Tuesday, November 28, 2006

College football needs a playoff. Part One: I was wrong

I used to think that a playoff would ruin the excitement of the biggest regular season game. For example, last year's Bush Push put USC in the title game, and Notre Dame out of the discussion. I rationalized that if both teams would go to a playoff, that outcome wouldn't have been so important. Likewise, this year Michigan had to go on the road to beat the #1 team in the country for a chance to go to the title game. If there was a playoff, perhaps OSU-UM could have rested their starters to prepare for the playoffs.

But I've realized that we need playoffs because although there are some years where there are 2 clear cut teams (2005, 2002) at the top of the list, other years there are 3, or 1, or 0, or 5 top teams. And even when there is only 2 top teams, then presumably they would still meet in the championship game anyways. The playoffs would provide a fair winner, and no shared titles.

Also, there is the counterargument that instead of fighting between slots 2 and 3, you'll now be fighting between slots 8 and 9. It's pretty simple, if you're #3 and undefeated ('03 Auburn) or even have the same one loss record('06 Michigan) as #2, you have a legimiate claim for the title game. If you're #9 in the country you should be lucky to get a nice bowl, not be worrying about the playoffs.

Rivalry games will still matter. No team is about to lay down in a big game. And while one loss might not knock you out of the playoffs, it could. And 2, most likely would guarantee it. So, the playoffs would still maintain the most excited regular season in sports. No question about it. (This years OSU-UM game would still matter as now OSU would be the 1seed playing the 8seed and 4/5seed to reach the title game. UM would be the 3 having to play the 6seed, and then likely the 2seed--a much harder path and worth playing for.)

So what would it look like?

No comments:

Post a Comment