I'm not making the point that Stanford might have deserved it over Oregon necessarily, but using the sole criteria of conference champion being the deciding factor who plays or does not play in the NC game. You are talking about who is the better team, versus who is the deserving team. It's a fine line. Did I think Oregon was the better team, yeah I did. But I can go back in history and see many of the better teams that didn't get to play in the NC game or even a BCS bowl game b/c the better team did not have the better record. Last year, I didn't think Okie State was the better team than Alabama, did you? Okie state lost the same number of conference games, and to a vastly inferior one in Iowa State, than Alabama losing in OT to LSU. It's just so happens LSU and Alabama play in the same division, whereas the B12 didn't have a CG.

Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan86 View Post
There is ALWAYS going to be an exception to the rule that makes the approach seem poor. You mentioned LSU (the #2 team in the land) took Oregon to the woodshed, well Oregon did the same to Stanford. Oregon lost there second game close to USC, the same team that Stanford took 3 overtimes to beat. You're convinced Stanford was the better team, I'm not.

What if the selection committee agreed with me? Would it be any less wrong in your opinion? Aren't you really saying that the PAC12 chose their conference championship contenders poorly?

I'd rather let the head to head determine it over the 'gut feel' Head to head I can control my destiny. 'Gut feel' can easily be wrong/influenced/biased/bought.