Life of Riley - National Champion

[infrared41]

No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

This is somewhat true. Just like the 12 team NFL playoff didn't really show us what team was REALLY the best last season. NFL didn't get to just pull the Pats and Cowboys and throw them into the big one, did they? The 2006 World Champion Detroit Tigers have leased out the World Series trophy to the 13th best team in baseball that year. That 8 team playoff didn't come close to giving its championship to the team that was best for 162...just to the team that played well enough over the last 20 or so. How many #1 overall seeded teams have won the NCAA basketball tournament? Should they stop the season right now and put Pitt and Duke in the championship?

Fact of the matter is, the team or two that performs the best during the regular season doesn't always win it all. I'd guess that they don't win it more often than they do. Should all playoffs be done away with?

Not at all. It's just not necessary to have one in College Football. No one would watch the NFL if there weren't playoffs. College football doesn't have that problem. The NFL has 32 teams. D-1 college football has over 100. I just think a college football playoff isn't going to solve any of the problems the current system already has with determining a definitive champion.

[The_Admiral]

I hate this "yeah well School only beat So-and-So State! that's worse than losing to mighty Other Place State!" stuff. If beating crappy mid-majors and I-AAs doesn't count, then you know what? Quit letting them play crappy mid-majors and I-AAs. If you want a BCS championship, you should only play BCS teams. The Red Wings don't get to pad their schedule with the Ontario Reign, nor do they suffer a close but inspiring loss to the Swedish National Team. (Unless at this point they ARE the Swedish National Team.) Make the BCS conferences into one exclusive tier of college football and the mid-majors into an exclusive tier of college football, and then maybe we won't have as many arguments over how much all these wins count.

[infrared41]

I hate this "yeah well School only beat So-and-So State! that's worse than losing to mighty Other Place State!" stuff. If beating crappy mid-majors and I-AAs doesn't count, then you know what? Quit letting them play crappy mid-majors and I-AAs. If you want a BCS championship, you should only play BCS teams. The Red Wings don't get to pad their schedule with the Ontario Reign, nor do they suffer a close but inspiring loss to the Swedish National Team. (Unless at this point they ARE the Swedish National Team.) Make the BCS conferences into one exclusive tier of college football and the mid-majors into an exclusive tier of college football, and then maybe we won't have as many arguments over how much all these wins count.

Not the worst idea actually.

[JQK]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and syncronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

[BBTV]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and syncronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

Word, J.

Word.

[gingerbreadmann]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

Like the BCS conferences can claim differently? The Big Ten has Indiana, the Pac Ten has Washington, the Big XII has Iowa State and Baylor, the Big East has Syracuse, the SEC has Mississippi State, and the ACC has Duke. Every conference has exceptionally bad teams, so stop saying that the BCS 6 are "tougher".

You can't because it's simply not true. Sure all the BCS Conferences have at least one exceptionally bad team, but the mid-majors have at least 4 who are probably worse than those teams. (Possibly with the exception of the MWC) You can't have Wyoming and New Mexico instead of Ole Miss and Auburn or Texas Tech and Nebraska and call it equal. I would be willing to bet a fairly large amount that if Utah played in the SEC instead of Florida they would lose at least once too while if Florida played in the MWC I can't imagine them losing either. To me the depth of the BCS conferences is extremely important and just tips the scale, and while I can't point out anything Utah did wrong to hurt themselves, they just can't convincingly win given their situation.

[JQK]

You can't because it's simply not true. Sure all the BCS Conferences have at least one exceptionally bad team, but the mid-majors have at least 4 who are probably worse than those teams. (Possibly with the exception of the MWC) You can't have Wyoming and New Mexico instead of Ole Miss and Auburn or Texas Tech and Nebraska and call it equal. I would be willing to bet a fairly large amount that if Utah played in the SEC instead of Florida they would lose at least once too while if Florida played in the MWC I can't imagine them losing either. To me the depth of the BCS conferences is extremely important and just tips the scale, and while I can't point out anything Utah did wrong to hurt themselves, they just can't convincingly win given their situation.

