Any team not required to fight through a conference championship game should get dinged for an at-large in my opinion. Looking at you Notre Dame.
Last edited:
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Conference Champions as automatic qualifiers.
- Thread starter Hville
- Start date
Those sports are different. Their nature allows for larger tournaments. If there was only a 4 team volleyball or basketball tournament then I would absolutely say that it should be reserved for conference winners.
because they persevered through the season and conference title game to emerge from a power 5 conference as a champ. Alabama couldn't even win their division. And IIRC the team that won their division did NOT get into the playoffs.
You kind of made my point there. Because of the limited number of teams in the CFP 4.....or even 8 for that matter it is even more important that they strive to get the best teams in and avoid a 3 loss team automatically qualifying. There is no reason a team outside of the top 10 should be in a 8 team playoff yet alone a 4 team playoff. With the automatic qualifiers Wisconsin would have made the playoffs in 2012 having never been ranked during the season and having a record of 8-5.
Divisions are not set up equally. Until they are it isn't fair. The key is get the best 4 teams not the best division winners. They lost one game in their division on the road. There are so many other conference champions losing more games. Do you really believe the division loser of the east this year......either Michigan or Michigan state with a two loss record is better than Northwestern who will have 4-5 losses? Divisions nor conferences are equal and that is why you have to look at the team performance regardless of how the conferences and divisions are geographically designed.
You're taking a very unusual circumstance and using it as ammo when it is entirely unlikely to happen. The 8-4 NW team still wouldnt make a 4 team playoff because there are 5 conference winners, ND and maybe a ucf.
Win your conference and you have a chance to make the playoff. Don't and you don't.
The good news for you is your sentiment is the majority sentiment. Bama not making a playoff with less than 3 losses would get the talking heads in a tizzy.
Let me ask you a serious question. What would your argument be if Nebraska had a season that they went 11-1 in the regular season losing only to Wisconsin who was 13-0 and ranked number 1 and we were ranked number 2 because every other team had at least one loss. Our only loss was to them at Camp Randal by a TD. But someone from another conference got in with 5 losses because their division was so weak and they even lost non-conference games to Duke and Akron. Would you think that would be unfair to Nebraska. Rated number 2 in the nation but giving up a spot to un-unranked team. That's what guaranteed conference championships due. The "entitle" a conference champion to a spot regardless of whether there are more deserving.
You are correct in that they wouldn't make the playoff the way it is now. The original OP was addressing past board discussions that want an expansion to automatic qualifiers in a 6 or 8 game format.
And yet at 4 teams we are still seeing teams that have better qualifications and ranked higher than conference champions that are being let in. Such as last year with USC and Ohio State. And that team ended up winning it all, had the best record in the NCAA and didn't win its division. Division/conference titles are over rated because they aren't equal.
It's obviously a matter of preference. I want winning your conference to be a massive incentive. A top 4 team could rest starters in the conference title game and still make an 8 team playoff that was simply the top 8 ranked teams. No thanks.
If I was college football God I would maybe compromise but I would NEVER let a team that didn't win it's division in unless the division winner was also in via winning the conference title. In other words a 3rd place team has NO BUSINESS.
Then why are we having a playoff? If the object last year was to make sure bama got the title then why have a playoff? They got a bye while the team that won their division (i.e. was better than bama throughout the season) had to play an extra game.
No you couldn't rest your starters because if you lost the game you would likely be out of top 8 or lose spots in the seeding. With a months rest after the conference game that would be a silly move.
Well I thought that there was a push by the fans to have a playoff of the top two teams instead of letting the bowl games and the polls decide it. Then they expanded it because there was some question as to who the top 2 teams could be. Then it went to 4 teams. I think the general thinking is that they can identify who is most likely the top 4 teams and let them play it off. Now if the NCAA decides there isn't enough separation between 4 and 5 and decide to expand than that is fine. But the purpose is to decide the best team...….not the best conference/division winner. I can't imagine being the number 2 ranked team in the country and not being in it because you didn't win your conference. As many have said...….not winning your conference should be an automatic disqualifier. That doesn't seem right.
Just my opinion. Good discussion but I think at this point I'll let it go as we are just repeating our sides of the disagreement.
Works both ways. The 2001 team was 11-1, didn't win the conference, and had no business playing in the NC game that year.
Last word..."2 ranked team"...as determined by who? That's the problem. You have teams entering the season ranked way high and never drop even if they dont look that good or lose. Then you have a team like UCF come out of the blue and blow everyone's doors off...yet because the pollsters didnt know who they were in August they have no chance.
