Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice
Where would Tulane be if they had not lost twice? They'd have wins against K-State, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Houston - of teams that could be ranked or receiving votes.
SI
|
It's impossible to conceive of a fair system that picks only four of 131 schools. Teams play such variant schedules. The argument against the mid-majors is always going to be that the top teams don't get tested with mid-range conference opponents. Top-to-bottom, they have schedule strengths far below any major conference school.
Even the weakest schedule from a "contending" school, Clemson's, ranks 19 places above Tulane's, which, of course, would rank even lower if it had won those two games. North Carolina, which also has two losses, is not a contender and only has a slightly stronger schedule than Tulane's so far (that will rise in two weeks).
But a mid-major does not have any opportunity to play a representative schedule. So there's no fair way to include them and no opportunity to give them a fair chance of inclusion.
Like many aspects of sports, particularly college sports, we pretend a lot when we determine champions. Expanding the playoff field will help, but the same arguments will exist.