12-08-2013, 07:27 PM
I subscribe to the notion that any efforts to compare conferences and teams is inherently flawed and likely to be subject to bias of the observer. For every compelling argument that the Pac-12 is stronger than the SEC/B1G/B12, there is an equally compelling argument in the other direction. The sample size of head-to-head games is not big enough, and the transitive property (X beat Y beat Z so X should beat Z) does not seem to hold in football. Statistics like points per game, points allowed, etc, are very strongly affected by the opponents you play and your playstyle, so those are also not comparable across conferences.
If you look at the past two years of Stanford BCS opponents, would you say they didn't deserve to be there? OK State from the Big 12 beat us, and Wisconsin played us close despite going 4-4 in the B1G.
My hope for the playoff system is that they bias heavily towards "if you win your conference, you are in". Will there be some unfairness due to one fewer SEC conference game? Sure, but we don't have any control over that. This works similarly to the NFL, where you can get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.
If you look at the past two years of Stanford BCS opponents, would you say they didn't deserve to be there? OK State from the Big 12 beat us, and Wisconsin played us close despite going 4-4 in the B1G.
My hope for the playoff system is that they bias heavily towards "if you win your conference, you are in". Will there be some unfairness due to one fewer SEC conference game? Sure, but we don't have any control over that. This works similarly to the NFL, where you can get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.