Would a four-team playoff solve BCS problems?

 

We had a very lively discussion yesterday about the BCS and the possibility of going to a four-team or eight-team playoff when the current contract expires after the 2013 regular season. It made me think of some research that I did about a year ago, showing that a four-team playoff would have addressed many of the major controversies that have plagued the BCS since its inception in 1998.

I’ve updated some stuff, but here are what the national championship semifinals would have been for the past 11 years using the BCS formula.

Here is your homework assignment for today. Based on these semifinals, which team would have emerged as the national champion? And which semifinals do you really like?

Example: In 2008 Florida and Alabama, who played one of the best SEC championship games ever, could have won their semifinals and met again for the BCS title. Does Florida win the rematch?

Just look over this list and give me your winners or any thoughts you have about the semifinals and potential championship games.

Here is one thing to keep in mind. A four-team playoff would address a lot of problems, but not all of them. Look at Georgia n 2007. The Bulldogs would have gotten squeezed out of a four-team playoff despite being ranked No. 4 on Championship Saturday. Now how controversial would that have been?

Enjoy.

 

2008

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 4 Alabama (12-1)

No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 3 Texas (11-1)

Note: A four-team playoff this season would have still left a bunch of teams mad. No. 5 Southern Cal (11-1), whose only loss was on a Thursday night at Oregon State (27-21), believed it was the best team in the country.  No. 6 Utah (12-0) and No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1), who beat Texas, could also make a claim. I believe that if the voters in the polls had been picking four teams instead of two, they would have voted Southern Cal ahead of Alabama in the final BCS Standings because the Crimson Tide was coming off a loss. I’m not saying I agree with that, but that is what I believe the voters would have done.

 

2007

No. 1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2)

No. 2 LSU (11-2) vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2)

Note: Georgia and its fans would have been fuming. The Bulldogs (10-2) were No. 4 on Championship Saturday but were leapfrogged by conference championship game winners LSU, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma in the final standings and would have gotten squeezed out of the playoff.

 

2006

No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 4 LSU (10-2)

No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 3 Michigan (11-1)

Note:  Here is where a four-team playoff addresses a couple of problems. After losing a close game to Ohio State (42-39), Michigan thought it deserved a rematch with the Buckeyes in the BCS championship game. Florida jumped over the idle Wolverines by winning the SEC title. Michigan would have gotten its shot if it could beat Florida in the semifinals.

 

2005

No. 1 Southern Cal (12-0) vs. No. 2 Ohio State (9-2)

No. 2 Texas (12-0) vs. No. 3 Penn State (10-1)

Note:  College football fans might have gotten mad if either Southern Cal or Texas had been upset in the semifinals. They were clearly the best two teams in the country this season and played the best BCS championship game ever (at 41-38 win by Texas in the Rose Bowl.)

 

2004

No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 4 Texas (10-1)

No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 3 Auburn (12-0)

 Note: Urban Meyer’s undefeated Utah (11-0) team, ranked 6th, probably felt like it deserved a shot. Here a four-team playoff would have addressed one of the biggest controversies of the BCS era: An undefeated SEC championship team from Auburn that got left out.

 

2003

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 4 Michigan (10-2)

No. 2 LSU (12-1) vs. No. 3 Southern Cal (11-1)

Note: The four-team playoff would have addressed another major BCS controversy. Southern Cal finished No. 1 in both human polls but finished No. 3 in the final BCS standings. This year made the BCS adjust its formula to give more weight to the human polls.

 

2002

No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 4 Southern Cal (10-2)

No. 2 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 3 Georgia (12-1)

Note:  A four-team playoff would have given a shot to Georgia, whose only loss was to Florida. It would have also given a shot to Southern Cal and Carson Palmer, the Heisman Trophy winner.

