Playoff Problems

As the complaints of college football’s lack of a playoff system finally subside, talk about the NFL playoff system heats up as a 9-7 team has found its way to the Super Bowl while an 11-5 team watched the playoffs at home. Sounds like the BCS inviting 9-4 Virginia Tech while leaving out 11-0 Boise State. Why do we have playoffs to begin with? While most people would probably answer, “to determine the best team or individual in a competition,” playoffs don’t do that at all. Sure, it’s a sure-fire way to create a clear winner, but does ending the season on a four game winning streak make up for a lack-luster 9-7 regular season? Or is it merely gold-leafing a piece of lead?

If you want to determine the best team during a season, playoffs aren’t the way. Look at the English Premier League or almost any other world-class soccer league and you won’t find a playoff. At the end of a long regular season, whichever team is at the top of the table wins the league. No, it usually doesn’t provide the glitz and glamour of a winner-take-all finale but it rewards consistent performance over the course of the entire season. Obviously, it would be impossible to play a thirty-eight game regular season in college football like the EPL. American football will always have this problem because you simply can’t play enough games. Some type of championship would be necessary or a season could last longer than Mike Flynt’s collegiate eligibility.

So how can you fix the college system? If you really want to determine the best team over the entire season, not just who’s hottest in December and then cools off less during the month off between the end of the regular season and the bowl season, the fluff games are going to have to go. That way, the best teams will be playing consequential games the entire year. This year’s championship featured two historically dominant football powerhouses – Florida and Oklahoma. So why had these two teams never met before, not just this season, but ever in their history?

Most teams, with good reason, don’t play the toughest regular seasons possible. Ignoring conference blowouts for the moment, how much did obliterating the Citadel 70-19 or steamrolling Hawaii 56-10 really tell us about how Florida stacks up against other top teams in the country? Are they more impressive than Penn State’s 66-10 dismantling of Coastal Carolina? Where does Oklahoma’s 57-2 cakewalk over Chattanooga fit in?

To those who point out that common games can help compare teams, I say why not have the teams play it out on the field? By comparing common opponents, USC should have been no match for Penn State since it lost 27-23 to Oregon State while PSU pummeled the Beavers 45-14. When they met in the Rose Bowl, it was the Nittney Lions who were overmatched. Texas Tech beat Texas and Texas beat Oklahoma, so therefore Texas Tech should be Oklahoma, right? Nope, the Sooners obliterated the Red Raiders 65-21.

Drop the powder-puff games from the schedule and make an eight team playoff. Or at least drop one and make a four team bracket. And while using the BCS standings for seeding is ok, please figure out a way for an undefeated Utah team to have a chance to win. If college football is set against a playoff, at least trim the fat and play thirteen hard-nosed games against teams that actually matter. With a four or eight team tournament, there will still be plenty of debate over who deserved that eighth spot – just look at the arguments over who should be in and out in March Madness. There will still be plenty of “what ifs” to debate until the spring practice starts, and the team that wins won’t have to answer a barrage of questions of whether or not they are truly national champions.