re: SEC Playoff scenario

quote:

---

Perfect example was FSU last year, the ACC was awful but they won the BCSNCG. But I guess since they arent in SEC they are horrible.

---

And your logic, such as it is, fails completely here. Had FSU lost the ACC CG by a single point in overtime, you're arguing that they suddenly become a completely different team. I'm certain you're not arguing quantum mechanics here, so it's apparent that you honestly don't see the disconnect between your premise and the way reality actually works. The FSU team that won the BCSNCG was the best team in the country...not because they won a meaningless game against Duke and could therefore add "ACC CHAMPIONS!! frick YEAH!!!" to their record books, but because they, well, were the best team in the country.

Let's discuss causality. Winning a conference championship was evidence of their quality, but that doesn't mean their quality was predicated upon doing so. It's a fairly obvious fallacy, but a depressingly large number of people fall for it. By requiring a conference championship as a criterion, you're actually doing the exact opposite of working toward a better system. You're adding an additional, non-substantive challenge, which is the very definition weakening the process. If a team wins Conference X with 3 losses while another sees their undefeated record go away in a loss in the conference championship of Conference Y, your criterion is easy to apply. What if, on the other hand, you weren't told the nature of the respective conference championship games? Let's say they just gave you the schedule in random order and told you to pick the worthy play-off contender? Aghast, you say, "How can I pick unless I know who won their conference?!?" They reply, "I thought you were picking the best teams. How does the title alter their resume?" What's your reply? How, indeed, does winning one game -- that might not even be your toughest game -- have a greater actual effect on a team's resume than another given game?