 

2001

No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 4 Oregon (10-1)

No. 2 Nebraska (11-1) vs. No. 3 Colorado (10-2)

Note: This is a year when the four-team playoff could have saved the BCS a lot of embarrassment. Oregon, the Pac-10 champ, was ranked No. 2 in the human polls but No. 4 in the final BCS standings. Nebraska, which lost its last regular season game to Colorado (62-36) finished No. 2 in the standings and got destroyed by Miami in the BCS championship game in the Rose Bowl.

 

2000

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 4 Washington (10-1)

No. 2 Florida State (11-1) vs. No. 3 Miami (10-1)

Note: Miami was ranked No. 2 in the final human polls and had beaten Florida State (27-24) during the regular season. But when the numbers were crunched, Florida State edged out Miami for the No. 2 spot against Oklahoma in the BCS championship game. A rematch between the Miami and Florida State in the semifinals would have been must-see TV.

 

1999

No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 4 Alabama (10-2)

No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. No. 3 Nebraska (11-1)

Note: Nebraska’s only loss during the season was to Texas (24-20 in Austin) and the Cornhuskers later avenged that loss by beating the Longhorns in the Big 12 championship game (22-6). Nebraska might have given Michael Vick and company a pretty good game in the semifinals. It would have been interesting to see how Alabama, the SEC champ, would have fared against Chris Weinke and Florida State.

 

1998

No. 1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. No. 4 Ohio State (10-1)

No. 2 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 3 Kansas State (11-1)

Note: Four team playoff would have given another life to Kansas State, which lost to Texas A&M (36-33, double overtime) in the Big 12 championship game and got knocked out of the BCS title game. I don’t think any of these teams were going to beat Tennessee that season

 

.

147 comments Add your comment

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:45 am

SimpleDawg:
“Notre Dame could join the Big 10 + 1, giving it 12 members; the Pac 10 could add Utah and Boise State, giving them 12 members – and give Utah and Boise St a chance to play with some big boys each year to see how they match up.”

Best suggestion I’ve seen today.

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:48 am

Voice of Reason:

Apologies.
I misread your post.
(I need more coffee!)

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:51 am

Archie non Conf games are on the rise see my post at 10:07. I’ll add OSU and USC and before that OSU and Texas. Texas’ win over OSU set their path for the Rose and USC.

G8R grad, what about BYU who killed UCLA, and Fresno St who is always playing one of the toughest OOC schedules in the country.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
10:55 am

Bottom line people: NOTHING is a perfect solution…either you have a comphrehensive playoff system that satisfies everyone but takes away from the regular season or you have a tweaked current system that makes every game like life or death…

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
10:56 am

it would certainly be more fair…. but then again much of this could be solved if the first weekend in december were conference championship games for every conference too.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:57 am

Tails I think we both agree to take the current life or death every week system. Even teams that are not in the running for a title are playing for a better bowl at the end of the regular season.

Tony Barnhart

April 23rd, 2009
11:01 am

Mony,

Your idea of picking two teams after the bowls to play for the national championship was first raised to me by Vince Dooley over 15 years ago. He used the same argument: Every bowl that hosts a major conference winner would be relevant because it could potentially send a team to the national championship game. The bowls (and their sponsors), of course, would not like it unless you promised to let them also host the NC game on a rotating basis.

Always understand that you have to look at these formats through the prism of finances first.

Also, for those of you who are talking about forcing the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East to have a conference championship game: Can’t do it. Can’t make any kind of rules change to compel a conference to grow and hold a championship. The NCAA structure doesn’t allow it and neither would the courts. I’ve checked it out.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:02 am

There are some conferences mainly the SEC where outside of playing USC the championship game might as well be giftwrapped.

Texas was better than Oklahoma last year but they screwed up on 1 play at the wrong time. USC played likely thier worst half of football in a decade at Corvalis and it cost them. Georgia didn’t take care of Tennessee and was a late blooming team that year.

It takes a lot of luck to get into the championship games, but I don’t remember any of those where I felt like the better team didn’t win other than maybe USC/Texas and Vince Young was just electrifying in that one.

