I'm not some small school crusader who thinks Boise St. could really compete week in and week out with the SEC. But that's not really the point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to argue -- either by observation or with an obscurantist mathematical formula -- that the two teams in the Championship Game really are the two "best" teams. If you're willing to do that why not just take it one step further and have the formula decide the champion, too?
No sport is more dominated by a small group than tennis. In the last six years, only once has a tennis Grand Slam tournament been won by someone other than Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic (this is about as long as it's been since a team outside the SEC has won the national championship, incidentally). Yet they still make those men work their way through the brackets in every case, despite the routine inevitability of some of the early matches.
College football is the only sport I can think of that violates this basic competitive principle. It must change.
Playoff or not, the SEC earns it. They DO play a tough conference schedule.
NO ONE ELSE DOES!
How many tough games does North Carolina have coming this season? NONE. Not ONE.
Same for Florida State. Virginia Tech. Miami has the toughest schedule in the ACC because we play Notre Dame in Chicago. What a joke of a conference. Not one tough team in any conference outside of the SEC. You keep talking about these guys have to play a few tough games when no one else plays any.
You guys want a playoff so that it's fair but then people will want to limit the number of SEC schools that can get in. BCS has gotten it right the past five years. SEC winners the past five years. That's how you know they got it right because no one else can beat the SEC except the SEC.
Alabama over LSU.
The ACC has been bad for a while but the Big 12(before defections), and others have had worthy teams. Carolina 2 years ago despite all the suspensions nearly beat one of the best SEC teams in SEC Country to start the year.
Outcomes are a remarkably good way to clear up futile arguments about "better." Georgia went 7-1 in the SEC East last year, yet lost to Boise St. and Michigan St. Does that make them "worse" than those two teams? I honestly have no idea. "Better" and "worse" are arbitrary and subjective terms. The point in sports is winning, and playoff systems are about winning. Mathematical formulas and circular arguments about strength of schedule are not about winning.
The implication in your argument, I think, is that the SEC is it's own playoff system. Whichever team emerges from that conference is going to be one of the two best teams in the country. But this is a condescending form of bull****, no? Especially when the argument progresses to it's next logical point, which is that the two best SEC teams should play each other in the Championship Game every year regardless whether they've played before. I heard this argument a few times last year with people clamoring for an Auburn/Alabama rematch.
Why have these pointless arguments -- which often serve to do nothing other than dredge up regional squabbles -- when we can just have a playoff system?