For several years, college football fans and media have
wanted a playoff system. Now it appears they will be getting one.
I’m not even going to try to explain the parameters of
the proposed four-team playoff. I’ll let collegefootballnews.com do the honors:
I have long been in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl
Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think NCAA March Madness in
basketball is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. Like
most people, I fill out my office pool but you’re not going to hear me say that
March Madness is the greatest thing since the Great Wall of China.
You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.
Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.
The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.
The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.
In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.
In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.
Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.
The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-31 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.
I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off by two SEC teams.
While you will never get a system that satisfies everyone, I’m all for the proposed four-team playoff. The problem is, I can see it morphing into a football version of March Madness, which would be a liability not an asset. Four teams (six maybe) is an ideal number. For one thing, the regular season still means something because a two-loss team is not normally going to be in the Top Four. Honestly, no team with two losses should be playing for a National Championship. I know the cynics would say that considering the BCS Title Game between Alabama and LSU was a rematch, the argument of “the regular season still matters in college football” was tainted.
You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.
Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.
The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.
The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.
In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.
In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.
Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.
The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-31 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.
I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off by two SEC teams.
While you will never get a system that satisfies everyone, I’m all for the proposed four-team playoff. The problem is, I can see it morphing into a football version of March Madness, which would be a liability not an asset. Four teams (six maybe) is an ideal number. For one thing, the regular season still means something because a two-loss team is not normally going to be in the Top Four. Honestly, no team with two losses should be playing for a National Championship. I know the cynics would say that considering the BCS Title Game between Alabama and LSU was a rematch, the argument of “the regular season still matters in college football” was tainted.
The one example that I keep coming back for my case in
favor of a four-team playoff to is the 2010 season. Oregon and Auburn went
undefeated from the Pac 10 and SEC respectively. I say, well and good, they
should play in the BCS Title Game because if you come out of those conferences
undefeated, you have earned the right to play for the title.
However, there was one other problem. You had an unbeaten
TCU team from the Mountain West. Of course, the cynics would ask, “well, who
the hell are you playing in the Mountain West?” TCU defeated an 11-1 Wisconsin
team from the Big 10 by the final of 21-19 in the Rose Bowl. Then you have an
11-1 Stanford team from the Pac 10 that smashed Virginia Tech 40-12 in the Rose
Bowl. VaTech went 11-2 in the regular season. When the dust settled after all
of the bowl games had been completed, most people believed that Stanford was
the best remaining one-loss team. Keep in mind, Wisconsin’s aforementioned loss
to TCU dropped them to 11-2. There’s one more argument, “well what about Ohio
State?” The Buckeyes went 11-1 out of the Big 10 and defeated an 11-2 Arkansas
team 31-26 in the Sugar Bowl.
Yes, Ohio State would have had a legitimate point. However,
if you had a Final Four of Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Stanford, that would have
sufficed for two reasons: 1) You have two teams from power conferences like
Auburn and Oregon, 2) Your unbeaten TCU or Boise State or Utah would get their
chance and 3) Your best remaining one-loss team like Stanford would also get
its chance. I believe that’s the scenario most people want anyhow. So you leave
out another deserving one-loss club like Ohio State or Wisconsin? Losing one
game won’t dash their National Title hopes but you get a playoff, maintain your
bowl games and make the regular season matter.
As for the bowl games, people would say “but they make
money.” Your major bowls like the Orange, Rose, Fiesta, and Sugar are not going
anywhere. Neither are other New Years Day bowl games. For that matter, neither
are games like the Holiday Bowl. Start by getting rid of bowl games that are
being occupied by 6-6 teams. They have no business even playing in a bowl game.
No comments:
Post a Comment