Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[Saunders]

There is no reliable tool to measure the “best” four teams in the college football, just as there's no way to legitimately measure conference strength.
The season is too short. There's not enough nonconference competition. It becomes a battle of perception — a beauty contest. The SEC wins more beauty contests than Miss Brazil. Better to prioritize actual accomplishment on the field. Reserve playoff spots for conference champions and the sport benefits in multiple ways:

• It increases the value of conference championship games. These showcase events are supposed to be the climax of the regular season, but often they don't matter. Wisconsin-Michigan State in December meant nothing to people outside the Big Ten. In the SEC, LSU didn't even need to beat Georgia to make the national championship game. Playoff opponents speak ad nauseam about the sanctity of the regular season — “Every game matters.” Well, forcing a team to win its conference makes that statement truer than ever.

• It removes the penalty of losing in September. Right now, coaches are too scared to play tough nonconference games. Why? Because rankings mean everything. Winning percentage is priority one. If the focus shifted to conference championships, coaches would be more willing to test their teams in nonconference play.

• It reduces the role of pollsters (or the selection committee). College football fans focus too much on the controversy and not enough on the competition. We should be dissecting quarterback play, not computer rankings.

Give pollsters the task of picking the top four and you'll have an even bigger political mess. Better to decide the spots on the field.

• There's one more reason almost too obvious to state: If you're not the best team in your conference, you're not the best team in the country.

Saban's team won the 2011 national championship fair and square, but that doesn't mean he deserved the opportunity.

Full Article

One of the few times I agree 100% with Dirk.

 

[The Duke]

There is no reliable tool to measure the “best” four teams in the college football, just as there's no way to legitimately measure conference strength.
The season is too short. There's not enough nonconference competition. It becomes a battle of perception — a beauty contest. The SEC wins more beauty contests than Miss Brazil. Better to prioritize actual accomplishment on the field. Reserve playoff spots for conference champions and the sport benefits in multiple ways:

• It increases the value of conference championship games. These showcase events are supposed to be the climax of the regular season, but often they don't matter. Wisconsin-Michigan State in December meant nothing to people outside the Big Ten. In the SEC, LSU didn't even need to beat Georgia to make the national championship game. Playoff opponents speak ad nauseam about the sanctity of the regular season — “Every game matters.” Well, forcing a team to win its conference makes that statement truer than ever.

• It removes the penalty of losing in September. Right now, coaches are too scared to play tough nonconference games. Why? Because rankings mean everything. Winning percentage is priority one. If the focus shifted to conference championships, coaches would be more willing to test their teams in nonconference play.

• It reduces the role of pollsters (or the selection committee). College football fans focus too much on the controversy and not enough on the competition. We should be dissecting quarterback play, not computer rankings.

Give pollsters the task of picking the top four and you'll have an even bigger political mess. Better to decide the spots on the field.

• There's one more reason almost too obvious to state: If you're not the best team in your conference, you're not the best team in the country.

Saban's team won the 2011 national championship fair and square, but that doesn't mean he deserved the opportunity.

Full Article

One of the few times I agree 100% with Dirk.

I didn't mince words last fall after the Ohio State game when I said that Dirk was completely out of line with the way he addressed Bo in the press conference about Taylor Martinez. But I believe in forgiving and moving on.

I completely agree with Dirk in this well written article. If you want to be considered one of the best teams...win your conference. I think Jim Delany has the best solution: Select the three or four highest ranked conference champions as long as they are in the top 6, and potentially have a wild card spot for independent teams or conference champions who are just outside the top 6.

I didn't agree with you last fall Dirk, but on this subject I say well done sir!

 

[kchusker_chris]

Dirk's an idiot. It's not about picking the best team in the country when you're identifying playoff teams. It's about picking the best 4. The playoff determines the best from there. You can not tell me that Wisconsin (B1G champion) was better than Alabama last year, or that Oregon (Pac 12 Champion) was, or Oklahoma State (Big12) was. No way, not even close. Any scenario (making the teams win a conference) that ensures we'd leave out Alabama in the playoff discussion last year is ridiculous. This means that winning the MAC with 2 losses in a season puts you in a better position than losing a single game to the #1 ranked team by 3 points.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I have a couple problems with the proposal.

