For What It's Worth: A Pageant Is No Way to Decide a Champion
I have heard for a few days now all of the arguments about who should or should not be in the National Championship Game in January. The the new old way of deciding the champion just isn't getting the job done. The new old way, says we will wait until the season is over to see who the clear-cut best two football teams in the country are. The two teams will separate themselves from the pack by winning the conference championship without a loss (unless you are in the SEC, then we give you at least one loss because it is such a tough conference) and beating at least one key quality non-conference foe. At the end, through various polls, some of which are computers, we decide who was the best all year or who is the best team now or who deserves it the most. And then, we will invite them to shoot it out in the BCS National Championship Game.
Admittedly, the controversies that arise in such scenarios are what keeps the appeal of college football alive. Fans like the product, as it were, and are passionate about the sport. Many have made the claim, but I give credit to Stewart Mandel in his book Bowls, Polls & Tattered Souls for this point. But, seeking to improve the sport will not lesson the passion and love for the game as we know it. In fact, that is what we have been trying to do the last ten years. Maybe there has to be some ambiguity, but let's decide who the champion is on the field. We have been moving toward this for a while now. Do you remember how it use to be? I do. When the season was over, teams were invited to play in bowls. Conference champions went to certain bowls. The Big Eight champion went to the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten to the Rose Bowl, etc. Then, after the bowls, if a team was left unbeaten, the voters decided they were national champions. There were two polls: the Associated Press and the Coaches Poll. Sometimes, the polls disagreed. Before that, the national champion was decided before the bowl games were ever played.
Then something happened. The Fiesta Bowl changed everything. They came along made us all crazy for a unanimous national champion. They had a game where they persuaded the two best teams in the country to play in their bowl game. The two teams were independent and not tied to a bowl by virtue of a conference. Everyone got a taste of what could be (See Mandel, pp. 190-191.). The result of this was the moving toward this BCS thing we have in place. We decided it was best to put the two best teams on the field and let them play for the National Title. What we should now, is move it forward yet once again.
After a season such as this one, where no two teams were able to separate themselves from the rest of the college football world, there is little evidence available to tell which teams are actually qualified to play for the championship. Consider this. Stanford beat Cal. Cal beat Oregon. Oregon beat USC. USC beat UCLA. Stanford also beat USC (remember the shocker). Therefore, shouldn't Stanford beat UCLA. No, Stanford lost to UCLA in the first game of the season. Illogical circles like this exist all throughout college football this year. The "85 Scholarship Rule" has helped level the playing field, so the future should be more of the same. In other words, it's just going to get harder and harder to tell who the two best teams are by the end of the year. It may be a while before a team in the SEC wins their conference championship without losing a game.
Now is the time. We need to move toward a playoff format. I believe the BCS Contract is up in 2010. It appears that a "plus one" format may be soon. Hopefully, we will go to a eight team playoff and then, finally, to a sixteen team playoff.
What do we do with the bowl games? Well, renew the reason for which bowl games began. Bowl games would serve as a reward for those teams who have a good season but fail to qualify for the playoffs. Of course, there would be fewer bowl games, and bowls could continue to have conference tie-ins if they want. And, no team should play in a bowl game if they did not have at least seven wins.
But, let's not decide who should be playing for the national championship based on who we think looks best. This is not a pageant. This is football. Let's settle the championship on the field.
Admittedly, the controversies that arise in such scenarios are what keeps the appeal of college football alive. Fans like the product, as it were, and are passionate about the sport. Many have made the claim, but I give credit to Stewart Mandel in his book Bowls, Polls & Tattered Souls for this point. But, seeking to improve the sport will not lesson the passion and love for the game as we know it. In fact, that is what we have been trying to do the last ten years. Maybe there has to be some ambiguity, but let's decide who the champion is on the field. We have been moving toward this for a while now. Do you remember how it use to be? I do. When the season was over, teams were invited to play in bowls. Conference champions went to certain bowls. The Big Eight champion went to the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten to the Rose Bowl, etc. Then, after the bowls, if a team was left unbeaten, the voters decided they were national champions. There were two polls: the Associated Press and the Coaches Poll. Sometimes, the polls disagreed. Before that, the national champion was decided before the bowl games were ever played.
Then something happened. The Fiesta Bowl changed everything. They came along made us all crazy for a unanimous national champion. They had a game where they persuaded the two best teams in the country to play in their bowl game. The two teams were independent and not tied to a bowl by virtue of a conference. Everyone got a taste of what could be (See Mandel, pp. 190-191.). The result of this was the moving toward this BCS thing we have in place. We decided it was best to put the two best teams on the field and let them play for the National Title. What we should now, is move it forward yet once again.
After a season such as this one, where no two teams were able to separate themselves from the rest of the college football world, there is little evidence available to tell which teams are actually qualified to play for the championship. Consider this. Stanford beat Cal. Cal beat Oregon. Oregon beat USC. USC beat UCLA. Stanford also beat USC (remember the shocker). Therefore, shouldn't Stanford beat UCLA. No, Stanford lost to UCLA in the first game of the season. Illogical circles like this exist all throughout college football this year. The "85 Scholarship Rule" has helped level the playing field, so the future should be more of the same. In other words, it's just going to get harder and harder to tell who the two best teams are by the end of the year. It may be a while before a team in the SEC wins their conference championship without losing a game.
Now is the time. We need to move toward a playoff format. I believe the BCS Contract is up in 2010. It appears that a "plus one" format may be soon. Hopefully, we will go to a eight team playoff and then, finally, to a sixteen team playoff.
What do we do with the bowl games? Well, renew the reason for which bowl games began. Bowl games would serve as a reward for those teams who have a good season but fail to qualify for the playoffs. Of course, there would be fewer bowl games, and bowls could continue to have conference tie-ins if they want. And, no team should play in a bowl game if they did not have at least seven wins.
But, let's not decide who should be playing for the national championship based on who we think looks best. This is not a pageant. This is football. Let's settle the championship on the field.
Labels: For What It's Worth
posted by the toddler at
4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home