NCAA Double-A Zone: <b>Response To Colts-Patriots Argument</b> October 31, 2007

Response To Colts-Patriots Argument - Oct 31, 2007 | 13:13:48

posted by: Josh

Originally posted as a comment on yesterday???s ???What Does The Colts-Patriots Game Mean? Nothing??? post, this response from friend of the Double-A Zone Cal Stein warranted its own platform. The discussion will continue in both places.

Josh, I have some major issues with your argument. Now I will freely admit that I think college football desperately needs a playoff system akin to that of the NFL (or NCAA basketball if you will), and while I have a litany of reasons in favor of this position I'd rather focus on the severe deficiencies of the current landscape.

First and foremost, the argument that the NCAA cannot move to a playoff system without devaluing the regular season is a HUGE fallacy. It is simply unfathomable to believe that last year's Michigan-Ohio State game (between two unbeaten teams vying for the national title) would have been any less intense or important if a playoff system was in place. In fact, had a well constructed playoff system been in place (say....one that pits the conference champions against each other in a playoff system) that game would have been even MORE important. Imagine, #1 Ohio State playing #2 Michigan with the conference title, and the right to go to the national title playoffs on the line. If you ask me that makes the regular season not only more important, but it makes it the ONLY important thing until you lock up your conference title.

Moreover, resisting a playoff so as not to forsake the regular season is an incredibly hypocritical argument by the schools and NCAA. The regular season has become, basically, a joke. Outside of a few courageous schools, nearly every big name program plays their conference schedule and does not dare add any sort of nonconference opponent with a pulse to their slate. And who can blame them? As you said Josh, one loss and you're out of the national title hunt. Think about how historically great the epic Texas-Ohio State regular season showdowns were in 2005 and 2006. Wouldn't it be better for the sport if more schools were emboldened enough to schedule those type of games? Don't you think the Columbus and Austin faithful had an awesome time watching a team they don't see every other year? But without a playoff system teams have no margin for error and therefore a huge DISINCENTIVE to schedule marquee matchups like that.

And this doesn't even take into account how ridiculously long the regular season has become. Up to 12 games already, how long is it before the NCAA pushes it up to 13 or 14? The longer the regular season the more likely teams are to lose one or even two games (there's a reason only one team in the history of the NFL has gone 16-0). If fans thought having three undefeated teams vying for two spots in the national title game was bad, how's it going to look when we have five or six one-loss teams? Hey, with the way this season is going we may find out sooner rather than later.

Second, while the current landscape does purport to make the regular season supremely important (as you claim), it only does so for BCS teams. Teams like Hawaii, Boise State, Utah, TCU, etc. have no chance to make the national title game. In fact, unless you play in a BCS conference, your regular season is MEANINGLESS. For those type of "mid major" teams to even have a chance at a Bowl game they have to be perfect. Incorporating a playoff system that, again, pitted the conference winners against each other would not change that AND it would acknowledge that these teams deserve a chance to play for the title. Consider last year. Was there any doubt that Boise State was a better team than Oklahoma after their bowl game? Not in my view. However, had Oklahoma won all of their games they would have played for the national title, while a team that was better than them would never have been given the chance.

To say that a playoff system would render regular season games "meaningless" is overinclusive. I agree that a playoff system that took the top 8 or so BCS ranked teams might possibly have the consequence of devaluing the regular season somewhat. However, I fail to see how a playoff system that requires a team to win its conference during the regular season devalues those games. Not only would the Michigan-Ohio State game (for example) be for the Big 10 title, but it would be for the right to play in the national title playoff. Moreover, had Ohio State decided to play Texas (for example) earlier in the season, a single loss to them would NOT preclude them from getting into the playoff and potentially winning a title so long as they beat Michigan to win the conference.

In fact, while we're on the subject, the system I just proposed places far MORE intrinsic value on the regular season that what is currently in place. Again taking the Michigan-Ohio State example, last year the two teams met up when they were #1 and #2. Ohio State won yet Michigan still almost got a second crack at them in the national title game! How is that valuing the regular season? Under a playoff system, winning that game would have been Michigan's ONLY chance to win the title. There would not have been a magical BCS formula that might favor them for them to hand their hope onto.

Your argument, along with that of the entire NCAA and school presidents is incredibly flawed. Until the NCAA steps in and really pushes for a playoff system we, the fans of the greatest sport on the planet, will be stuck with unfulfilling conclusions to otherwise brilliant seasons.

Comments

Post a Comment