Gatorman770

April 23rd, 2009
11:02 am

A 16 team playoff is the only fair way to go to prevent the likes of what happened to Auburn and Utah in 2004 and Utah again in 2008. All conferences should be represented and independents like Notra Dame should join a conference or get left out!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:03 am

PMC the past 2 year the conferences with the championship games have created 2 of the biggest debates. Tx vs OU, and UGA vs LSU.

Steve

April 23rd, 2009
11:04 am

Why does the PAC-10 need a championship game when they play a round robin with every conference member?

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:05 am

On the other hand, what if we did away with championship games in major conferences.

How fun would that be deciding who won the SEC or Big 12 or ACC?

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:06 am

OU was better than Texas but Stoops screwed up by going for it on 4th down. OU killed Tx Tech. Tx Tech even if they lost played Tx tough.

It was a 3 way tie and OU had the only decisive win in the games played between the 3 teams.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:18 am

A modest solution:

1) Have the regular season and Championship Saturday just like we have now.

2) On the Sunday following the Conf. Championship games the bowls select teams like was done in the pre-BCS era: SEC goes to the Sugar, Big Ten and Pac 10 to the Rose and so forth, i.e., by whatever resulting match-ups the market dictate. If the Fiesta can outbid the Orange for the Big 12 Champ then so be it.

3) Here is the change: You take the Top 4 Ranked Conference winners ONLY and seed them 1-4. No. 1 and 2 play at home on campus two weeks after Championship Saturday vs. No. 3 and 4 respectively.

4) Winners will play for an actual, not mythical, National Chamionship roughly 10 to 14 days after the bowls are complete. The outcome of the bowls do not matter.

This eliminates any possibility of rematches, eliminates any possibility of non-conference champs winning National Titles and leads to an objective, inarguable champ. (If you are the fifth ranked conf. champ, just shut up. Being 5th doesn’t make a good argument for deserving to be No. 1. Besides the fifth ranked conference champ is likely to be in the bottom half or out of the Top-Ten in the polls.)

Most importantly it does not water down the regular season OR the bowl games. Bowl games are seperate unique titles as they were intended to be.

Miles

April 23rd, 2009
11:20 am

Take the top EIGHT teams from the BCS and put them in a tournament similar ro what you’ve proposed. This will eliminate the justifiable crying from teams like Hawaii, Utah, Boise State, Troy State, Ball State, Tulsa, etc. Everyone will be happy, including Orrin Hatch.

Sam Robards

April 23rd, 2009
11:22 am

Only an 8-team playoff would work. If it were only 4, then worthy, non-BCS conference teams STILL wouldn’t get a shot (I don’t care what anyone says, Utah deserved a shot after the way they spanked ‘Bama last year). An 8-team playoff allows those teams a chance and it gives some teams that were close but lost one-or two games (who didn’t want to see a rematch of ‘Bama and Florida last year?) a chance to rebound.

They can keep the BCS formulas until the end of the year, then they go to playoff mode. All they have to do is use the four BCS bowls as the first round, add a week where two semi-final games are played, and then use the BCS Championship game for the finale. Yeah, you’d have to change the way the non-BCS bowls pick teams, but I think that should be redone anyway (that crap’s just silly).

And while we’re at it, throw Notre Dame into the Big X (XI), split it and give them a conference championship game (as well as some dignity). And, as someone said earlier, throw Boise State and Utah into the (crap) Pac-10, split it, and give them a championship game too.

As for who would have won past championships, I’ll stick with who actually won with the exceptions of 2002, 2004 and 2007. UGA would have won ‘02 and ‘07, and in 2004 Auburn would have beaten Southern Cal for the title.

