Concerning champions and college football

kenpersons · 07-06-2004, 08:00 PM

The NFL is about winning the Super Bowl.

The NBA and MLB are also about winning their respective world championships.

College Basketball is all about emerging from the field of 64 with a trophy.

College Baseball is about making it to Omaha and bringing back a title.

College football? Is it even realistic to expect it to be about the National Championship?

Sure, some teams have their eyes on the prize every year, but no more than twenty in a given year have a realistic shot. And twenty is stretching it. Ten would be more accurate. Out of 117 teams, between 10 and 20 are playing for the top spot.

That leaves at least ninety (if not more) schools playing for something else. Be it pride, conference gold or a bowl berth.

So, if the clear majority of college football is not playing for a national title, why is there so much money and focus in producing a national champion?

There will never be a perfect system to pick solid matchups for a title game without a playoff.

There will never be a playoff that realistically offers the national championship as a prize to all 117 teams.

Why can't the powers that be accept their own reality and embrace it?

The National Championship will never be more than a glorified popularity contest surrounding a bowl game.

Bowl games, however, are shams themselves, burdened with conference tie ins that reward teams not for success, but powerful allegiances.

I pose that if they're going to keep the BCS (ie: a formula that determines the quality of teams), then it needs to extend all the way to 58 teams (or however many total play in bowls) and let the best teams go bowling, regardless of conference.

This way they keep their attempt at a 1 v 2 matchup, but .500 teams from big conferences (ie Georgia Tech) aren't robbing slots from better, smaller schools (ie Northern Illinois).

Let every team be accountable for their standing. No excuses. Schedule hard, play hard, let the chips fall.

Is it too much to ask?

Euphoria · 07-06-2004, 08:39 PM

Well, I can go along with you on having a play off system but even the play off system is going to be limited to say the top 4 or 8 teams. There are just to many problems with having a play-off system... one cutting into exams/classes and pro-longing a season just to long.

kenpersons · 07-06-2004, 08:46 PM

I\'m sorry, I guess I wasn\'t clear. I\'m opposed to a playoff. I\'m also opposed to bowls having conference tie ins. Hence, the BCS extending beyond the top six to all the bowl bound teams and letting their ranking determine who goes, not their allegiance.

dberce1 · 07-07-2004, 11:28 AM

Agree with you a hundred percent. Just this last year, I was telling my roomate ( a HUGE LSU fan), that I was sick of playing for bowl games. Who cares if you go to a bowl game every year???? I want the frickin title, and most years that\'s just not possible. Go figure, I open my mouth, and LSU takes it home. So in that case,

\"Maaaaaaan, I\'m sick of the Saints just playing for a playoff berth, I want a SuperBowl!!\"

Let\'s see if lightning will strike 2wice.

BlackandBlue · 07-07-2004, 11:44 AM

then it needs to extend all the way to 58 teams (or however many total play in bowls) and let the best teams go bowling, regardless of conference.

Never happen. I don\'t care how you structure it, teams from Conference USA, WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West, will never ever be considered for a National Championship- ever. Not enough money, and what is more important to the Bowls and the bigger conferences- being fair or making money?

WhoDat · 07-07-2004, 02:06 PM

True true. It\'s about money, not about winning anything. I\'m sure most will remember a few years back when Tulane went undefeated. They were 11th in the nation going into their bowl and I think they finished the year 9th. They were one of two undefeated teams that year. Go ahead and tell me how their schedule was so weak, I don\'t care. They weren\'t beating these \"weak teams\", a few of which were ranked, by 3 points. They were beating teams by 40, consistently. And to finish the season ranked 9th. Well, that just shows you it will never happen.

I mean, the ACC has gotten better, but 5 years ago if FSU went undefeated and won every game by an average margin of 20 points they\'d be number 1 hands down. The small conferences would never have a chance. I mean really - would you take a 10-2 Tulane team or a 8-4 Alabama team in a Bowl? It\'s not even a question really.

