For the second straight week, the nation's #1 team lost, thus further clouding the national title picture. Last week, a team that I thought had no chance at losing lost to South Carolina. I still think that Alabama is the best team in the country, but they have a blemish on their resume, a loss to a team that went out and got beat by Kentucky this weekend. This weekend, it was Ohio St who got knocked from the top by Wisconsin.
The ramifications of these results are obvious - the more powerhouse teams that lose, the more likely it is that we will see either Boise St or TCU in the national title game. For all those Bronco haters out there, the solution was easy: have two undefeated teams in powerhouse conferences and be assured that Boise could not make the title game. It was that simple.
But in the world of college football, nothing is ever simple. The problem that we find ourselves in is that we have two dominant teams - Boise St and TCU - that play in weak conferences. Any time a team can run the table, they can't be overlooked. But how would they fare in some of the better conferences in the country? I'm talking the SEC (specifically the West), where you have undefeated teams in Auburn and LSU, a vastly underrated Arkansas and of course the defending champs, Alabama. Since they all play each other, the likelihood that one of them trips up is great. This weekend LSU and Auburn play each other. In 3 weeks LSU plays Alabama. Then in the final regular season game of the year, Alabama and Auburn meet in the Iron Bowl. No one is going to come out of those games with a perfect record in tack. It's just not going to happen.
So then the question is: is a 1-loss Alabama team better than an undefeated Boise St team? I think so, but then for how much I dislike Nick Saban, I think they are by far the best team in America. No one compares. The question in my mind is how good the other teams are. Right now I think undefeated teams like Oregon, Oklahoma and even Michigan St and Missouri have compelling arguments to be in the title game. But what if they all lose? To me, it's all subjective. My idea of who is a good team is simply that - my idea, but obviously others have their own opinion. Folks down in SEC country will die before they say that Boise St is better than even a 2-loss SEC team.
So here is my point: college football is crazy. Without a playoff system in place, we are relying on computers and rankings to determine who is the best team. This happens in no other sport. And that is why college football is the most dramatic sport their is. Never has their been a topic so greatly discussed across the entire sports nation. In the NFL, the best team is the team that wins the Super Bowl. It may be the top seeds, it may not. Same goes for the NBA, NHL and even MLB. We always know who is the best - their is never any argument. If you ask me, that is boring. Give me college football any day. I want the unpredictability. I want the controversy.
Playoffs are terrible. They do not award the championship the best team of the season, only the team that finished best. This comes at the expense of the season itself. Regular season NFL games are terribly boring because they seldom matter. The playoff is all that really matters. Look at the 2008 NFL season. The Patriots were undefeated and had already beaten the Giants in the regular season. But despite losing 6 regular season games, the Giants won "when it mattered" and thus won the championship. The season in this case, clearly did not matter. The college season matters and is the most exciting regular season in all of sports. NFL is boring. If it weren't for gambling and fantasy football, the NFL regular season TV ratings would likely be cut in half. College football is not perfect, but it's the most exciting thing going because they haven't destroyed it with a playoff. Don't even get me started on how meaningless college basketball season is.
ReplyDeleteI think my point on a playoff system is that while it may reward the team that "finished best" as you mention above, it at least allows teams to play each other.
ReplyDeleteOne of the loudest arguments against Boise St, TCU, Utah and the likes is that they don't play a tough schedule. I see a lot of truth to it, but the fact remains that the big boys simply won't schedule Boise St for an out of conference tilt.
I understand that there is no incentive for them to do so, but their resistance to playing Boise means that no one knows how good Boise is. At the very least, a playoff would allow for Boise St to take on someone. Then they could prove whether they even belong in the title conversation.
@Schmicker: I understand what you are saying regarding "little guy" teams (my words) getting a chance to play the big boys, but I haven't seen any evidence that the big boys are unwilling to schedule the Boise's of the world.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Bobby Bowden built FSU's program by being willing to go anywhere/anytime to play the big boys. he knew that was the only way to get recognition and build a program. If Boise is insisting on a home and home, then why would anybody schedule them?
Boise needs to be willing to go on the road at least 3 times a year to line up against the top OOC teams. If not, then they just don't want it bad enough. I will never support dropping the A-Bomb on the college football season in the form of a playoff just to placate a team that is not willing to take the tough steps necessary to build it's own future.
Definitely understand the argument. Not to knit pick, but FSU was forced to go anywhere because they were an independent for many years so they had to in order to fill out their schedule.
ReplyDeleteOh no doubt that FSU had a full 11 game schedule to fill due to lack of conference affiliation. But they weren't really forced to go on the road. They were free to schedule whoever they wanted and they could have filled the schedule doing home and homes with the La Techs and Southern Misses of the day. But they chose to also always have a few games against top teams from the power conferences. I'm no FSU fan, but I respect the way that program was built.
ReplyDeleteCompare that with BSU, who has four OOC games to fill every year and usually schedules zero to 1 perennially top-20 (this year only VT falls into that category, none in 2008 or 2009). Yet they still include at least 2 OOC "patsy" teams per year. Well hell, their conference schedule is loaded with patsy teams. There should be no "Toledo, Weber State, California-Davis or Cal St.-Sacramento on the schedule, but there they are. Why? I can't have respect for that. If they want to play with the big boys, they've got to step up to the plate and actually play the big boys. It's just not that hard for them to take a look at a list like this, http://is.gd/g91y4, and plan to play 3 teams a year from the top 20.
Feel free to check my figures, maybe I missed a quality opponent (Oregon State is on the fringes) somewhere, but I just don't see any evidence they are even attempting to really beef up the schedule and the move to the MWC isn't going to help very much in that regard.
BTW, This is a good conversation.
I guess this is where I differ. I'm not sure that Boise has to schedule any harder teams. What they have going for them right now is a pretty good thing - they go undefeated and force everyone to talk about whether they deserve to play with the big boys. Let's say for just a second that they are all smoke and mirrors. Then why would they want to play anyone? If they continue to go undefeated every year, their will be growing public desire to have them included in the title game. I know fans from major conferences hate the Broncs, but America as a whole loves underdogs. All they have to do is trick the computers. And they have a shot this year to make it to the title game if everyone keeps on losing.
ReplyDeleteSo besides wanting to be the best, what obligation does Boise St have to play the "big boys"? I'm saying that if one SEC scheduled them, went to Boise and kicked the snot out of them, then this would all be over.
Now regarding the move to the MWC - it should actually help them a little as the MWC is clearly a tougher conference. It's not the Pac-10 but TCU, Utah, Air Force, San Diego St is an upgrade over Nevada, Hawaii, La Tech and Fresno St.
You say "I'm not sure that Boise has to schedule any harder teams. What they have going for them right now is a pretty good thing - they go undefeated and force everyone to talk about whether they deserve to play with the big boys." I agree that they clearly don't have to schedule any tougher teams because that is their free will. But since they exercise that free will, then they should be left in the periphery and not considered in any discussion greater than conference champion. They are making the decision to relegate themselves to second tier and they should remain there until they make the decision move their program forward. The people that say they "deserve a shot" at the title are missing the fact that they can take that shot anytime they wish, but choose not to every time they make a schedule.
ReplyDelete