I’d still think a team who is 10-2 who had to navigate a power 5 schedule playing multiple ranked teams week in and week out has not only a more deserving bid, but a better chance to make it interesting. Especially if the 2 losses came to 2 other playoff teams. I just don’t want to waste a spot on a team who is going to compete for 1 or 2 quarters and get throttled by 30. We already did that with teams like Washington and Michigan State. This year it will be Notre Dame and maybe Clemson. It’s a double edged sword. In this scenario let’s say LSU finished 10-2. On one hand, LSU had their chance to beat Bama and didn’t. But on the other, LSU has a much better chance at beating Bama in a rematch than an undefeated group of 5 school does. I want entertaining and competitive games. I thought that’s what the committee is there for. But by all means, if UCF plays and beats 2 big name and highly ranked teams and wins out, or 1 top 5 and 2 other top 25 team, I’d be ok with them getting in. I would still argue getting up for one or two games against more challenging opposition in a season is a lot easier than having to navigate it week in and week out avoiding the trap games left and right. What would UCF’s record be if week after week they played: Miami Auburn Ole Miss Florida Georgia Miss State Alabama Texas A&M? I say 3 wins at best. And I’d be both surprised and impressed.
It’s nice to discuss without calling each other names. I don’t really care if #5 LSU is better, I care about who is #1. If half the teams have no shot even if they run the table, that’s a flawed system. And don’t think they wouldn’t trade spots with Vandy in a New York second. I understand what you’re saying which is why you hold them to a higher win/loss standard, but by your logic a 4-win sec team is more deserving than an undefeated UCF. I can’t agree - there should be a reward for strength of performance AND results. The same happens to a lesser degree even among P5 teams. Certain conferences can be hyped up by the media, inaccurately bolstering the ratings of other teams in the conference. There is too much uncertainty. Need to find out on the field. Not to mention you set a bar, say top 12, and any G5 (or P5) team that doesn’t clear that hurdle isn’t considered, champ or not. That is where the subjectivity comes in.
Please most of the people most of the time, all of the people none of the time is more or less your choice.
Fair enough. And agreed, a nice civil discussion is pleasant. I guess thats why it’s fine at 4 where a 2 loss power 5 team and an undefeated group of 5 teams don’t get in. Well G5 teams period don’t. If they bump it to 8 and let a G5 in I’d be ok with it, but still think they would get crushed. And would hope that at least 1 or 2 respectable wins would be a prerequisite. I agree, it’s not a level playing field even in the power 5. This year, the SEC is very meaty where as every other conference virtually has only 2 good teams. It’s damn hard to go undefeated. So its impressive even with UCF does it. But I don’t think they would if they traded schedules with Vandy. I don’t think most power 5 teams would either. But that’s my point. We punish teams who play ridiculously hard schedules for losing 2 games and reward a team like Clemson or Texas who has 1 impressive win. There just isn’t enough parity to really know sometimes as the body of work just isnt there. If a playoff spot is on the line and 2 losses means you’re out and 1 or 0 means you’re in, a team like LSU would trade schedules with a LOT of other teams in a heartbeat.
I was being facetious, but at least agree it’s not apples to apples in terms of the road to get there. And in some cases, it’s not even close. Which is why I appreciate the concept of it being the 4 best and not 4 most deserving. We’ve seen two from one conference, next we’ll see a 2 loss team.
