As far as resumes go, Florida has an argument until you look at where the L came from in their W/L column.
Or how about UCLA's gripe: We could at least play for the Pac-12 championship; Oregon couldn't. Why shouldn't we be in the playoffs instead of them?
PSD's Rich Cimini! Telling it like it is, whether you like it or not!!!
What gripe could UCLA possibly have? They are a 3 loss team on their way to being a 4 loss team. Even if they managed to beat Stanford, they would what jump from 16 to 15. Using your scenario, there are a ton of 2 loss teams that have a more legitimate complaint than UCLA.
You want controversy. Imagine if we had this proposed 4 team 2014 playoff system that is suppose to go into effect in place right now. You would have ND, Bama, Georgia, and Florida playing. Yea buddy, now that would create some kind of uproar.
Last edited by Wingman; 11-30-2012 at 12:16 PM.
Rose: Stanford(p12) vs Nebraska(b10)
Sugar:Florida(SEC highest) vs Oklahoma(at large)
Fiesta:Kansas St(b12) vs Oregon(at large)
Orange: FSU(acc) vs Louisville(be)
NCG: Alabama(#2) vs Notre Dame(#1)
If not, then there would be even more uproar. Non-SEC fans would be furious to see three SEC teams in the top four despite one having just suffered loss. 10-2 Texas A&M (which beat Alabama) and 10-2 South Carolina (which beat Georgia) wouldn't be very happy either.
For instance, Oklahoma(B12) would play FSU (AQ-ACC) in the first round. Notre Dame (AQ-Indy) would play Nebraska (B10) in the first round. The winners of those games would then face off in the second round. Alabama and Stanford (Champions of the SEC and P12) would receive first round byes for being the highest rated conference champions....HOWEVER, for also receiving the bye, they also face off in the second round. So round two looks like Alabama (SEC) vs Stanford (P12) & (using just highest rated teams) Oklahoma (B12) vs Notre Dame (AQ).
Does teams like Oregon, Florida, K-State etc get left out? Yea, but that's life and crap happens. On top of that if you let your National Title tournament "travel" like the super bowl does (changing locations every year..basically "bidding" on games) the NCAA makes even MORE money. Then you can keep your traditional bowls for teams that didnt make the playoffs. Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl or K-State vs Florida in the Sugar or whatever teams the BCS bowls decide to bid on.
On top of that, you're not really "hurting" some of these other teams. In my scenario, all the BCS bowls would be open to play for other teams. Lets assume Oregon doesnt get an "at large" bid this year (which we know they will)...where would they be heading? Sun Bowl? In a situation like this, Oregon, a team that didnt win their division/conference still gets rewarded for their regular season by going to the Rose Bowl.
Last edited by NYYankees12; 12-01-2012 at 10:20 PM.
Just find the threads from last year. Everyone was throwing a fit saying Bama didnt deserve to play for the title because they didnt win their conference and Oklahoma St should have played because they had the same record and won their conference. The argument FOR a playoff is "teams can NOT win their conference and play for the Nat'l Title" and the argument AGAINST the Conf Champion playoffs is "Teams can NOT win their conference and play for a Nat'l Title"....it sounds more to me that people just want their team to play for a title if they dont win their conference and nobody else.
Some WR's are divas. Then there's new Saints WR Kenny Stills