The debate is beginning all over again. Should college football have a playoff? This argument really has become quite boring. And since there is no chance we will have a playoff through the 2015 season, it really is quite ridiculous to even discuss it anymore. But that won't stop the naysayers of the BCS from rearing their ugly heads. I used to be one of those people who were a HUGE advocate of a playoff. I even created my own playoff system at one point, spending hours trying to figure out all the intricacies. However, i have no become less of a fan of the idea. And here is the reason why.
The regular season is just too good...
College Football has without a doubt the BEST regular season in all of sports. The only other one that comes close is MLB, but that is just SO LONG that it loses some of its luster. But seriously, the regular season in college football is truly the most captivating thing in all of sports. Unlike the NFL where a team can start 7-3 and clinch their division and then go on to lose 5 of their next 7 and still make the championship game (a la Arizona Cardinals), that can not happen i college football. They HAVE to keep winning. Florida and Alabama have clinched their divisions and will meet in the SEC title game. Would we all really be ok with it Florida or Alabama just packed it in and lost their last three games, only to win the SEC title and make the playoffs and win the national championship? Do we really want Auburn-Alabama and Florida-Florida State to be throw away games that don't mean anything in the national championship picture? Its a question that most people need to explore before simply screaming for a playoff.
Most people are willing to make that sacrifice because the playoffs would eclipse the excitement of the regular season by a mile. But what happens if the games aren't that exciting? What if Texas and Alabama/Florida just steamrolled everyone they played in the playoffs by 40 points and still met in championship anyways? Then we would have sacrificed all the excitement and passion of the regular season for nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your point about the regular season being so exciting b/c of the BCS system is an interesting point that I hadn't considered before, and in that regard I agree with you. I mean, if there were a playoff system we wouldn't have gotten to see Tebow cry after that embarassing loss to Ole Miss last year, right? He would have just blown it off and said "ah, whatever, it doesn't matter til the playoffs anyway."
ReplyDeleteHaha, seriously though, I agree with your point--the BCS really does make the regular season of college football the most exciting of all sports.
Even so, I'm still for a playoff system because I think the advantages of it outweigh the disadvantages. You said "what happens if the [playoff] games aren't that exciting? What if Texas and Alabama/Florida just steamrolled everyone they played". I really don't see a situation in which the playoffs WOULDN't be exciting. Sure, maybe some/most of the games in the first round would be blowouts, like a hypothetical first round of UGA vs. Hawaaii. Then again, maybe they would be big upsets like Utah over Alabama. And once you got into the later rounds I really don't see blowouts happening all too often.
And of course, there are the advantages of the playoff system that, despite being insanely hackneyed, are still relevant. Like how pissed I would have been last year as a Utah student/fan after having gone 13-0, including an impressive win over Alabama, who lost a close game to the eventual national champs, Florida. Did they not deserve a chance to prove themselves?
Finally, I think an important question is what deserves a national championship: the best team at the END of the season, or the team that was consistently the best throughout the season? I believe it should be the team that is best at the end of the season, and in that case a playoff system is better. For example, at the end of the 07 season, I think the 2 best teams were UGA(ok, so I'm a bit biased) and USC, not LSU or Ohio State. I'm not saying UGA or USC should have been put in the national championship game, I'm just saying that I think both deserved a chance to prove themselves at the end of the season. And as you said- if the BCS got it right, it would end up coming down to LSU and Ohio State in the end anyway, right?
--Woody
Woody Woody Woody,
ReplyDeleteTell me, who did UGA beat in that stretch at the end of 2007? Yes, they beat my gators. Who had given up more than 20 points in all but 3 of their 13 games and had already lost two games... and they beat Auburn, who lost 4 games that year including losses at home to South Florida and Mississippi State.
Now, I will not argue with you one bit about the lack of quality from LSU and Ohio State. LSU won most of its games on sheer luck. But frankly, i am a little tired of UGA fans complaining about not having a chance to play for the title in 2007. You don't lose to a team that went 7-5 at home (USC) Tennessee by 21 and still play for a title. 2007 was also the only year a 2 loss team made the BCS championship. Fluke year.
I guess i can see your point about how teams play at the end of the season, but at the same time i still think that if you think like that then you demean some other games. If florida loses next year to USF at home and on the road against Tennessee... but then goes on to win at Alabama, at home against LSU, against UGA, and at FSU by an average of 30 points... does that mean they should play for the title? No. it doesn't.