NCAA bafoonery
First off, let me say I am not about to write anything I don't expect to be written in nearly every sports publication in the country tomorrow and the days following. But my feelings are probably stronger than the criticism the NCAA will take from most writers, in large part because college football largely fails to capture my excitement to begin with.
But, I don't see how anybody can still take seriously a system wherein debate reigns over the game itself. Regardless of who was selected along with Ohio St. (strongly considered a lock) for the BCS Championship game, 90 percent of the country was going to be upset. That is because there was not a single team, including Ohio St., who could clearly be seen as superior to the rest of the contenders. So the fans of the team that got selected, LSU as it turned out, and perhaps the other fans of the Southeastern Conference, were going to be the only ones happy about it. Meanwhile in Blacksburg, Lawrence, Morgantown, Athens, and Honolulu (and several other places) fans were going to be upset.
Speaking of Hawaii, this brings me to my most frequent point of contention with the supremely flawed NCAA bowl system. How can a team win every game on its schedule, and not have even an outside shot at a national title? You may say all you want that the teams Hawaii played were not as strong as the teams others played, and you can believe all you want that the Warriors were not among even the five best teams in the country. But to never give them the chance to prove themselves brings into question the mere plausibility or legitimacy of determining a national champion to begin with.
But this year, that is only my second-best point in favor of at least some form of a playoff. Yes, every undefeated team in Division I-A (please don't sue me for not calling it the Championship subdivision), regardless of their conference affiliation or schedule, should get a shot in a national tournament. Take in as well the remaining contenders as narrowed down by either the BCS points, or a committee. There will always be something to debate. It will never be flawless, but if we are debating over who the seventh and eighth best teams in the country are, isn't that better than debating who the first and second are and immediately eliminating everybody else from having a shot?
You could make a reasonable case for all of the following teams to be in such a tournament: Ohio St., LSU, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia, USC, and Hawaii. That's a conservative list, which happens to be 9 teams. So somebody is going home unhappy. But by the current system, that unhappy team, which in my book would be either West Virginia or Georgia, didn't have any chance. So at the least we're giving six more teams a chance to prove it on the field.
The so-called championship game is now a joke. Whoever wins it will likely have more losses than Hawaii. They will not have proven definitively that they can beat all comers, because they will not have had a chance to face all of the aforementioned contenders.
It comes down to one simple guideline: subjective human opinion should not play such a huge role in determining who wins.
If not for the sacred principle of settling the game on the playing surface, what is the point of competitive sport to begin with. We might as well let teams work out, watch them scrimmage against themselves, and have a group of voters tell us who is going to play for the championship on August 15. At least then we wouldn't have to go through a meaningless season to ultimately come out unfulfilled and angry.
But, I don't see how anybody can still take seriously a system wherein debate reigns over the game itself. Regardless of who was selected along with Ohio St. (strongly considered a lock) for the BCS Championship game, 90 percent of the country was going to be upset. That is because there was not a single team, including Ohio St., who could clearly be seen as superior to the rest of the contenders. So the fans of the team that got selected, LSU as it turned out, and perhaps the other fans of the Southeastern Conference, were going to be the only ones happy about it. Meanwhile in Blacksburg, Lawrence, Morgantown, Athens, and Honolulu (and several other places) fans were going to be upset.
Speaking of Hawaii, this brings me to my most frequent point of contention with the supremely flawed NCAA bowl system. How can a team win every game on its schedule, and not have even an outside shot at a national title? You may say all you want that the teams Hawaii played were not as strong as the teams others played, and you can believe all you want that the Warriors were not among even the five best teams in the country. But to never give them the chance to prove themselves brings into question the mere plausibility or legitimacy of determining a national champion to begin with.
But this year, that is only my second-best point in favor of at least some form of a playoff. Yes, every undefeated team in Division I-A (please don't sue me for not calling it the Championship subdivision), regardless of their conference affiliation or schedule, should get a shot in a national tournament. Take in as well the remaining contenders as narrowed down by either the BCS points, or a committee. There will always be something to debate. It will never be flawless, but if we are debating over who the seventh and eighth best teams in the country are, isn't that better than debating who the first and second are and immediately eliminating everybody else from having a shot?
You could make a reasonable case for all of the following teams to be in such a tournament: Ohio St., LSU, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia, USC, and Hawaii. That's a conservative list, which happens to be 9 teams. So somebody is going home unhappy. But by the current system, that unhappy team, which in my book would be either West Virginia or Georgia, didn't have any chance. So at the least we're giving six more teams a chance to prove it on the field.
The so-called championship game is now a joke. Whoever wins it will likely have more losses than Hawaii. They will not have proven definitively that they can beat all comers, because they will not have had a chance to face all of the aforementioned contenders.
It comes down to one simple guideline: subjective human opinion should not play such a huge role in determining who wins.
If not for the sacred principle of settling the game on the playing surface, what is the point of competitive sport to begin with. We might as well let teams work out, watch them scrimmage against themselves, and have a group of voters tell us who is going to play for the championship on August 15. At least then we wouldn't have to go through a meaningless season to ultimately come out unfulfilled and angry.
posted by Ryan Pipke at
1:24 AM
1 Comments:
Let me just say, that I agree, first off. Secondly, don't you love how people always throw out the whole, "But what about our BOWL games?" To which I say, don't get rid of the Bowl games in a playoff system. Make them part of the quarter, semi, and finals. Obviously, I don't think you can have a playoff to the scope of the Final Four but that's not what most college football fans are asking. Maybe top 8, top 10, or just follow what the NFL does.
Another thing that drives me nuts is the football players would be distracted away from studies...um...in late December...when most colleges are on break?? Hmm...it's all about money, I think, in the long run, in keeping to this lousy BCS and bowl games, and meaningless bowl games like papajohns.com and others.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home