Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread
Interesting...if one cared to discuss the best "top-to-bottom" conference. The fact that some of the bottom SEC teams stink (and they definitely do) doesn't interest me very much. The fact is that year-in, year-out, the top few SEC teams are consistently better than any other conference's top few teams - in fact, better than the top few teams from all of the other conferences combined. Certainly we can say this if we limit the discussion to the top 2 teams from each conference, because we know that the SEC's top 2 have gone 16-7 against everyone else's top 2.
Fair enough. Personally I think the "top-to-bottom" conversation is interesting, but that is a matter of taste. Focusing on the top two is also interesting. And when you do, it seems clear that the SEC currently has bragging rights.
There may very well be a conspiracy as for who "gets a shot," but the SEC has performed on the field once it had those shots. Again, if those "shots" were undeservedly given, their record would reflect that they were trying to punch above their weight - but it doesn't.
Agreed, the top SEC teams haven't been punching above their weight. Again, the matter of current bragging rights seems pretty well settled. But who "deserves" the berths in a two or four team playoff is an entirely separate question.
Your argument assumes that it is possible to discover in advance who the two (or four) strongest teams are, and that when you do, any flaws in their resumes can be equitably set aside. Then, if those same teams perform well after the fact, that's offered as proof that you were correct to ignore the resume flaws. Many fans take this position; perhaps a majority do. I don't buy it. For me, the teams with the top two
regular seasons deserve the berths, no matter how talented one of the other teams may appear, and regardless of accomplishments in past seasons. Granted, this is a value judgment either way. But consider:
Assume a team with a 9-3 record. In the nine wins, they made the opponent look silly. The team is loaded with potential first round draft picks. Their 40 yard dash times put everyone else to shame. Their state of the art offense is guaranteed to attract a huge television audience. But, on three Saturdays, they just weren't in the mood to play and lost with indifference. One of those indifferent losses came in the conference championship game. For me, the 3 loss record disqualifies them from serious consideration. The loss in the league title game should also disqualify them, IMHO. Now, suppose they're chosen anyway and win big in the national title game. IMHO, the victory does nothing to prove they deserved their playoff berth. The performance vindicates a claim that they were the most talented squad, but that's it.
Admittedly I'm doing a little card-stacking with that example. Real world, the selection decisions are closer calls. But I'm exaggerating to make a point: Playoff potential should not be used to override regular season results. If underdogs earn the berths, so be it. Traditional powers who finish just outside the money should not leapfrog their way into a playoff field on the basis of perceived strength -- no matter how reasonable the perception seems to be. And by relying first and foremost on the polls, the current system allows (if not encourages) such outcomes.
Edit: It really amuses me when SEC haters whine about wanting it to be decided on the field, and then turn around and completely ignore the on-field data that we do have available.
In the world of internet message boards, a lot of wildly inconsistent arguments are posted. No doubt you've been legitimately amused countless times. At the same time, one can question the values underlying a selection system while steering clear of whining and hating. Hope I've accomplished at least that.