That's the problem.

If, fairly sure, probably, should not be words used in deciding who is the national champion.

Think Oklahoma or Florida is better than Utah or USC? Fine, let them play on the field and PROVE who is what. Otherwise it's all just hot wind, and nothing is legitimate.

[infrared41]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and synchronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

Technically, College Football isn't a "league." It's a group of teams and leagues that comprise NCAA FBS Football. Champions are crowned each season in every conference. What you're saying is kinda like saying that every High School Football State Champion in the country should come up with a playoff to determine who's the best. The media picks a "National Champion" in High School Football every season and no one seems to mind. Some states have multiple state champions.

Sure college football has always picked a National Champion but the truth is that technically the goal of each team in FBS football is to win their conference and be named champion of that conference. Bowl games are a "reward" (see revenue tool) at the end of the season. It is from that perspective that I make the claim that FBS Football is in no way obligated to us, the media, or anyone else, to determine a National Champion.

The media began crowning a National Champion. We're the ones who bought into it.

[gingerbreadmann]

You can't because it's simply not true. Sure all the BCS Conferences have at least one exceptionally bad team, but the mid-majors have at least 4 who are probably worse than those teams. (Possibly with the exception of the MWC) You can't have Wyoming and New Mexico instead of Ole Miss and Auburn or Texas Tech and Nebraska and call it equal. I would be willing to bet a fairly large amount that if Utah played in the SEC instead of Florida they would lose at least once too while if Florida played in the MWC I can't imagine them losing either. To me the depth of the BCS conferences is extremely important and just tips the scale, and while I can't point out anything Utah did wrong to hurt themselves, they just can't convincingly win given their situation.

That's the problem.

If, fairly sure, probably, should not be words used in deciding who is the national champion.

Think Oklahoma or Florida is better than Utah or USC? Fine, let them play on the field and PROVE who is what. Otherwise it's all just hot wind, and nothing is legitimate.

I agree. But you still can't crown Utah champions because of their schedule just as you can't crown tonight's winner with 100% certainty because of the subjectivity of the BCS, is what I'm saying. Put them against each other, fine with me, I want a playoff. Though I still don't think Utah would have any chance.

[rams80]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

Like the BCS conferences can claim differently? The Big Ten has Indiana, the Pac Ten has Washington, the Big XII has Iowa State and Baylor, the Big East has Syracuse, the SEC has Mississippi State, and the ACC has Duke. Every conference has exceptionally bad teams, so stop saying that the BCS 6 are "tougher".

You can't because it's simply not true. Sure all the BCS Conferences have at least one exceptionally bad team, but the mid-majors have at least 4 who are probably worse than those teams. (Possibly with the exception of the MWC) You can't have Wyoming and New Mexico instead of Ole Miss and Auburn or Texas Tech and Nebraska and call it equal. I would be willing to bet a fairly large amount that if Utah played in the SEC instead of Florida they would lose at least once too while if Florida played in the MWC I can't imagine them losing either. To me the depth of the BCS conferences is extremely important and just tips the scale, and while I can't point out anything Utah did wrong to hurt themselves, they just can't convincingly win given their situation.

As much as I am loathe to drag my current institution's 2 home losses to MAC teams into this conversation, I will anyway. Indiana was not better than 4 teams in any Division I-A conference.

[NJTank]

Yes a thousand times yes, watch Oklahoma Florida, I am now more convinced it should be the Utes who are crowned.

[jkrdevil]

All of this is great. None if it changes the fact that College Football is under no obligation at all to provide us with an undisputed National Champion. The question I would ask anyone is this, what difference does it make? Will our lives be one bit better or worse with or without a playoff in football? Yeah, all the other football divisions do it but the truth is that the only time anyone pays attention to lower division teams is during their championship game.

