Right. To me, a late loss should be more forgiveable. The later on you are in the season, the more likely you are to have key injuries, or be worn-out from a brutal schedule. And generally, the other or younger teams are playing better ball by then, so the competition ramps-up.
The idea of "Super Conferences" has been thrown around since we've gone to 14 team and 16 team conferences in recent years. I would like to see 16 team conferences in the PAC-12, Big 10, SEC and ACC. Do away with the Big 12 (Oklahoma could go to the Big 10, Texas to the SEC). The AAC and some new Mountain West conglomerate as well as the Mid-American (all with 16 teams and a CCG) could still exist with the caveat that if a team from those conferences finishes in the top 8 in the BCS Rankings (yes, let's keep the computer polls and the current formula of the BCS Poll), then they automatically quality as well. So anywhere from 1 to 4 at large bids would be handed out. Otherwise, you take the next 4 best BCS teams to go with the 4 auto qualifiers.
I believe most computer polls count losses the same regardless of when they happen. I think the majority believe that losses count more at the end of the season than they do at the beginning (see all polls incorporated into the BCS formula). It could probably be argued that a computer poll that more accurately reflected "the importance of winning late" is superior, but the BCS formula kind of takes both factors into account (biased human polls VS unbiased computer polls). I am in agreement that the problem isn't really with the BCS, it is with the number of teams currently allowed into the playoff (2). Four is better, and there are probably quite a few years when there aren't more than 4 legit NC contenders. I actually think 8 is too much as there are rarely 8 legit NC contenders. The magic number is probably closer to 6. I like a flexible playoff (TV can handle if it can handle NBA/MLB playoff; actual attendance can be attained by a mixture of higher seed hosting and having playoff games every other week). People freak at that idea. A good static number is 6. People don't like an uneven playoff structure. 4 is probably closer to legit NC contenders on a yearly basis, but the years where there are more than 4, someone deserving is getting shafted. That would make 8 the most digestible and fair balance of inclusive/exclusive. I don't see the need to make cookie-cutter super conferences who determine their champ in a uniform way. I don't see a need for Notre Dame to join a conference. > 1 rep per conference (unless 1 & 2 are from the same conference), no team lower than a BCS rating of X (16?) > conference champs get first dibs > any conference without a champ in top 16 can be represented by their highest rated team (in the top 16); this is where independents can horn in > a flexible playoff would stop here; a static playoff would fill the remaining spots with the highest rated teams remaining > secondary bowls may lose a bit of steam, so the smaller the playoff, the better it is for the secondary bowls (currently BCS bowls devour 10 teams, so an appropriately sized playoff could actually help the secondary bowls; 16 teams would suck for the secondary bowls and would be logistically difficult) This is my shit. Could talk about this all day. I have come to the conclusion it is superior to come up with a system that works as things are currently, rather than a system that only works if every tradition in wrecked in the name of a perfect playoff system.
If there was a 4 team play-off this year and the championship games go as expected (both OSUs and FSU all winning), I am pretty danged sure that Okey State gets in and Bummer stays home. This is a selection committee. They are not bound by polls, computers, etc... They will make a human decision. The SEC would have their best team in it in the form of Mizzou/AU. The other conferences would have a chance to get their best into the play-offs because all of the computers in the world can't really tell you which conference champions are the strongest. That is what the humans are in the loop to decide. And decide it they will. The reality is that there are very few inter-conference games to make an accurate prediction about how the best team in each conference will do against the best teams in other conferences. The computer polls tried to answer this question without bias, but there is just not enough data there (inter-conference games) to know which are the best of the best. Who is to say that the top 3 SEC teams are better than any of the best teams in the other conferences. Okey State might be better than all of them! They beat MSU about the same as Bummer and better than AU. There is plenty of data that shows that Mizzou, AU, and Bama are about the same and Bama is in third place in that trio. No way the committee puts them in. And this time it would not even be that tough since the PAC12 ate their own and did not produce a one loss team. There are four pretty clear conference champs with 0 or 1 loss. OSU, OSU, FSU, Mizzou/AU. No doubt.
Good post, tigermark. The human factor, to me, has potential consequences of both good & bad. On the good side, you'd hope they'd be sensible enough to keep a 1-loss team that didn't play in its CCG at home. However, there is the whole matter of bias & human error to deal with. Doesn't Condi Rice have some sort of connection with bama? Like she grew-up in tuscaloser or something? I just wish there was some sort of stipulation like that that wouldn't reward teams for not playing an extra game.
Okie State was a 1 loss conference champion 2 years ago and they still sat at home over a 1 loss conference loser in Alabama. I'm not sure Okie Lite would be there if this year had a playoff.
And that situation is precisely why we have a playoff today.... to allow the humans in the loop to not let that happen again.
Tim Brando brought up a great point on his show yesterday. Oklahoma State had thrashed Oklahoma in that last weekend of the season deciding if Oklahoma State or Alabama was going to face LSU for the NC. Brando said if you flip those two teams around and it's Oklahoma sitting at #3 instead and they thrash Oklahoma State, then Oklahoma is definitely in the NC vs LSU.
Why do you care if they play an extra game or not? Those conferences that choose to have a championship game get an extra boost that non championship game conferences don't get. And if bama had a good enough season to not need the boost, I'd say they earned their reward.
I'm not talking about a team from a conference that doesn't have a CCG. I'm talking about a team that misses their CCG getting in over a team that lost that same CCG. But how do you know they "had a good enough season" if they couldn't even play for their conference title? Clearly, that means someone else had a better season, but they played an extra game against a tough opponent. The team that sat home on its ass shouldn't be rewarded for doing so.
