Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Scooch, post: 1223831, member: 628"]
I like to think of it in terms of "at what point do we want to have the argument about who gets included"?

With the BCS the argument was #2 vs #3.  For a multitude of reasons that was far too fine a point.  We were using a lot of flawed criteria to discern between teams that were essentially equal.  Some team was always being treated unfairly.

It's an improvement to be arguing #4 vs #5, but as this year shows, I think it's still a bit too fine.  At the end of the day TCU and Baylor were pretty much just as deserving as Ohio State.

I feel like arguing #8 vs #9 is a good equilibrium.  At that point we're talking about 2 loss teams.  Sure #9 (and probably #10, #11 and #12) would all be claiming how their wins are better than #8, and how their losses aren't as bad, etc.  But... they lost two games.  I think it's fair to let teams stub their toe once and still have a viable shot at the title.  But I think it's also fair that in college football losing twice should most likely knock you out of the hunt.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?