Conference championships are only decided by conference games, and completely ignore non-conference games, until you get deep down into tie breakers in some conferences to determine a division champ. The national championship should consider all games played in the season, and conference championships don't do this, so I don't like the hard and fast rule that you must be a conf champ. He talks about meaningless games, yet that would make non-conference games a lot less meaningful.

Conferences without a championship game can have multiple champions. Nobody would've complained about Nebraska in 2001 if there was no conference championship game, because we would've been tied and thus co-champions. Actually I think Texas would've gotten the #2 spot, but the point is that any of 3 teams would've been considered conference champions in a conference with no championship game, but the Big 12 had a championship game and therefore a single champion. That puts the teams in the larger conferences on uneven ground, more so than just by having to compete against more teams.

I'm not totally against the idea but these two points are enough for me to disagree with it.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

I agree with Dirk. Point blank, Alabama shouldn't have been in that spot last year. They lost, and there were other one loss teams that actually won their conference. Was not a fan of that outcome, and refused to watch the 'championship' game because of it. I think either a 3-1 compromise, or even a 2-2 compromise might happen. Though I'd rather see a 3-1 compromise at least. And KC, it doesn't mean that, unless the MAC champ can earn a rating high enough to get there. The likelihood is the MAC champ still isn't going to be in a position to take advantage of a 'champions' only system. Saban knows the numbers he threw were skewed, and that last year, three of the top four were league champions. The likelihood that the numbers like what Saban stated ever occurring is next to nothing. Even in most of their undefeated years, TCU, Boise St., and Utah were still in the top 10 at the end of the year.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

Actually, KC, I wouldn't have a problem with leaving '01 Huskers out of the discussion. We were in because of the system in place. But I know many people that were Huskers fans that didn't feel we should have gotten in because we didn't win the conference championship. I don't have any problem saying that. And I've long advocated for Boise to be included in years where they were undefeated. I would have had NO issue including them over Alabama. You want to keep value in the regular season? That gives people the value they want to keep. Require them to win the conference.

 

[Saunders]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple.

Win your division.

Win your conference.

Win the playoff.

If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it.

I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

 

[kchusker_chris]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

 

[huKSer]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

I heard that one variant is you have to finish in the top 6 - maybe just for this reason

Edit: And you have to be the champion of the conference championship game - thus really making it an eight team playoff. And this is why Big 12 rumors of expansion started, and why Big 12 expansion is now on hold - for now.

 

[Saunders]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

Uh, yeah they are. Last year the system said 'Bama was the best, even though they had already lost to the team they beat. When you aren't even giving other conferences a shot at the title because conference bias gets in the way, there's a problem.

And you're right, it's not their fault it's good. But it is their fault they lost a night game to LSU (the conference champion) at home. You're giving them a mulligan because you think they deserve it, and shafting teams like OSU (who played a tougher schedule).

 

[kchusker_chris]

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama.

...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple.

Win your division.

Win your conference.

Win the playoff.

If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it.

I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

Then you are saying you don't want the playoff to be comprised of the top 4 teams.

 

[kchusker_chris]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

Uh, yeah they are. Last year the system said 'Bama was the best, even though they had already lost to the team they beat. When you aren't even giving other conferences a shot at the title because conference bias gets in the way, there's a problem.

No you aren't, the playoff determines the champion.

But by your logic Oregon would have gotten in then. They lost to the same team Alabama lost to, by a wider margin and had a second loss after that. But they are top 4 and Alabama isn't?

 

[Saunders]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

Uh, yeah they are. Last year the system said 'Bama was the best, even though they had already lost to the team they beat. When you aren't even giving other conferences a shot at the title because conference bias gets in the way, there's a problem.

No you aren't, the playoff determines the champion.

But by your logic Oregon would have gotten in then. They lost to the same team Alabama lost to, by a wider margin and had a second loss after that. But they are top 4 and Alabama isn't?

Correct, and that's the way the season played out. But the chances of that happening are infinitely smaller than seeing two teams from the same conference (or division) play again.

 

[mnhusker]

I agree with the article for the most part. I think the conf. should matter more and as it stands today the non-conf schedule tends to be a cup cake preseason w/a few exceptions. The games are so weak you sit back a wait for the real season to see what your team is made of. The current system makes even big time conf. champ games a joke as we saw last year. We will never know if OK State or Wisconsin were good enough last year because we have no strong point of comparison. I do agree that the disjointed methods of arriving at who the conf. champ is a weakness in the path forward.