I‘m sure by now many of you have read the scenarios that could allow Georgia — a two-loss team that didn’t even win its division, much less its conference — to play for a national title. It’s a long shot that at the least would require Pitt to beat West Virginia this weekend, among other unlikely things.

Twice already since the inception of the BCS, a similar scenario has played out where a team that didn’t win its conference got to play in the national title game (Nebraska in 2002 and Oklahoma in 2004, if I’m not mistaken, but somebody correct me if I’m wrong). Both of those teams were whipped handily, stirring controversy that someone else should have made it in (that undefeated Auburn didn’t play in 2004 was a particularly stinging indictment against the current system).

No system, even a playoff, is ever going to be totally fair. I think a legitimate case could be made for or against a rule banning teams that can’t win their conferences from making the title game.

Let me throw out a scenario: let’s say all the things that would need to happen for Georgia to make the national title game happen (West Virginia loses, etc.). Let’s say then that LSU beats Tennessee in the SEC title game by a close margin in a sloppy, mistake-filled game. That would leave LSU with one more win than Georgia has, but with a performance that wasn’t enough to convince pollsters to leapfrog LSU over Georgia in the human polls.

Who goes?

My BCS math isn’t so hot, but I believe there’s still a pretty good chance Georgia would under those circumstances. Either way, somebody has good reason to gripe.

I probably support the idea of a rule that you can’t play in the national title game without winning your conference, but there are problems with such a rule.

Another scenario: say that rule was in place this year, and Tennessee mops the floor with LSU (unlikely, you say, and I agree, but we’re dealing in hypotheticals). That leaves a three-loss SEC champion in Tennessee, and a three-loss SEC runner-up in LSU. At that point it seems pretty unfair to deny two-loss Georgia a shot, as much as I hate them.

So, my rule would have a caveat: a team that can’t win its conference can’t play for the national title unless its overall record is better than the conference champion’s.

If that rule were in place this year, Georgia would be eliminated from contention with an LSU win, but not with a Tennessee win. There are problems with that rule as well, though: for starters, it might deny the SEC a chance at a national title at all. I think the pros probably outweigh the cons, though.

I guess independents like Notre Dame would just be exempt from having to worry about this rule. That’s probably unfair to teams that have to play a conference championship game, but then again, so is the current system.

What say you?

Update Nov. 29, 2007, 6:31 a.m. I’m rethinking this further based on Ben K’s comment. My rule would now be that not only would the team in question need a better record than its own conference champion to go, but a better record than all available BCS conference champions. That would pretty much mean the only scenario under which a team that didn’t win its conference could make the national title game would be if every team in America except the team in question (and maybe the number one team) had three losses.

Really, nobody can gripe about not making the game if they have three losses. I don’t think Georgia, with two losses, could gripe this year if they were passed over for LSU, no matter how bad LSU’s performance in the SEC championship game is, as long as LSU wins.