College playoffs?

College Football Playoffs?

We all have our ideas of what the BCS should do… or should NOT do, and I suppose mine is no different. As I blog this, there are five undefeated teams in the national spotlight, stirring up controversy on whether there ought to be a college playoff system.

I am not really FOR the playoffs, but not really against it. Let me explain why.

To me, I think the arguments for playoffs are for those who think that the little guy ought to be held in the same esteem as the big guy. Ok, I see a reason for that, but I go back to something an old school wrestler named Ric Flair once said…

“In order to BE the man, you have to BEAT the man”

If you want to be considered up there with the big boys, then play a schedule like them. This is my biggest argument against teams like Boise State, because they had numerous opportunities to make a more challenging schedule, but opted not to do so because they seemed to want sympathy from those sitting on the fence.

I mean, their schedule was weak as water, after you take out Oregon. And granted, that was a great win…in your house… against a first time head coach… in his first game with the Ducks…nice.

But it still is a very quality win. So why did you schedule Miami of Ohio and UC Davis…what’s that about?

To me, before you start whining about playoffs, make sure that we are talking about legit teams. Now, I know TCU is not in the Championship game, and I actually do feel that they deserve strong consideration, and I am not too happy about them playing Boise State in a repeat bowl…that game proves nothing.

Before we start whining about playoffs, we have to define those parameters. First off, how many should be in it. Right off the bat, I don’t believe in a 16 team system, too many teams that have no business fighting for a National title. When you only play 12 or so games, you don’t need 16 teams claiming rights to the throne.

How about 8 teams? I wonder about that too. Go back in your NCAA history books of college football and see how many teams ranked #8 or 7 had a legit shot at a NCAA title…not very many.

To me, the arguments about who should play in the National Championship usually fall on 2-4 teams. Of course, you may argue with me that maybe Boise State, or maybe Florida has a case, but with Florida losing, I would doubt that, and Boise State just has not played a tough enough schedule to prove that they are an elite team. They are just a great team in a soft conference.

So I think IF you have a playoff, it should be the FOUR best teams in the nation. Think about it, Pittsburgh, LSU, Georgia Tech, USC, Ohio State and teams of that ilk have no real claim to the throne.

Second, if you really want to figure on who is the best, force EVERY conference to determine a true champion. Either by playing every team in their conference or having a conference championship. This eliminates the probability of two undefeated teams out of one conference that may not even play each other….BIG 10 for example.

It is conceivable that the Big 10 could have two undefeated teams in their conference, since they don’t play every opponent, and don’t have a conference championship. I think that needs to be fixed, if that means adding one more team to make it an even 12, fine, either that or find some way to have one true champion.

The Pac-10 does not have a championship game, but they do play everybody, so in essence you still get a true champion. We know the ACC, Big 12 and SEC does have a true championship game, and the Big East has a small conference to in theory they can have a true champion, since they would play everybody in their conference.

But the big question comes with non BCS conferences…mainly the Mountain West and WAC. Remember folks, years ago they used to be one super conference, with 16 teams, before they split up…would have been better if they did not. Had they not, then you would have the Boise States, TCUs, Utahs, and other teams would face each other and we would have a TRUE champion, which also would make a much stronger case for the BCS.

But even then, there are so many stipulations that nobody has thought of. The results of this year dictate what people want to see, what if next year is different? What if next year there is only 2 undefeated teams, why then would there need to be a playoff if we have the two best teams in the nation?

If Alabama and Texas were the only undefeated teams in the nation, we would not be having this conversation about playoffs would we? So the temperature of playoffs is based only on what we last saw. What if each of the BCS teams produces an undefeated team, along with the Mountain West and WAC…what if the Mid American Conference puts out an undefeated team…they did last year with Ball State.

So in theory, you could have 9 undefeated teams, what do you do then? What if Notre Dame (ugh) goes undefeated? What if Conference USA produces an undefeated team. Where does this end?

Now these are extremes, but you see my point.

Do I think there needs to be a better way to decide the national champs, maybe, but the smaller teams can help their case by taking out their cupcakes and putting in real meat. TCU to their credit did this, so I can see their argument, but not quite for Boise State.

So, with Congress getting involved (although I don’t see why), things may change sooner than later…but unfortunately, it all comes down to money…ironic since we are talking about sports and college students…that never changes…

Greed, that is…playoffs…maybe.