re: SEC West teams will now have to beat Shorty twice...

The problem that every has is the assumption that Alabama is better with one loss than teams who beat them and/or have one loss or no losses.

If Alabama beats, oh, I don't know, say, LSU and goes 12-0 and LSU goes 11-1 and LSU makes it in because there is an assumption that LSU is just as good, if not better than Alabama, then we will see some objectivity. But, that isn't what happens.

My choice would be that we only have conference champions in the playoffs. Alabama fans are afraid of that requirement because they have only won 2 SEC titles since 2000.
..................................................

If you're scared, get a dog!.....and y'all should be. Just ask LSU and Fla. what it's like playing them twice in a season. This proves that your know that Alabama is truly the better team or you wouldn't be scared to play them twice.

I support Rocky.

So you're saying that unless team A gives uat a mulligan, they're scared. I think I read that right. Cool.
.................................................

I'm saying that you shouldn't give a damn who you play in the playoffs as long as they're considered by people a helluva lot smarter than you to be one of the top 4 teams. If Ala beats LSU in conference play, but LSU manages to get in the playoffs, then GREAT....at least I KNOW we're capable of beating them because we've already done it. We're gonna do it just like it's done at the barbershop...do a job on you and holler, NEXT!!!

Silly me..and I thought the "requirement" was to get the best 4 teams in the country together to find the champion.

quote:

---

It hasn't been that long ago that UA and UF were 1 and 2. We beat UF and they dropped to 3. Would it be fair if UF were leftout in a similar situation?

---

yes, they had their shot and missed on it.

why should they get a mulligan when they knew it was for the SEC and a shot at the NC?

if you want an objective playoff system a tournament of conference champions isn't completely objective but at least it is a system with clear requirements instead moving goalposts for different programs.

IMO, if they're rated #3, they should be in. If we'd had to play them again, at least we'd have known that we could beat them! Didn't we beat Fla. twice in 1999?

quote:

---

Silly me..and I thought the "requirement" was to get the best 4 teams in the country together to find the champion.

---

Silly us...and we thought a team that is "supposedly" in the best 4 teams in the country could/should win their own conference.

Bama scared about the championship requirement... It's coming

quote:

---

if you want an objective playoff system a tournament of conference champions isn't completely objective but at least it is a system with clear requirements instead moving goalposts for different programs.
-------------------------------------------------

That statement is absurd. The very nature of gathering the best 4 teams for a championship is to eliminate "requirements" that could actually keep the best 4 from competing

---

your statement is absurd to me

the very nature of having a playoff should require you to set as objective of criteria as possible to find the best team in the country.

define your "objective" criteria using things that don't involve human opinion polls and do use things like who won games and then you have a system people will be able to call fair.

quote:

---

So who would be in your playoff this year?

---

probably the top four conference champs would probably be chosen by the committee

so that means FSU, Auburn, Michigan State, and Baylor would be the ones and UCF and Stanford would be left out.


ETA: just looked and Stanford ended the regular season ranked (in the BCS standings) ahead of Baylor so perhaps it would be:

FSU, Auburn, Michigan State, and Stanford - leaving out Baylor and UCF.