That looks like one legitimate claim to me. It's easy to get lost in determining number two, but a championship is never about #2. I've openly stated that it even the BCS wasn't always fair, in that it would sometimes match-up a team that executed the regular season flawlessly, with a team that hadn't. The defense, in my mind though is that the #1 team is like having the belt in boxing, and being #2 makes you the top contender.
I understand (and have known awhile) that this is your position - but there's simply no reason to hold it. (I'm referring to the circular argument that #1 is all it's about).
"We will arbitrarily decide before the season that Team X is number one. Team X begins with a TRIPLE advantage: a) if they go unbeaten, they're in; b) their loss doesn't count as much as anyone else's (insert Alabama and Oregon losses in 2012 here); c) if they lose early, it hurts them less."
I understand that's your position (in a nutshell), but I don't see any reason to hold it.
You beat the champ, you are the champ, but that in no way means that the #2 contender, and #3 contender have any legitimate claim at a title. It was the only scenario that practically guaranteed that the most deserving team was in the championship game. Oklahoma won that year, and the #2 team in the AP had two less wins, and one more loss. No other legitimate claims...
But again, this is a circular argument that there's no reason to accept. In essence, we're saying this:
Oklahoma beat Florida State head-to-head, therefore, it counts
Miami beat Florida State head-to-head, but it DOES NOT count
Washington beat Miami head-to-head, but it DOES NOT count
There is simply no rational reason for subscribing to that argument.
I would have LESS PROBLEM with your number one starting argument if and only if the rankings carried over into the next season (e.g. Alabama was number one to end 2012, so they start at #1 in 2013 - not because we think they're the best but because nobody beat them during the off-season). Of course, if we followed what you're saying here, then consider the insanity:
1) Auburn starts 2011 as number one (remember - they should have lost to Utah St, speaking of absurd)
2) Auburn then loses to unbeaten Clemson, so now Clemson is number one.
3) Clemson loses to Ga Tech, but Tech already has two losses but now they're number one
4) Va Tech beats Ga Tech, but they already lost to Clemson, who lost to Ga Tech
At some point we do get the subjectivity. I don't really mind the subjectivity, but there's simply no reason to say, "Okay Miami and Washington, YOUR LOSSES COUNT but Florida State's does not!!!"
Granted - that was under "the old BCS" before they changed the formula, so I doubt that could happen. And I actually agree with you IN LARGE PART on the subjectivity (e.g. the eyeball test) being okay in determination. In fact, you and I probably agree on about 90% of the way this ought to be.
But I don't think it's right to say that Miami's loss to Washington in week two hurts them worse than FSU's loss in October hurts thejm.
None
, and in 2009 Florida demolished Cincinnati,
But you can't use the result of a game that hasn't even been played to make the decision, either
I think ALL of us thought Florida was a solid number two that year, and that's where the four-team playoff thing sort of takes a ride.
and TCU got beat by a team that wasn't even in the top 4.
But you're arguing in circles again and assuming the legitimacy of the ranking. Again - you can't use a game that has not even been played to determine the teams that will make the playoff.
So, I'd say none again. I think we all know that if we wanted the top two teams to play in the BCS, Alabama and Florida would have had to have a rematch. I don't think it was possible to watch TCU or Cincinnati play and think you were actually watching the best team in college football, certainly not during their bowl games.
It's not that I disagree with you, but:
a) who thought Boise St could beat OU?
b) who thought Utah could beat Alabama?
c) who thought Louisville could beat Florida?
d) who thought UCF could beat Baylor?
And going back a bit - NOBODY gave Alabama a chance to beat Miami in 1993 outside of Corky Simpson and the state of Alabama. The 1992 Tide was bland and boring, and while SEC champs, folks were making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS you're making here against other teams ("Alabama only beat little ole La Tech by 13 points, and it was 6-0 in the fourth qtr, they only led Tulane 6-0 at the half, they were tied with 5-6 Auburn at the half, Florida State was much more impressive").
Also, neither Utah (2004, 2008), nor BSU (2009) were in the top 4,
But again, you're arguing in circles here and assuming the legitimacy of the ranking. In short, you're saying "this team is number X simply because we think it is number X and therefore it doesn't matter that they have the same record as team Y that we rated below them even after Team Y beat them."
This is less of a problem with number four but it gets to be a big one for two and three.
Let me state again: the BCS WAS FAR BETTER than things like the following:
1) 1983 - Nebraska can't play Texas (only 2 unbeatens) so Miami wins the title
2) 1989 - Notre Dame beats Colorado so....Miami wins the title
3) 1990 - Ga Tech and Colorado can't play so.....they split it
4) 1991 - Washington and Miami can't play so....they split it.
5) 1994 - Nebraska and Penn State can't play so....to hell with Penn State, Nebraska is the champ
6) 1996 - Arizona State and Florida State can't play so......Florida is the champ (but why does their loss to FSU count less than Ohio State's loss to Michigan?)
7) 1997 - Nebraska and Michigan can't play so......they split it
So the BCS was better in that sense.
Furthermore, I'll even throw in with you on this one - the only times I can think of that the BCS got the wrong matchup - egregiously wrong - were 2001 and 2003. The other debatable matchups (2000, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008) were at least minimally defensible on various grounds (e.g. it's not like Washington-Miami-FSU in 2000 were so superior to one another that the wrong team got picked).
And I'll even be charitable and say that the 2001 fiasco had more to do with 9/11 than anything else. Oregon and (I believe) Fresno State had a game scheduled 9/16. Because neither team had an open week before the season ended, the game was cancelled. If Fresno had won then Colorado's SOS would have boosted enough to put them in as a two-loss team against Miami while if Oregon had won, the Ducks would have played.
The one truly insane matchup was putting the OU team that got drilled, 35-7 by K-State, in against LSU. That was a farce so bad the BCS changed its formula (but too late to settle the never to be played USC-LSU game).
So ON THE WHOLE the BCS was, in fact, right. I don't dispute this, and it's why I oppose anything beyond a top four of the BCS. As I've said multiple times: the BCS was never as good as its spin doctors said and never as bad as Tim Brando wanted to pretend.
and are largely irrelevant to this discussion, unless of course we think that the committee really will go down the list and pass over the 4th and 5th team in favor of a cupcake conference school.
I think there is a distinction though, between crimsonaudio's point, which is that "I cannot recall a 4th place team ever having a legitimate argument for being the best", and your point which seems to be that sometimes #4 could really be #2 (which I agree with, but I don't see a single instance in which #4 in the BCS should have been #1). I think that's irrelevant though, since being a champion isn't about being #2. This will all end though, the era of being able to say the #4 team is clearly not on par with the champion is behind us.
I don't mean to argue with you, your knowledge is second to none, I think I just have a slightly different perspective.
I think I'm done at this point. You and I agree on what we want - a relevant, meaningful college regular season capped with a deserving and undisputed champion. Heck, I even agree with you on keeping the BCS but simply expanding it. All the years of complaint always had to do with teams in the top four (except that lone "we believe in Boise" crap from ESPN in 2010).
But you and I both oppose this interloping of a committee.