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

Any "National Champion" that resulted from an 8 team playoff would have the very same issues we are arguing tonight. A Utah or BYU would have been left on the outside looking in and the same debate would still be raging.

This much can be said about the BCS, it keeps people talking about D-1 college football from August through January. In the entertainment business that's about as good as it gets. The same thing can't be said about lower division football or D-1 basketball. If you put a gun to my head right now and said "name the number one team in the College Basketball poll or you die" I'd have to start making peace with my maker. There wasn't a point throughout football season where I couldn't have run off the top 5 for you.

If we get a "plus one" title game then people will start clamoring for a four team playoff. Then it will be eight, then sixteen, and so on. I'd much rather have a disputed title that everyone is talking about over a tournament that essentially proves no more than did the system it replaced.

Utah can stake a claim to the National Championship. So can the winner of tonight's game. So what? It's hardly the end of the world. What makes college football so great is how -ed up it is. We'll likely be debating this thing for the next few weeks, if not all the way into spring training. All the while college basketball will be deep into conference play and 70% of us won't give a until selection Sunday. As I said, when you're in the entertainment business you want people talking about your product all year long. One month of interest followed by 11 months of who gives a just isn't as good. Careful what you wish for with College Football is all I am saying.

Again that's a false analogy because more games are played in the College Basketball regular season, and more teams make. Which regular season would you say is more exciting the NFL or baseball? Most would probably say the NFL, even though more teams make the playoffs there than in baseball.

As for teams bitching if they were the 9th team for an 8 team tournament. I agree that would happen if it was still left up to opinion polls. That's college football problem it is all left up to opinion polls. Well everyone has an opinion and often times they are wrong. What they should do is a playoff solely based on record with strength of schedule (use the old BCS SOS formula) as the tie breaker. Sure teams would still probably bitch but they would have no standing. The reason would be because the entry system would be objective unlike the current system which is subjective and know one really knows what people are basing stuff on.

The regular season would still be exciting because 1 loss would put a team on the bubble. And like I pointed out in a previous thread you would actually have more meaningful games because as of now there is only maybe a handful a year. Let's face it from a national perspective all but a couple of Big Ten, PAC-10, Big East and ACC games were meaningless this year.

[HedleyLamarr]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and syncronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

College football (the lower divisions, that is), college basketball, and college baseball, not to mention most other college sports, have postseason selection committees to determine who plays in, and how the playoffs, are set up.

[jkrdevil]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and syncronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

College football (the lower divisions, that is), college basketball, and college baseball, not to mention most other college sports, have postseason selection committees to determine who plays in, and how the playoffs, are set up.

Personally, I don't agree with those either. Although I will say this, the requirements set up for those are more stringent than what is required for those in the Harris, or coaches polls.

[yoo]

the Mountain West and WAC and C-USA and should team up and make a 12 team conference,they'd get an automatic bid then

i think the best 12 would be

Colorado State

Bosie State

Utah

BYU

Fresno State

Hawaii

TCU

Air Force

UNLV

then either Nevada,Rice,Houston,UTEP,SD State,NM,NM state,SMU

i think they'd be a perfect tie in with the Big 12 in the Fiesta bowl

[PhilliesPhan1325]

A sport can not be a sport when winners and champions are chosen instead of playing for it.

College Football to me is no better than figure skating and syncronized diving because they choose who the champion is, they judge who is to be the best team, instead of letting the teams prove who is the best.

Every other college sport does it, and half of Division I football does it.

It's just a shame.

My thoughts exactly. And it angers me that I get so excited every year for college football and this happens at the end.

And the article was spot on. Maybe not that Utah is outright national champs, but why can't we let them prove it on the field.

[See Red]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

[infrared41]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

I am all for that. It would have improved Ohio State's chances considerably.

[See Red]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

I am all for that. It would have improved Ohio State's chances considerably.

By about 50%!

[jkrdevil]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

I am all for that. It would have improved Ohio State's chances considerably.

By about 50%!

Unfortunately for Ohio State that still is a 0 chance.