Actually, we do - LSU would have absolutely mauled them, and Les Miles would probably still have a job.
LOL I agree but we don't know for sure.
You mean like:
Super Bowl XVIII - Raiders beat Redskins after losing in regular season and beat Seattle in AFC Championship after losing to Seahawks TWICE in regular season
1985 NCAA basketball championship - Villanova wins title after losing TWICE to Georgetown in regular season
1988 NCAA basketball championship - Kansas wins title after losing TWICE to Oklahoma in regular season
Super Bowl XXV - NY Giants win NFC title AND Super Bowl against teams that beat them in the regular season
Super Bowl XXVIII - Cowboys beat Bills after losing during regular season (yeah, I know Emmitt didn't play)
Super Bowl XXXVI - Patriots beat Rams for title after losing in the regular season
The irony is that your position here is anti-rematch but any expansion of playoffs will DRASTICALLY increase the number of rematches.
I'm not intrinsically against the idea of rematches, I'm against he idea of rematches when other teams are left out of the fold. In pro leagues this is irrelevant, they are small leagues with wide net playoff systems.
Care to tell me how many times FIVE teams were unbeaten in the final regular season poll?
It's happened ONCE in the modern time frame, 1979. It happened twice if you want to count Florida making it to the 2009 SECCG. I could point out this means you're proposing a potential solution to a nonexistent problem. But....let's concede it's POSSIBLE for that to happen. Very simply, you go by SOS. Not a difficult thing to do.
Not sure it's ever happened, this is all just hypothetical. I just think it would be a joke for an undefeated power five team to not be in, regardless of a soft non conference schedule or whatever it was that kept them out.
What you're saying here is why I favor the four-team playoff with no conference championship requirement. You're reasoning here is excellent and the point I've made against the BCS. I'd rather have one questionable team per year make the tournament (they'll get exposed if they're not the real deal) than have a team run the table but fall victim to "well, we didn't rate you high enough").
I'm a huge fan of the current system and think its vastly superior to the BCS. I don't disagree with anything you said here.
And yet you put Ohio State in here, who didn't win their conference......
Just a little while ago you were complaining that the LSU-Alabama rematch was problematic. Yet you're proposing right here that Ohio State has to beat Oklahoma again. And year after year you'll wind up with this same problem.
Well I'm using the committee rankings here. Ohio State is in because they and Michigan would be the two at large teams to go along with the five conference champs.
I agree rematches could be problematic, particularly intra-conference in the first round. It's definitely one of the flaws in this system. It would be ridiculous to have, say, Ohio State and Michigan playing in the first round.
Can you please provide me with a list of all the teams ranked five through eight in the entire history of college football that anybody thought deserved a national championship shot?
Two teams - 1983 Miami and 1977 Notre Dame - jumped from five to one. That only happened because of bowl tie-ins that were set aside 25 years ago (save the Rose Bowl, who monkeyed with theirs a bit).
In fact, can you even name five teams ranked FOURTH that anyone argues was a number one team? We're talking 80 years here since 1936. That actually was more of a problem when college football was entirely regional. Now that teams schedule big games early that is not a problem.
I agree there probably aren't many -- but I think Baylor and TCU could have made an argument they deserved a shot in 2014, for example, especially TCU after they decimated Ole Miss in that Peach Bowl.