[2006alum]

#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia

Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.

I totally agree with your argument in spirit, but I'm not sure the most compelling point is that the conference championship games have sucked vis-a-vis the playoff games. Alabama-Georgia was a classic this year, and the Oklahoma-Texas game was also very competitive until late in the 4th. Last season, Wisconsin-OSU and Stanford-USC were both tight, down to the wire games. Etc. Yes, you get some blowouts (Georgia over Auburn, OSU over Northwestern, Clemson over Miami & Pitt), but the same thing happens in the semis (Bama stomped Clemson last year and Washington the year before, and Clemson shut out OSU two seasons ago). So 3/4 of the playoff games the last two seasons have been at least as terrible as any of the conference championships.

The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.

Provided the money from those games can offset the conference championship games for each of the conferences, there's no argument against it. In my mind, the hurdle is making sure the conferences don't lose money in the switch.

[2006alum]

#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia

Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.

I totally agree with your argument in spirit, but I'm not sure the most compelling point is that the conference championship games have sucked vis-a-vis the playoff games. Alabama-Georgia was a classic this year, and the Oklahoma-Texas game was also very competitive until late in the 4th. Last season, Wisconsin-OSU and Stanford-USC were both tight, down to the wire games. Etc. Yes, you get some blowouts (Georgia over Auburn, OSU over Northwestern, Clemson over Miami & Pitt), but the same thing happens in the semis (Bama stomped Clemson last year and Washington the year before, and Clemson shut out OSU two seasons ago). So 3/4 of the playoff games the last two seasons have been at least as terrible as any of the conference championships.

The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.

Provided the money from those games can offset the conference championship games for each of the conferences, there's no argument against it. In my mind, the hurdle is making sure the conferences don't lose money in the switch.