I don't love college sports.
Aside from all the scandals and issues that college sports has, there's one thing that has always bothered me.
The problem I have always had with college football, is that to a certain extent, there is no definitive champion. The 2003 season concluded with a split title, as the LSU Tigers and the USC Trojans each won their BCS bowl games. LSU finished first in the Associated Press (AP) Poll and USC won the Coaches' Poll.
WHAT?!
I'm sorry, WHAT?! In what other sport do two teams share a title? That isn't how sports are supposed to work. No, each season should feature one winner and a field of losers, teams that weren't quite able to measure up with the champ. That's what makes a team the best, and a team that climbs the mountain to the top should be in an exclusive club. That's what makes them the best, and the reason teams play the game is to reach that pinnacle.
This may have been a bizarre occurrence, but it isn't the only time there has been a debate over who the real champion is in college football. It happens every year.
Division I FBS Football is the only NCAA-sponsored sport that does not have an officially organized NCAA Tournament to determine its champion.
For years, there was a multitude of bowl games--some bowls more important than others--and at the end of bowl play, two polls came out that crowned the team that was believed to be the best, thus making them the national champions.
Then the BCS was put in to place, and there finally was a game called "The National Championship Game." But how it is a real National Championship if only two teams get to compete in the post-season, while 66 other teams compete in other bowl games, as mere consolation prizes? More so, how is it a real post-season if the two teams in the National Championship are voted in?
Each year, there is always the question, "what if (_______ team) had gotten to play in the National Championship Game instead?" There is always at least one team that's on the outs, and their seniors always have to leave their collegiate football careers thinking "what if?" Sometimes the team that wins is disrespected, as fans and journalists say "if they had played someone else they would have lost."
In 2014 the NCAA finally introduced "The College Football Playoff," a four-team playoff bracket picked by a committee of 8, that would decide the "champion" of college football. The reason I use quotations is because there still is no definitive champ.
TCU and Baylor played one of the most exciting games in recent history when the Golden Bears topped the Horned Frogs 61-58. The two teams led the nation in points per game, with Baylor's 48.2 and TCU's 46.5. The Big 12 may have been the second-best conference (behind the SEC of course) in college football last season, and some may argue that it was the most exciting, best exemplified by its two best teams putting up monster points in exhilarating shootouts week in and week out.
And yet, both teams were excluded from the College Football Playoff. Once again, questions of "what-if" arose from fans. There shouldn't be what-ifs in sports.
The NCAA's decision to add a playoff was a step in the right direction. But it should keep walking.
The playoff system did not eliminate the sport's biggest problem. Therefore, a bigger playoff system should be implemented.
College football's biggest fans will defend the system until their dying days. Their biggest argument is that "every game matters." I believe the NCAA can maintain the "every game matters" theme, while also enhancing the excitement of their product, and the integrity of the sport.
First things first, shorten the non-conference schedule teams have. Nobody wants to watch Oklahoma State whoop Savannah State 84-0. As exciting as the final weeks of college football are, the first few weeks are often just as boring. And while every one-in-10,000 times you get a result like Appalachian State spoiling Michigan, most of the time you don't.
Alabama, currently the committee's #3 team, played four non-conference games. Three of those games featured Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern (an FCS school).
Why don't we shorten the non-conference schedule to 2 games. Teams can do what they want with those two games, and if they want to play another, they can pick up another game.
In place of the snoozers, you get either one or two more rounds of playoff football. Look, I think the more the merrier. People love March Madness. It's the most fun three weeks in sports of the year. I would love a 16-team playoff. But for the purists, I will compromise with eight or even six teams.
What troubles me is seeing a team in one of the five power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12) missing the playoffs. In no other sport, does a conference or division winner miss the playoffs. By winning your conference, you do what I believe is your job, and you should be rewarded. Who are we to decide which conference winner is more deserving than another? The best way to do it is to let them all in and slug it out with each other.
As for the other one or three teams, they can be selected by a committee, the press, the coaches', the computers, or however those BCS nerds want to determine it.
This concept doesn't make any regular season game less important, as teams need to pick up as many conference victories as they can to stay alive. The regular season will remain as exciting as it is, and there still will be some kind of debate over who the final spot(s) in the playoffs should go to.
No team should feel left out. If your team doesn't like it? Then win your conference. Control your own fate.
For the schools like Notre Dame, they will still have to show that they are worthy, or they can decide to join a conference.
Each power conference should have a conference championship game, therefore the Big 12 would need to add one.
Also, you could include the Rose Bowl in the tournament, and have the Big Ten champ and the Pac-12 champ play each other in the first round of an 8-team playoff, which would be really fun and would up the stakes of an already great tradition.
From a marketing perspective, it makes sense. Each region should have a team representing them. If Michigan is in, all of Michigan is going to watch. If Ohio State is in, all of Michigan is going watch to root against Ohio State. All parts of the country should be represented fairly, and each region should have a reason to watch.
With this system, "the debate" that the NCAA loves, that generates many conversations about their product and in turn, provides free publicity will stay alive. The fans that enjoy the debate should be able to stay happy with this. And we all get more playoff football as a result.
Everyone wins. Except, for the first time in college football, there will only be one winner.
No comments:
Post a Comment