JOHN

April 23rd, 2009
11:23 am

Why play in a conference if the champion is left out? The rule should be that only conference champions can play for the championship. If you don’t win your conference championship, you don’t deserve to be in a national championship game. This will also put more importance on conference play instead of weak non-conference games.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:24 am

STICK WITH WHAT WE HAVE!!!!i would rather have the voting controversies than a 9-7 arizona cardinals like team in the NC. You must address how hard a teams season is against quality opponents which is why undefeated Utahs still get left out. Beating one SEC team in one bowl game does nothing to say of your depth and quality. Play those caliber teams 5 times in one season and then i will respect your undefeated season.

Oh, and tech sucks.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Dorsey, I hear your argument but where does it leave a team like Texas last year who was left out of everything by the Big 12 by a strange twist in their rule system. Texas beat OU so IMO I think Oklahoma should have been left out. Then you get into the argument of some conferences just stronger than others. Is it right to punish a great team from the SEC who is second best in the conferenc but heads and shoulders better than all the other teams. I don’t know-just throwing it out there. There is no perfect solution.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Oh, and make those big ten yankee pu$$ies play a championship game!!!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Doresy: You take the Top 4 Ranked Conference winners

As said before by taking conference winners you are in a way killing the regular season by reducing the importance of OOC matchups.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:27 am

Every poster on here that’s not a tech fan should end with:
Oh, and tech sucks! Nice one Kenny Powers!

Oh, and tech sucks!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:27 am

Dean, Tx Tech beat Texas. If Texas Tech had more name recognition the win would be taken much more seriosuly.

Texas went on to win a close game against a down Ohio St.

The system worked and the SEC and ACC should adopt the same tie breaker.

Pago Flyer

April 23rd, 2009
11:28 am

Can the DAWGS beat gt and fl in something this year!!

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:30 am

So now we are determining championships by name recognition criteria. This sounds like Socialism.

Oh, and tech sucks!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:33 am

Dean, the name recognition of OU and Tx being superior is what is being implied by not including Tx Tech in the debate. Texas Tech has just as much claim as Texas. OU had the only decisive win between the games played.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:34 am

This next post is to remind everyone of my 101mph heater awesomeness and python man organ 3rd legenenesss. If you know not what i speak of, get HBO. Kenny Powers says no to playoffs because it damn sure will devalue the regular season.

Oh, and tech sucks.

Gatorzone

April 23rd, 2009
11:37 am

Kenny Powers, that is a good point that is often overlooked when discussing UTAH. Play more than one difficult bowl game at the end of the year before whining about being shortchanged. If any team in the sEC played their scedule, there would be several undefeated teams.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:39 am

Dean,

That the Big 12 had a dumb rule that kicked Texas out of the Conf. Champ game does not mean that the rest of us have to say that they should be in the Nat. Title mix. The Conferences control their rules. Texas knew the rules when they started and fell short.

Otto,

My proposal DOES NOT minimize the importance of the regular season at all. OOC games are important because losing them could mean that you are NOT a Top 4 conference Champ at the end. The beauty of my proposal is that every team controls its destiny. There is no luck. There is no backing in. Win your conference and be one of the Top four winners and you have a shot at it all. I have a hard time understanding how a team that does not meet the criteria could be herad to complain of unfairness. If you don’t win your conference you don’t deserve to be a National Champ. Why? Because presumably someone in your own conference was better, right?

m

April 23rd, 2009
11:43 am

Kenny,

I think if you look closely (45-42) you will see that is is indeed UGAG that sucks.

TGAG.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:44 am

Texas Tech was not close to being equal to Texas or Oklahoma last year, they just matched up better with Texas and managed to eek out a win on a busted play at the end of a stretch of difficult weeks for Texas. Every team had a bad game last year. Oklahoma after being completely out of it, suddenly had a chance and it was against the paper tiger that was Texas Tech. Oklahoma’s defense might as well have been in the huddle that outcome was forgone before kickoff. Texas Tech doesn’t have the depth, facilities or talent at the positions that Oklahoma and Texas have. I don’t care that they were tied in record they play a garbage schedule the first 2 months of every season. The Big 12 according to the rules sent the proper team but Texas was better than Oklahoma last year. I can’t account for that stupid asterisk they put on the wall but they would have been stomped by Florida last year too so that doesn’t really matter.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:44 am

There is no luck. There is no backing in. Win your conference

Dorsey what inective is there to play them if you get an automatic bid by winning the conf? Winning the conf was how a big payday was won in the past and big OOC matchups were not nearly as common.

