Ok, I was being a bit of a jerk there. Needed my coffee. Here's what I will say on the topic and then we can move on to talking about how insane the idea of UNLV in P5 is.
I don't believe regular season titles should count, but for the purpose of our argument I'll concede to you that most people do count them. But I don't think it's irrational or nonsensical to hold my opinion.
I get the argument that people put forward that says a league title is impressive because it means that you were able to go the distance over 2-3 months and have the best record and that teams just "get hot" and win conference tournaments.
But the inverse argument is that teams miss key players during the season and that skews their win/loss record.
Case in point: this year's UConn team. Temple beat us twice without Amida Brimah en route to a conference title.
When the tournament rolled around and UConn had a fully healthy roster we ultimately won and secured the at-large NCAA bid.
So you can make an argument both ways here and I personally believe that regular season titles don't carry much water in an era of postseason conference tournaments.
Same goes for football. Winning the old 8-team Big East with a shared title was an acceptable definition of winning the league because there was no other way determining who the true champion was (though I would argue that in 2007 our 'shared' title with WVU was kind of BS since they beat us head-to-head).
But nobody would claim that the 6-6 Georgia Tech football team that lost the ACC title game to Florida State in 2012 were "League Champions" just because they won their division.
So why should we give Temple the honor of "League Champs" when they immediately lost in the conference tournament and had to rely on an at-large bid?
It doesn't make sense to me. You can be a great regular season team, but the beauty of sports is that if you can't get it done in the postseason when it matters, then nobody will remember you.
One Love.
