re: Espn: Sizing up the SEC resumes

quote:

---

The current BCS formula is still king IMHO. It removes all observer bias that will be the norm for the committee deciding the teams in the new format.

---

You do realize that opinion polls are 66% of the BCS calculation, don't you? Only 33% of the BCS is free of observer bias (though computers have other biases as well). That's why Alabama went in 2011 over Okie State, who the computers preferred slightly.

The only objective measure of national title viability is winning your conference championship. Because there are too many teams and too few ways to get to the national title game (true of the BCS era and the 4-team playoff), observer bias will play a part, unless all FBS conferences get automatic invitations. That can't happen short of a 16-team playoff, and you can bet no one is arguing for the automatic inclusion of the Sun Belt in the national championship tournament over a 1-loss Alabama/LSU/Florida/UGA/aTm/Auburn/Tenn that doesn't win the SEC.

I can see a scenario where an 8-team playoff comes about with automatic bids for the champions of the 5 super-conferences (SEC/ACC/B1G/PAC12/BIGXII) and three at large bids. That allows independents and smaller conference champions in if they are undefeated, but also gives the good teams that just missed out on a conference championship an opportunity to go on a run. While observer bias would still have a say, it would not be the final say and would be well within reason. Yes, there will be arguments about whether say, Bama, Oregon, Ohio State or Okie State this year would be left out, but none could really complain since they didn't win their conference

Under that type of scenario, I don't think anyone could really complain about a rematch, because the loser of the first game had gone through a gauntlet of top teams to get into the NCG. Unlike in 2011, when losing gave Bama an easier road to New Orleans.

GEAUX TIGERS