07-06-2004, 08:00 PM	#1
kenpersons Registered Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 92	Concerning champions and college football The NFL is about winning the Super Bowl. The NBA and MLB are also about winning their respective world championships. College Basketball is all about emerging from the field of 64 with a trophy. College Baseball is about making it to Omaha and bringing back a title. College football? Is it even realistic to expect it to be about the National Championship? Sure, some teams have their eyes on the prize every year, but no more than twenty in a given year have a realistic shot. And twenty is stretching it. Ten would be more accurate. Out of 117 teams, between 10 and 20 are playing for the top spot. That leaves at least ninety (if not more) schools playing for something else. Be it pride, conference gold or a bowl berth. So, if the clear majority of college football is not playing for a national title, why is there so much money and focus in producing a national champion? There will never be a perfect system to pick solid matchups for a title game without a playoff. There will never be a playoff that realistically offers the national championship as a prize to all 117 teams. Why can't the powers that be accept their own reality and embrace it? The National Championship will never be more than a glorified popularity contest surrounding a bowl game. Bowl games, however, are shams themselves, burdened with conference tie ins that reward teams not for success, but powerful allegiances. I pose that if they're going to keep the BCS (ie: a formula that determines the quality of teams), then it needs to extend all the way to 58 teams (or however many total play in bowls) and let the best teams go bowling, regardless of conference. This way they keep their attempt at a 1 v 2 matchup, but .500 teams from big conferences (ie Georgia Tech) aren't robbing slots from better, smaller schools (ie Northern Illinois). Let every team be accountable for their standing. No excuses. Schedule hard, play hard, let the chips fall. Is it too much to ask?
kenpersons Registered Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 92

07-06-2004, 08:39 PM	#2
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Concerning champions and college football Well, I can go along with you on having a play off system but even the play off system is going to be limited to say the top 4 or 8 teams. There are just to many problems with having a play-off system... one cutting into exams/classes and pro-longing a season just to long.

07-06-2004, 08:46 PM	#3
kenpersons Registered Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 92	Concerning champions and college football I\'m sorry, I guess I wasn\'t clear. I\'m opposed to a playoff. I\'m also opposed to bowls having conference tie ins. Hence, the BCS extending beyond the top six to all the bowl bound teams and letting their ranking determine who goes, not their allegiance.
kenpersons Registered Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 92

07-07-2004, 11:28 AM	#4
dberce1 Chuck Liddells Right Hand Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Prairieville, Louisiana Posts: 1,227	Concerning champions and college football Agree with you a hundred percent. Just this last year, I was telling my roomate ( a HUGE LSU fan), that I was sick of playing for bowl games. Who cares if you go to a bowl game every year???? I want the frickin title, and most years that\'s just not possible. Go figure, I open my mouth, and LSU takes it home. So in that case, \"Maaaaaaan, I\'m sick of the Saints just playing for a playoff berth, I want a SuperBowl!!\" Let\'s see if lightning will strike 2wice.

07-07-2004, 11:44 AM	#5
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Concerning champions and college football then it needs to extend all the way to 58 teams (or however many total play in bowls) and let the best teams go bowling, regardless of conference. Never happen. I don\'t care how you structure it, teams from Conference USA, WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West, will never ever be considered for a National Championship- ever. Not enough money, and what is more important to the Bowls and the bigger conferences- being fair or making money?

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-07-2004, 02:06 PM	#6
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Concerning champions and college football True true. It\'s about money, not about winning anything. I\'m sure most will remember a few years back when Tulane went undefeated. They were 11th in the nation going into their bowl and I think they finished the year 9th. They were one of two undefeated teams that year. Go ahead and tell me how their schedule was so weak, I don\'t care. They weren\'t beating these \"weak teams\", a few of which were ranked, by 3 points. They were beating teams by 40, consistently. And to finish the season ranked 9th. Well, that just shows you it will never happen. I mean, the ACC has gotten better, but 5 years ago if FSU went undefeated and won every game by an average margin of 20 points they\'d be number 1 hands down. The small conferences would never have a chance. I mean really - would you take a 10-2 Tulane team or a 8-4 Alabama team in a Bowl? It\'s not even a question really.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"