re: The answer is an 8 team playoff set up this way

quote:

---

Totally fine with me, they are the 2 best teams in the country. If someone's best argument can only get them even with 2, they don't deserve to end as #1.

---

As evidenced by what? They play 8-9 games within their conference, perhaps 1 good OOC opponent, and then 2-3 creampuffs. There is so little data to cross-reference and determine how good/bad a team really is compared to the rest of the country.

We think a team like Ohio State is good because, first and foremost, they've got the Jimmys and Joes. Then we look at their win over Oklahoma as a big feather in the cap, but that team was also beat by a relatively mediocre Houston team and really just feasted on a bad Big 12 to get to 10 wins. We've got Michigan who beat Colorado OOC, but that game was 31-28 Michigan with 10 minutes to play in the 3rd, and Colorado had just returned a punt to the Michigan 44 yard line when they had to finish the game with their back up QB. Michigan looked bad against Wisconsin and didn't leave the state but 3 times - losing two of those games. Penn State is built on their win over OSU, but no good team loses by 39. Wisconsin beat one team all year in the top 20 - a 4-loss LSU. Nebraska is one of the biggest frauds in the country. So on and so forth.

You could do that for many of the teams in the country. The idea that enough football has been played to whittle it down to 2 or 4 teams is simply incorrect.

That is also why I've got a problem disregarding conference championships outright. The SEC member schools have decided that their conference format, including divisions and conference championship game, will decide who is the best team in their conference. The other conferences have done the same. Given such isolated data points, who is the CFP committee to step in and tell them they're wrong?