is 4 16 team super conferences. Let's get rid of one of the power conferences. Create a balanced schedule for teams in each division. Division winners play for conference titles. Conference champions make the 4 team playoff.
  
  There's room for 64 teams independents either join a super conference or are regulated to basically d2.
  
  The 64 teams should also just break off from the NCAA and create their own rules for scholarships, recruiting, and how much can be given to players.
• HitsRus

  

  Not a bad idea.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Kentucky was an EIGHT seed in the tourney this year, and made it to the National Basketball Championship. You NEVER know what is going to happen in the post season. I'm so sick and tired of the knob slobbing of the SEC, all because ESPN. It's engrained in our heads that they are the top, so they deserve 2 teams in the NCG. Why not put Oklahoma and Baylor in the NCG. Is that EVER even thought about? OKL just lost to a conference foe, as did many SEC teams. But good lawd, SEC! SEC! SEC!...
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Bottom line is this, in my opinion... The conference Championship game is the FIRST ROUND of playoffs.
• sherm03

  

  ernest_t_bass;1661659 wrote:Kentucky was an EIGHT seed in the tourney this year, and made it to the National Basketball Championship. You NEVER know what is going to happen in the post season. I'm so sick and tired of the knob slobbing of the SEC, all because ESPN. It's engrained in our heads that they are the top, so they deserve 2 teams in the NCG. Why not put Oklahoma and Baylor in the NCG. Is that EVER even thought about? OKL just lost to a conference foe, as did many SEC teams. But good lawd, SEC! SEC! SEC!...

  But...but...but...how can Connecticut and Kentucky be playing for the NATIONAL championship? They weren't even the best in their conferences!!! So how can they be the NATIONAL champion?!?! Herp derp.
  

  ernest_t_bass;1661660 wrote:Bottom line is this, in my opinion... The conference Championship game is the FIRST ROUND of playoffs.

  In my opinion, that's fine...but only if everyone that could go into the playoffs actually PLAYS a conference championship game. With the CURRENT set-up, I think you need to just name 4 at-large teams. If you want to tell the Big 12 they have to have a conference championship game and then force all independents into a conference and say that the top four teams out of the winners of the conference championship move on to the playoffs, then that's fine. But that's not the set-up we have right now. So you can't say that, IMO.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  sherm03;1661674 wrote:But...but...but...how can Connecticut and Kentucky be playing for the NATIONAL championship? They weren't even the best in their conferences!!! So how can they be the NATIONAL champion?!?! Herp derp.

  Who are you herp derping, here?
• sherm03

  

  ernest_t_bass;1661675 wrote:Who are you herp derping, here?

  The people who have made that argument multiple times throughout this thread.
• Azubuike24

  

  It's stupid to compare football to basketball as well. Unfortunately, it isn't plausible to allow 25% of D-1 schools into a football tournament unless you want 5 weeks of playoffs. Basketball, you have more venue options and can play multiple games in a week.
• sherm03

  

  Azubuike24;1661699 wrote:It's stupid to compare football to basketball as well. Unfortunately, it isn't plausible to allow 25% of D-1 schools into a football tournament unless you want 5 weeks of playoffs. Basketball, you have more venue options and can play multiple games in a week.

  I understand that. But the point remains that a team can win a playoff situation and be crowned the National Champion without them winning (read: being the best in) their conference.
• Azubuike24

  

  I do agree with you. In every other sport, college and professional, the overall champion doesn't have to be the champion of their league, division, conference, etc. Every professional sport has a wild card of some sort. Every college sport (at least the ones I'm aware of) has some sort of other way to qualify for the postseason. Why would all of the sudden football change this? The ONLY way you consider it, is if you consider all 4 or 5 or 6 conferences, whatever get automatic bids, equal. Right now, they aren't.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Azubuike24;1661703 wrote:Every professional sport has a wild card of some sort.

  And in every professional sport, the winner of that league/division get's an auto bid, which is why I feel there needs to be 8 teams. You have 5 auto's, then the rest is up for grabs.
• Azubuike24

  

  ernest_t_bass;1661704 wrote:And in every professional sport, the winner of that league/division get's an auto bid, which is why I feel there needs to be 8 teams. You have 5 auto's, then the rest is up for grabs.

  I think we all agree that it can be better. But the argument that anyone who doesn't win their conference is excluded doesn't make sense.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Azubuike24;1661718 wrote:But the argument that anyone who doesn't win their conference is excluded doesn't make sense.

  I think it makes perfect sense. MSU lost to a damn good Oregon team. If they win out, I don't see why they would be overlooked by an SEC team (and let's be real, we'd only ever see 2 SEC teams in consideration, mostly because SEC) with 1 loss, who just lost their conference championship game. Let's say Georgia ends up winning the SEC. Would you put the runner up in over MSU? MSU lost to Oregon, whom I feel is better than Georgia. Or would you go ahead and put the Runner up in over MSU, mostly b/c SEC?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  It just baffles me that the only conference in consideration (ever) to have two teams in the playoff, or NCG, or whatever, is the SEC... and ONLY because "SEC." See my scenario on Baylor and Oklahoma above. Why not have both of them in consideration, if they each have one loss (Oklahoma over Baylor in reg. season)? They're both damn good football teams who would have lost to conference foes, and that's it.