Replies

It is objective. You have to win your division. Both San Fran and New Orleans proved the better team won. Same thing in the AFC.

If you look at the NFL schedule, you play 10 teams in your conference. Plus you play 8 common games outside of your division.

It is easy to establish a set of objective playoff standards.

"It is easy to establish a set of objective playoff standards."

No it isn't. The NFL setup rewards division winners even if they have mediocre records. The NCAA has about 4 times as many teams, in numerous conferences, and with very similar records, playing dissimilar opponents. The BCS was an attempt to computerize it, to objectify it, as much as possible, and people still bitched. You think any other system will be better? Next year, people will still bitch about the system, about who was left out, about who plays who, about the refs, the penalties, and blah blah blah.

This is just college football, and I'm tired of all the crap, as if it is really even possible to determine who is the best team, and how much it really matters in the grand scheme of things to determine that. You want an "objective system"? Ok, have every team in the country play every other team home-and-home, a 240 game schedule, and then a playoff, if it's that important to you. Then we'll have some separation - the 230-10 teams will clearly separate from the 203-37 teams.

Does the best team necessarily win the NCAA basketball tournament every year? No. It comes down to talent, seedings, and luck. Does hitting a 50-foot buzzer-beater mean you are the better team? Does hitting one more shot in one game mean that? Not necessarily.