Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
Unless as I stated earlier and has been brought up by many playoff supporters they make all conferences play a championship game between the best 2 teams in the conference regardless of division and don't allow at larges from the BCS unless they have a better record than all the Non-BCS teams.
|
That wouldn't change much.
Only the Big 10, Pac-10 and Big East don't have championship games. However, the latter two conference's regular seasons have each team playing all of the other teams in the conference so a conference championship is unnecessary. I think adding a championship game to the Big 10 is a good idea though.
I think you're trying to say is that instead of Big 12 North vs. Big 12 South you simply would've had Texas vs. Oklahoma. The problem with that is that when you do that there's no point for the divisions with-in a conference. And when you do that in a 12-team conference the schedules become unbalanced and a team could have potentially gone this season without playing Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. When you do it like that it becomes very difficult to determine just who are the best teams in the conference.
Either way, when you try and say that you just take the best two teams in the conference you're getting subjective and you have the exact same issues you seem to have with the BCS.
You say you don't add BCS at-larges if there's a non-BCS school with a better record. Well then instead of Alabama and Texas you get Boise St. and Utah. I'm sure there won't be any people who are unhappy with that choice.
And then you get a situation like last year where Hawaii doesn't play a single ranked team, but gets into the playoffs over Georgia or Missouri. Why would a team even stay in a BCS conference if they knew they could simply go independent and beat the crap out of weak non-BCS schools and get into the playoffs every year?