A plus-one and a 4-team playoff are different

I only went back to 1998 as data before that is tougher to find, and to use ties is not relevant.

1998 You had Tulane that would not have been a top 4 playoff that was undefeated before the bowls.
1999 Marshall
2000 nobody
01 nobody
02 nobody
03 nobody
04 Not in the top 4 would have been Utah and Boise State

Note here that Boise State, one school throws everything out of whack in most years. Utah to a lesser extent

05 nobody
06 Boise State would not have been in the top 4
07 Hawaii
08 Utah and Boise State again
09 was a very strange year, and as most people can't admit things, I can, this one year would make your argument very strong, you had Alabama, Texas, Boise State, TCU, and Cinncinnati all undeafeted before the bowls. This one year makes your argument.

However, there are very few 5-8 ranked teams before the bowl in all the other years, in my opinion, that deserved a shot at the National championship. Maybe 1 team here or there but not another 4 teams.

10 TCU was ranked 3rd and would have been in the 4 team playoff
11 nobody

Again, my opinion is if you go back in history and take the top 4 teams after the conference championships and before the bowls and match them up in a playoff, you get the best champion that not only accomplished great things during the regular season but also in the post season. If you want to tweak it in such a way that you have to have won your conference, I could go for that, is there some other tweaking I am sure.

The problem and the major problem I have with the 8 conference winners is that in college football with player turnover, conference strength varies from year to year.

When you start including the Conference USA or the Western whatever it is called now or Sun Valley it waters down the legitmacy of the champion. My case in point is UConn, they had no business being in that game and your counter point is Boise State, I get that. I also believe that Boise State is undefeated in those years because more than half of their games were cupcakes and the grueling that you take in the SEC, Big 10, 12 or Pac 12 week in and week out is considerably different.

I could go back before 1998 but then it starts to be apples and oranges vs red apples and green apples.

Boise State makes your argument, I get that and respect that, I just don't think that one school justifies another 4 teams. Again, looking at those rankings, teams 5-8 are just not as strong as teams 1-4.

Go ahead and try to make me look foolish again because I don't agree with you and you have to prove your right.

Ego, very dangerous thing.

 

In reply to:

---

---

 

Any system that includes polls will be flawed. For sure youre going to get a system that does because some people dont realize that the big wigs dont care about being fair, they care about getting paid. With polls, you leave things open to all kinds of interpretation, especially when the people casting these votes dont even watch the games. If you trust pollsters that much, im sure you are fine with what we have and what we will end up with, but if you want it to be right down the middle, the polls need to go away. The 8-8-8 model takes opinions out of college football and puts everything on the field. To be concerned about what another school is doing outside your conference is a waste of time. Win your conference and you are in. That may be too much for some people to handle though.

 

Converse, Its no different than what you have now. If you lose a conference game, your basically hoping the team you lost too loses twice to give you another chance. Nothing changes. If you dont make the playoff, you can still go to a bowl game.

I am just against polls. I remember OU beating Mizzou for the B12 title and Pinkel still voting Mizzou ahead of OU in his final ballot despite OU beating them twice in the same season. Im sure there are other examples that have affected other schools too. That stuff has to go, but probably wont.

I dont like the fact that a school can win every game they play and have to sit at home and watch another school play for the MNC. All because people THINK they know who is better. Utah watched OU/FL play. Boise and TCU have watched a couple of times. Auburn has had to sit at home and watch. USC had the same record as OU/LSU and had to sit and watch. Its not fair, but if the money is right, I guess its ok for some people.

But, if you want to give what the BCS cant give, which is an equal chance for every team to play for the MNC, the 8-8-8 model is the best. Every team has a shot. Just win your conference. You wont have coaches politicking like Mack was doing in 08. You wont have ESPN pumping up Bama like they did last year. You wont have to worry about reputation or tradition influencing things. Win and youre in. That might be too simple for some though.

 

As far as there not ever being 5 deserving teams - not only did 2004 and 2009 both feature 5 undefeated teams in the final BCS rankings, but 2004 included five one-loss teams (Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas Tech) with a strong argument, plus two others one-loss BCS teams and a pair of undefeated midmajors (Alabama, Penn State, Utah, Boise State).