Who are these "people saying?" Like the political media's "sources."

allen "Mediocrity will not be accepted." Right, losing in a Conf Championship = "Mediocriy."

I think you guys are missing allen's main point and Nick Saban's point: Win and there is no question of whether you're in the CFP or not. Obviously going 12-1 without a conference championship but still making the playoff is not mediocrity. But if you "just win baby" then you leave no doubt.

Thank you

I'm glad to see that people in the Athens area are finally getting the message that no MACC in 11 years is mediocre, are demanding one this year.

The only problem is there are 10 FBS conferences. The 5 power conferences do not all play each other. At this point it is impossible to say that the conference champion of one conference is better than the runner up in another conference. That's why the committee does it the way they do. A conference championship is considered along with other factors. Since Clemson has shown the ability to play bad games this year, should a three loss Va Tech be in the final four? Until we have a 8 or more team playoff, the conference championship can not be the only deciding factor.

So we're back to this again? Uncle.

In the context of this discussion, I don't give a flying flip about OOC schedules, TV ratings, G5 chances of a bowl game, whether the runner up of one conference is better than the winner of another conference, or any of the other reasons given. Unless, or until, there are more playoff spots than there are conferences, no "at-large" bids to the playoffs should be given. Win your conference and you have qualified, pretty simple. The committee can then use their subjective analysis to determine which of those teams are in and the seeding.

And no Slavin - this doesn't mean that the only definition of success is a conference championship.

Scott--I agree for the most part....EXCEPT FOR A STAFF WHICH HAS BEEN HERE 12 YEARS.

Did you read me agitating re lack of a MACC until about two years ago or so? It was only about a year after the loss to Miami after the 7-0 start that I changed my thinking. Before that no one was a bigger Solich supporter than me. But about four years of mostly mediocre football with no MACC in 11 years...

Circumstances changed so I re-thought my position, unlike the SFB here who'd give this staff 50 years or more with no MACC and still be ecstatic.

There's a point where rigidity is less than intelligent.


How many years with no MACC before it's 'thank you, here's the door'?

My issue with a conference championship litmus test is: What incentive is there to scheduling a difficult non-conference slate if this is the rule? Why would Ohio State ever schedule another game at Oklahoma again if beating them meant so little towards the national title hunt? I suppose there's a thought that those tough games get a team ready for conference play, but SEC teams in the mid-2000s showed that you can play a soft non-conference slate and still be national title caliber.

So we're left with conference games being the only thing that matter. That's good if you're a traditionalist who loved the way college football operated in the 1960s and 1970s, where a Rose or Fiesta Bowl bid is the ultimate prize.

But when we're trying to find the best college football teams to play in a four-team playoff, limiting the number of games that actually matter means more fluky teams, like Penn State or Wisconsin, getting into the Final Four. Weird stuff happens in conference games. Iowa can bite Michigan. Alabama can randomly lose to Ole Miss two years in a row. I like that the playoff allows for these kooky things to happen and still get the best four teams. A conference championship litmust test makes this the BCS all over again where you have to run the table to get in...and that means scheduling cupcakes early in the season to make sure you don't lose a game.

Nothing against those two teams, but I wouldn't rule out anybody in the top 40 of college football beating either the Badgers or Nittany Lions.

I don't think anyone outside of the top five could beat Alabama in a championship game setting. Their win over USC kind of backs that up. And Ohio State's win over Oklahoma tells me they're good enough to win a national title, even as putridly as the Buckeyes' offense is playing right now.

Plus, how lame would the playoff be if we have to watch Penn State take on Alabama? Avert your gaze from the carnage...

1. I don't care if Ohio State ever schedules another game at Oklahoma.
2. Why do you need to schedule cupcakes early in the season if you can lose all OOC and still get in playoffs? Schedule hard without the worry that a loss or two disqualifies you.

Brian, you are making way too much sense. I look at the games like going to the theater. There is a good bit of drama and if you're lucky, sometimes there is a great or surprising ending. Or both. When my team loses I say "go get 'em next time." When they win I say "nice job". I neither wail or gnash my teeth.

I've thought about this for a while too. I love how the Committee really only takes your strength of schedule into account if you have a loss or two. Had Washington gone 13-0 this year, there's no freaking way the Committee leaves them out even with a non-conference schedule of Portland State, Idaho and Rutgers. There's no way.

If you go undefeated in a Power 5 conference, that's the only argument you need. Strength of schedule "should" matter in the long run, but it really doesn't if you go undefeated. You're basically just daring them to leave you out if you run the table.

Besides, what are the odds these days that are going to be more than four undefeated teams? That doesn't happen any more.