Aaron Mitchell

April 23rd, 2009
11:45 am

The last time USC played an SEC team was when they beat Arkansas 52-10. And it was the same Arkansas team thet went on to play Florida in the SEC Championship Game that year. What a joke. The SEC runner-up lost to USC by 40. Thats impressive.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:48 am

Texas Tech had an all world receiver with a very good QB in a nice offensive scheme. They generally always have one or two giant very strong linemen. They have a very smart and resourceful head coach. Put that in any conference (see Ole Miss) and they are going to find a way to beat some very good team.

Texas Tech’s defense wasn’t close to what Oklahoma or Texas had. They simply do not have the depth that the other teams do.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:50 am

OU busted a play by going for it on 4th down against Texas. OU was looking to win easy earlier in the game.

The odd thing is if OU had beat Tx Tech in a close game, OU would win the Tie breakers in the SEC since Tx Tech would not have dropped so far in the rankings. Maybe Stoops would have called it off sooner under the SEC and ACC rules. In effect the SEC would punish a team for being vastly superior to their competition.

The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game,

****unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:53 am

Otto,

The motivation for playing OOC games has never been and will never be about qualifying for a playoff or getting a higher BCS ranking. Everyone knows avoiding those games is the best method for both and always has been. The motivation is to gain exposure, and to enhance both recruiting and revenue, period. If it was all about wins and losses and rankings NO ONE would play tough OOC games. The same logic applies to Conference Championship games. They kill team’s shots at BCS championships yet they ain’t going away. Why? Dollar, dollar bills, y’all.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
12:01 pm

Dorsey it absolutely is. Is UGA playing Okie St or Az Statue in place of traditional rival Clemson for fun? Clemson and UGA played every year up until the late 80s.

UGA wants to be recognized on the national stage and play for national titles.

Auburn is flamed in the media because they turned down UCLA. The game could have importance if a scenario like 2004 unfolds.

These things are leading to more OOC game.

However if you take away from this and give automatic play off births to conf championships, the teams will have less incentive to play these and further incentive to play the 2nd string in these games if the conf. title is already rapped up.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
12:02 pm

m, if you look closley, very closley, you might see your tiny pen!s.

BILLY JACK

April 23rd, 2009
12:06 pm

Tony-I think a 4 team playoff would work most years.You will occasionally have a Utah complaining or a Boise St but other than that I think it would work. Oh….and Tech sucks

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
12:12 pm

Otto, you are being an obstinate idiot. Who has UF gone out and played OOC other than their tradtional rivals and they’ve won 2 of the last 3? Hell, its been decades since they played an OOC game outside of the State. There is no OOC game/National Title nexus, period. They are unrelated issues. If playing good OOC games leads to Titles it is because you’ve enhanced your ability to attract players. Take 2009 for example. If we went 13-0 without playing ASU or Okie State we’d play for it all right? If we go 12 and 1 having lost to one of those teams we won’t right? So which gets you to the title? Not playing them right?

Now we may, theoretically be better positioned in 2012 to win one because we play those games but the OOC game on the 2012 could be the one that keeps you out. Its a balance of interests not a cause and effect.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
12:14 pm

I would also like to keep the current systems because I enjoy watching the SEC slap around every other major national power; i would like to see us play USC in the big dance.

