Bio not provided
2004 Utah should be in over Texas. 2005 West Virginia should be in over Ohio State. 2006 Louisville should be in over LSU. 2008 Utah should be in over Texas and USC should be in over Alabama. 2010 Wisconsin should be in over Stanford. 2011 Oregon should be in over Stanford. The biggest of these snubs is 2008 Utah; they may well have been the best team in the country, so not inviting them to the final four would be a travesty. Also, it should not even been a controversy that Louisville gets in for 2006. The Big East had a very strong year.
2 years, 7 months ago on The Playoff Era: What Could've Been in the BCS | July
The writing is on the wall. This new agreement between the SEC and the Big 12 means that we are going to have a true plus-one and not a 4-team playoff. After the bowls are done, they will select the two "best" teams to play in the championship game. Most years these teams will be the winners of the Rose Bowl and the SEC/Big 12 Champions Bowl.
2 years, 8 months ago on Push Begins For Regular-Season Big 12-SEC Games, But SEC-ACC Games May Make More Sense
@Crayton The fact that Louisville was not ranked in the top 4 in 2006 is a clear example of how flawed opinion polls are. In 2006, the Big East was the second best conference behind the SEC and there wasn't a close third. Louisville did not get the respect they earned because of they are not a big name and the Big East usually is not one of the top conferences.
2 years, 9 months ago on Commissioners Concerned With Self-Interests, Not Best Interests Of College Football With New Playoff Proposal
@John at MrSEC Actually, in 1934,1936,1943,1948,1950, 1951, 1952,1956,1960,and 1963 only two teams made the playoffs and yet the team with the second best record did not make the playoffs. In 1967 the Colts tied for the best record in the NFL but did not make the playoffs out of four playoff teams. In 1968 the Rams had the third best record and the Cardinals had the fourth best record but neither team made the 4-team playoffs. I could keep citing examples that contradict your assumption but it's getting late.
No, but as I pointed out the NFL gives obvious preference to division champs, which is what I am advocating.
The NFL apparently thinks winning one's division is important. In 2008, the 8-8 San Diego Chargers went to the playoffs while the 11-5 New England Patriots did not. In 2010, the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks went to the playoffs while the 10-6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers did not. Those who think it should just be the "top 4" would rather have a difference in a math rating of .001 determine the playoff teams instead of something concrete like a conference championship. The ratings are based on human opinions and computer programs that use criteria that the general public does not even understand. Conference champions are won on the field.
There has never been a 3-loss team in the top 6, so stop scaring with people with unrealistic hypotheticals. If you go back the last 16 years like I have you would see that the top 6 conference champion-rule would have given us very reasonable sets of playoff teams every year.