LSU v USC

[Berzerker]

I kind of like the concept of having only conference champions involved. I have a hard time with a team that can't even win it's own conference possibly being name national champion

Another problem, albeit rare, Boise St was, I believe, undefeated this year. I know small schools can't compete with the big ones, but you never know if an undefeated small school should be in the mix. Maybe they ought to look at how the small schools do and throw them up against a couple top 10 teams the next year so analysts can have a better perspective.

[Drake Tungsten]

LSU lost to Florida 19-0, at home.

19-7, to a better team than Cal...

[Drake Tungsten]

I kind of like the concept of having only conference champions involved. I have a hard time with a team that can't even win it's own conference possibly being name national champion

You would've given K-State a shot at the title this year over Oklahoma?!?



It's comments like this that make me glad you have no control over what goes on in college football...

[jdd2007]

Oklahoma

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You would've given K-State a shot at the title this year over Oklahoma?!?

If conferences are going to have this tournaments to determine their "Conference Champion"... then yeah, I would. Who ever win's the "title" should represent the conference.

Your're example is like saying that if the Yankees have the best record in baseball, but lose to a wild card team in the first round of the playoffs, that the Yankees should still be in the world series?



Oklahoma didn't even win their conference... they didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship. If conferences are going to use tournaments to determine their champions, those games count too, and teams better get up to play those games if they want to be taken seriously as national champions.

[Drake Tungsten]

Your're example is like saying that if the Yankees have the best record in baseball, but lose to a wild card team in the first round of the playoffs, that the Yankees should still be in the world series?

No, I'm saying that wild-card teams shouldn't be given a shot at the title in the first place...

[Ming]

But you are saying that second place teams should.. because that's where Oklahoma finished in their conference.

[Guynemer]

At this point I feel like I should bring up my new and improved plan:

All conference champs with at least 9 wins over Div. I-A teams and no more than two loses (this year, all conference champs except North Texas, Southern Miss, and Kansas State);
And one other nonconference champ who meets those same criteria (the obligatory independant pander spot)--this year, Oklahoma would have gotten that spot.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Ming
Oklahoma didn't even win their conference... they didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship. If conferences are going to use tournaments to determine their champions, those games count too, and teams better get up to play those games if they want to be taken seriously as national champions.

This is the first time I have ever said this but you're wrong, Ming.

You are using the Conference Championship as if it were a round in a playoff system. Which we DON'T have. Currently it is JUST ANOTHER GAME. Currently, and all the teams agreed to it, we are under the BCS system and the system states that the top two BCS teams play for the National Championship. Everyone knew that at the beginning of the season and everyone knew that Oklahoma had a good shot of going to the National Championship even if they lost their Conference Championship.

And everyone was okay with it because they thought LSU was going to miss out. They didn't start raising a fuss until OU got blown out in the game and USC didn't make the cut.

Personally, I think using the Conference Championships as the first round of a Playoff like system would work and is probably the ONLY way we can ever have a playoff.

Each Conference has a Championship. Specific Bowls have a contract to have the Champions from play in the second round (say the Rose Bowl has the Pac 10 and Big 10 Champions).

Then you have the top 2 rated teams that won their Bowls play for the National Championship. I think that's the only way you could get a playoff like system to get approved.

[Ming]

GF...
For the record... I do understand the current BCS system and the rules... Based on the current structure, yes, the two teams that should have gone, did go. That I'm not arguing.
And that the winner of the game would indeed be the "BCS" national champion... which LSU now is. And that the AP Poll can continue to have their National Champion as well... which USC now is...

What I am saying is that any system that rewards a second place team with a shot at the national championship that is being denied to real conference winners is just wrong. And that the Current BCS system did not pick the right two teams for this years championship. Interestingly enough, the BCS has already gone on record as agreeing that the two best teams weren't selected this year and that there will be changes for next year.

I think we both can agree that ANY kind of real playoff would be better than the current system

[DanS]

The only reason that there are conference championship games is because of the additional revenue. I don't know why we have to attach any particular additional value to a conference championship game (and hence the conference championship itself) beyond that which we attach to any other game.

I don't have any problem at all with the national champion not winning its conference. If the bowl organizers have special rules, then that's OK, but for me it has limited bearing on the national championship.

[GhengisFarb™]

But see that's the beauty of it. We could have a pseudo playoff by going back to classic Bowl system. The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc get to have their constant match ups of the Champions from specific conferences, we can still use the BCS rating to determine the top two teams (which it does a good job of doing - where it failed this year is that it didn't handicap the injuries of OU which did exceptionally well early on but with a hobbling sprained wrist quarterback and a mentally out of sync defense wasn't anywhere near ready to take on USC or LSU).

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I'm saying that wild-card teams shouldn't be given a shot at the title in the first place...

So what if the Yankees, who win 110 games lose in the playoffs to a 90 win Oakland team? Do you say... no, no.. we're taking the Yankees for the title?

In essense you ARE asking for a wild card system. Say Boston is the second best team with 108 wins and the next best team has 90 wins. What you are saying is that Boston should play against the Yankees for the AL Title.. because they are the teams with the two best seasons, which is your argument for the college football championship.. the two best seasons play for the title.

What I am saying is that any system that rewards a second place team with a shot at the national championship that is being denied to real conference winners is just wrong.

I don't know why we have to attach any particular additional value to a conference championship game (and hence the conference championship itself) beyond that which we attach to any other game.

Because that is how certain conferences decide their 'conference champion', and the team that goes to whatever bowl the champion of the conference goes to. They get the added money as a bonus and as a minus should have to deal with what happens when the team with the better record loses in the conference championship game.

[Drake Tungsten]

The only reason that there are conference championship games is because of the additional revenue. I don't know why we have to attach any particular additional value to a conference championship game (and hence the conference championship itself) beyond that which we attach to any other game.

I don't have any problem at all with the national champion not winning its conference. If the bowl organizers have special rules, then that's OK, but for me it has limited bearing on the national championship.

I agree.

[Drake Tungsten]

So what if the Yankees, who win 110 games lose in the playoffs to a 90 win Oakland team? Do you say... no, no.. we're taking the Yankees for the title?

In essense you ARE asking for a wild card system. Say Boston is the second best team with 108 wins and the next best team has 90 wins. What you are saying is that Boston should play against the Yankees for the AL Title.. because they are the teams with the two best seasons, which is your argument for the college football championship.. the two best seasons play for the title.

MLB should have a system like the Japanese leagues. Two big-ass divisions that have their champion decided based on regular season record. Then the two champs meet in the World Series. Makes the regular season thrilling, as the Hanshin Tigers run this year proved.