Oh, and now tech and m suck.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
12:17 pm

UF can get away with it but obviously UGA and Auburn can not. UF gained alot of national recognition under Spurrier. Auburn lost 2004 because of name recognition furhter IMO UGA would not ahve passed OSU or Miami in ‘02 if they lost. UF would have much better chances. The polls are not fair and I am not crying about it. If I were UF’s AD i would schedule the same teams. UGA is doing what they have to in order to put their team in a position to win it all.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
12:22 pm

Otto,

Auburn didn’t make it because they did not start No 1 or No 2. USC and OK did start 1 and 2 and never lost. Auburn would have had to have had the forethought to schedule one of those teams and beat them 4 years in advance. They could have had Ohio State Texas Notre Dame and West Virginia on the schedule and they’d still have been left out.

murfdawg

April 23rd, 2009
12:31 pm

Congratulations people!!!
You have just proven why there will never be a playoff in cfb. Here we are four months after the last game and everyone is discussing cfb. Nobody is talking nfl, mlb and thank goodness nba. This is what the real “evil geniuses” who control cfb want. After the SuperBowl, there is no discussion. After the World Series, the mute button is hit. When there is a definitive champion crowned, there is no room for discussion. Why would CFB want to stop all this insanity that continues 12 months a year?

typical bulldawg fan

April 23rd, 2009
12:32 pm

If our line gels early we will win it all
if we avoid the injury bug we will be unstoppable
when tebow and meyer leaves we will own florida
when saban leaves we will own the sec
if we could have had Vandy beat UT in 07 we would be national champs
ifs and buts…..

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:33 pm

I would be against any playoff that guarantees a NON BCS School a place.

NO BCS

April 23rd, 2009
12:36 pm

Before there’s any talk about a playoff, all conferences that want to participate need to have a conference championship game. However, I do NOT believe a conference champion gets an automatic bid. It should be the top 4 or 8 teams when the final polls come out or however else you want to determine the rankings. I would not agree that a 3-loss Big East champion should take the place of say an 11-1 Alabama team that lost to 12-0 Florida in the SEC Championship Game. There are going to be conferences that have two legitimate teams, and to keep one out just so a weaker conference champion can be in the playoff would be wrong. I’m more in favor of just a 4-team playoff. However, I think the #1 and #2 teams should have home-field advantage. Let Florida play at Ohio State in December and see how good they really are. But we can talk all we want. A playoff will never happen unless conferences like the SEC or Big 12 or Big 10 boycott the current bowl system…and no one is going to give up that money.

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:38 pm

FWIW, the year that Southern Cal beat Ark in Fayetteville, they beat them by 36. And what makes the loser of the SECCG the SEC Runner up? Where is that written at? I can think of many years in the last 10 that at least 3 SEC East teams were better than the SEC W Champion.

Tide4u2c

April 23rd, 2009
12:39 pm

I am against playoffs. I can’t believe so many people seem to want to ruin college football with a playoff.There has always been debate about NC’s even before the BCS and plenty of teams were scre*ed out of NC’s even before(like Alabama in 66)the BCS. And yet we all love college football.

College football is its own brand it is not the NFL and should never be like the NFL or college basketball where only diehard college basketball fans pay attention to the regular season and only focus on the playoffs.

I hope and pray we don’t ruin college football for nothing because like I said yesterday a playoff would not have changed who won the NC.

Florida was the best team and would’ve won the NC even with a playoff yet college football would be ruined with a playoff and all for nothing.

Then we would regret it but it would be too late once we realized a playoff does not change who wins the NC. The big named schools do, not the little named teams, just like in college basketball the little named teams do not win, the big named schools do. Like North Carolina did this year.1 out 10 times a little team might get lucky and win in the end in a playoff but it would not be worth how bad a playoff totally ruined college football.

People like to bring up Auburn but Auburn had a weak schedule that year go back and look they knew the rules about SOS and yet scheduled a weak schedule and then wonder why they got left out. Rules are rules.A playoff would’ve gave them a 2nd chance which I don’t like, you either take care of business or you don’t.

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:40 pm

I also fail to see why a non conference champ can’t be included. IF the best two SEC/Big 12 teams happen to be in the same division, what difference does it make? The SEC East and the Big 12 South have had the best teams overall for the last 10 or so years of anyone.