re: This is why conference champions should never automatically get a bid into the playoff.

quote:

---

Compelling example but I think your conclusion is flawed. Results are determined on the field and I think your example creates a reason for expanded playoffs not leaving conference champions out.

---

So let's say that the playoff expands to 8 teams. Let's also say that the champions of the power 5 conferences automatically get a bid. Finally, like in 2012, let's say that a 7-5 Wisconsin team wins the Big Ten. Assuming that the other four champions of their respective conferences plus the three at large bids are actually 7 of the 8 best teams in the country, that would still result in Wisconsin knocking out a that 8th best team that is more deserving. Let's say that the real 8th best team is 11-2 (after losing its conference championship game) and both of its losses were to top 5 teams. Are you really going to tell me that a 7-5 team deserves to be in over that team just because it won its conference?

quote:

---

Then what is the point of a conference champion?

---

it's a big deal to win your conference championship.

quote:

---

I would be okay with conference champs getting an automatic bid if they ever go to a six team or eight team playoff. Conference titles are still a big deal to me but obviously they aren't the be all, end all with the CFP. Everyone besides a few delirious LSU fans knows that in 2011 the two best teams in college football resided in the SEC West. However, injuries are part of the game and sometimes the chips fall your way and sometimes they do not.

---

So you would be okay with a 7-5 team replacing a team that is really one of the best 6 or 8 teams in the country just because they won their conference? I wouldn't. The playoff game that 7-5 team would be involved in would be an absolute blowout. Put a team that actually deserves to be there in.

quote:

---

So you would be okay with a 7-5 team replacing a team that is really one of the best 6 or 8 teams in the country just because they won their conference?

---

Not really but there should be some reward for winning your conference. The example you posted is an outlier. Not many teams are gonna win their division, let alone conference, with four or five losses.

quote:

---

Not really but there should be some reward for winning your conference. The example you posted is an outlier. Not many teams are gonna win their division, let alone conference, with four or five losses.

---

Winning your conference should be a huge quality win at the tail end of your schedule. Big win. Big momentum. It is a factor. Just not an automatic bid.

quote:

---

Yeah but it helped Georgia this year. The conference championship giveth and it taketh away...

---

It hurts way note than it helps.


Didn't help Ohio State. Hurt Wisconsin.

Didn't help Auburn.

It helped Alabama by not playing in it

quote:

---

I'd be willing to go along with this. Even then, Auburn would still have 2 losses and one less win. Bama still would have gotten in.

---

So a #2 Auburn Auburn would have got left out vs a #5 Alabama.


Nope

quote:

---

Used to be winning your conference or even your division was the definition of a great season. Now for too many fans their opinion is that unless their team makes the playoffs their season was shite. But since there are only four spots that means only four programs had great seasons.

---

No one remembers who won conference championships anymore and they are simply worthless titles.

quote:

---

OP is completely right that the playoff should be seen as like final fours are in football, and not have anything to do with conference championships.

---

If they are not going to have anything to do with the final four then they should not be played or should be played AFTER the National Championship game.

The point that you are failing to acknowledge is that they are an EXTRA game that a few teams are forced to play in. There are circumstances where they are favorable to some teams, this is true. But there are also circumstances where they could be harmful to teams. This year was a prime example of both. The conference championship was highly beneficial to Georgia (and ultimately Bama even though they were at home that weekend), but detrimental to Auburn and Wisconsin.

Now, one could make the argument that Bama just had a bad night when they played Auburn and they really are a better team than Auburn. But these same people don't want to assume the same about Wisconsin. Perhaps Wisconsin is a much better team than OSU but just had an off night.

Then that brings us to Georgia. Georgia was out of the playoffs prior to the conference championship game. Now Georgia fans will argue that they really are a top 4 team (and they may be) but, what if they go in and just get rolled by Oklahoma? It brings into question, would Auburn have matched up better against them? Some would argue that "Auburn should have taken care of business" when they played Georgia the second time. But for some reason, these same people won't say that "Bama should have just taken care of business" when they played Auburn.

Bottom line, this years top 4 were a clusterfrick because there really is no clear cut top 4 this year. There are simply 6 or 7 teams that you could make a pretty good argument for or against them being in the top 4.

quote:

---

No one remembers who won conference championships anymore and they are simply worthless titles.

---

Which is why they should do away with the game.