Quote:
Originally Posted by Razaele
I mean, would it have been worse to have Alabama in the playoff... because they might have won? It's a fair question.
I know 2 loss teams having a shot at a title is kind of lame, because the whole college football thing is that every game is critically important.
Nobody wants to see a situation in football like the NCAA basketball tournament, which is basically designed to throw as many wrenches into the sorting of the best teams as possible. The football postseason was always designed around determining the best team, not producing an exciting postseason.
I don't feel like this is an improvement, it's taking college FB away from its DNA, which was getting as close to a consensus best team as you might be able to have. Currently we're left with a second-tier team that produced a lame final, and has left us with more questions than answers about who might have been able to actually win.
|
Those issues happen every year though.. seems pretty rare we see exactly two teams that should be playing, or exactly four. And there have been a share of blowouts between the mainstays as well.
I don't mind a 2 loss team competing for a NC because the flip side is say an undefeated Cincinnati. OTOH, I wouldn't want to see March Madness. I'm a big fan of seeing the best teams play, because Cinderella usually turns into a pumpkin like TCU did last night. People want chaos, but then you get 60 point wins in the NC game.
I have no idea what the right answer is, but it feels like if all the titles and money and so forth is going to a few teams (and obviously conference pay outs and so forth), then limiting NC hopes down to those few teams isn't going to ever change the landscape of CFB... not just recruiting-wise, but experience in playing in big games and so forth.