Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Yeah, sorry, 1979, I was at the UGA-Auburn game and it was close at the half.  Had UGA won, they would go to the Sugar Bowl ahead of Alabama because of last team to go if tied rules.

If we go back over 20 years and examine what some new format would have likely generated, we could probably test whether it appeared to work reasonably well or not, and fix any outliers if they occurred.

I wonder how that would have impacted the NC race.  Where would Bama have ended up if no the Sugar Bowl?  

As it happened, Bama was #2 heading into the Bowls and plalyed #6 Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl.  Alabama's 25-18 win over Auburn apparently wasn't considered very impresssive because after that they got jumped in the polls by Ohio State (idle that week).  

Final pre-bowl top-10 in 1979:

• 11-0 Ohio State (only ranked opponent was an 18-15 win in Ann Arbor over #14 Michigan)
• 11-0 Bama (only ranked opponent was a 25-18 win over #17 Auburn in Birmingham)
• 10-0-1 USC (the tie was at unranked Stanford, only ranked opponent was a 24-17 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
• 11-0 Florida State (only ranked opponent was a 27-7 home win over #16 USCe)
• 10-1 Oklahoma (the loss was to #11 Texas 16-7 in Dallas, only other ranked opponent was a 17-14 home win over #7 Nebraska)
• 10-1 Arkansas (the loss was 13-10 at home to #8 Houston, only other ranked opponent was a 29-20 home win over #19 Baylor)
• 10-1 Nebraska (the loss was 17-14 in Norman to #5 Oklahoma, no other ranked opponents)
• 10-1 Houston (the loss was 21-13 at home to #11 Texas, only other ranked opponent was a 13-10 win in Fayetteville over #6 Arkansas)
• 11-0 BYU (no ranked opponents)
• 10-1 Pitt (the loss was 17-7 at unranked UNC, only other ranked opponent was a 26-14 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)

In the Bowls:

• Ohio State lost 17-16 to #3 USC in the Rose
• Bama won 24-9 over #6 Arkansas in the Sugar
• USC won 17-16 over #1 tOSU in the Rose
• FSU 24-7 to #5 OU in the Orange
• OU won 24-7 over #4 FSU in the Orange
• Arkansas lost 24-9 to #2 Bama in the Sugar
• Nebraska lost 17-14 to #8 Houston in the Cotton
• Houston won 17-14 over #7 UNL in the Cotton
• BYU lost 38-37 to unranked IU in the Holiday
• Pitt won 16-10 over unranked Zona in the Fiesta

The Final poll was:

• 12-0 Bama
• 11-0-1 USC
• 11-1 OU
• 11-1 tOSU
• 11-1 Houston
• 11-1 FSU
• 11-1 Pitt
• 10-2 Arkansas
• 10-2 UNL
• 10-2 Purdue (had been #12, beat unranked Tennessee in the Bluebonnet)

Where would Bama have ended up if UGA had secured the Sugar Bowl bid with a win over Auburn?  Would the Tide's opponent have been weak enough that USC could have gotten an NC based on their win over #1 Ohio State?  

I would consider a 10-3 team getting in over an 11-1 team that beat said 10-3 team decisively a weird result.

Do you think there'd be any risk of that happening?  Perhaps between a low-level G5 team and a helmet program?  I can't fathom the last part happening - if a UTEP-type team decisively beat an LSU-type team and had 2 fewer losses.....eh, I don't even think we'd have to worry because I don't think that's ever happened.  

Maybe that year VT lost to Old Dominion?  I don't know their records that year, though.  Most major upsets are close games, by far.

Whatever system you contrive, just go back twenty years and test it.  Maybe it would look fine.  If there were years with a very undesirable outcome perhaps the system could be modified accordingly.

In 2006, Wake Forest won the ACC at 10-2.  They lost to 8-5 Clemson and 10-3 VaTech, who beat them that year regular season.

Wake lost to Louisville in the Orange Bowl and ended ranked 18th.  They had been 15th before that game and were not expected to win.

I think it obvious, not every conference champion appears TO ME to be worthy of being in any playoff.

Imagine any of the expanded playoff scenarios were extant in 2006.  Would Wake have been included?  Would that have made any sense?

There is discussion here, as often is the case, about an expanded playoff, often one where all conference P5 champions are included.  My point relates to that discussion, not to the current format.

Many of course would like a 6 or 8 team playoff.  My thought is simply to test any such scheme over the past 20 or so years to see how often it appears to work sensibly.  Using conference champions is "objective" and discrete, not subject to judgment.