Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="omniorange, post: 281008, member: 636"]
My problem with that is 2006 and 2008. 
 
In 2006 Michigan and LSU (as non-conference champs) ranked #3 and #4.  That was the year people were trying to justify having Ohio State and Michigan #1 and #2 even though one of them was going to lose their season-ending game.  As it later turned out, a good case could be made that both were overrated in the rankings, particularly Michigan. 
 
In 2008 Texas and Alabama (as non-conference champs) ranked #3 and #4.  Utah, at #6 and a conference champion, beat Alabama handily.  Who's to say they wouldn't have beaten Texas as well. 
 
A limited team playoff should reward conference champions (a real accomplishment) over perceived accomplishment (rankings) whenever possible and definitely the real accomplishment should trump the perceived accomplishment in any close calls, which is why in 2006, a #5 USC and #6 Louisville should go to a playoff over #3 Michigan and #4 LSU and in 2008 a #5 USC and a #6 Utah should go to a playoff over a #3 Texas and #4 Alabama.
 
The only time it makes sense for a ranked team to take the spot from a 4th conference champion was last year when comparing #2 Alabama with #10 Wisconsin.
 
Cheers,
Neil
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?