Further deconstruction of the NFL-style playoff

College Football Cafeteria has continued to spirited dialogue we have created and it is becoming clear that, to probably no one's surprise, we simply have a difference of opinion in several aspects about what is good for the sport of college football. There is nothing wrong with that. However, while I understand that points he is making, I'm not sure he is grasping the points I am making. Missing this perspective is not surprising and certainly understandable considering my viewpoint is probably in the minority and most other sports have playoffs. Getting people that have followed a playoff system all of their lives in multiple sports to comprehend a new and revolutionary way of determining a champion takes time and education. That is what I am trying to accomplish.

Would some teams get in that are worse than others left out? Yes.

This is one thing I have never understood about the rationale of playoff systems. Apparently its ok if some teams get a chance to play for a title even if they are worse than teams that are left out. This senseless rewarding of teams because of the divisions in which they play is, in essence, rewarding them based on geography. People complain about that the BCS "isn't done in a fair way" in the BCS but the NFL playoff system is certainly no model of fairness, yet it avoids the criticism. Let's look at the 2008 NFL season. San Diego went 8-8 and New England went 11-5. An intelligent person would conclude that New England is the better team. Yet, San Diego went to the playoffs because they play on the west coast (specifically in the AFC West, which was full of bad teams) and New England stayed home. Is that even remotely fair? No, and it happens almost every year in the NFL. It happened again this year with the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks making the playoffs and 2 10-6 teams, Tampa and New York, staying home. Fair is not defined as bad teams making the playoffs over good teams.

The computers may have ranked TCU higher, but we all know the outrage if a “little guy” with an “easy schedule” had gotten into the BCS championship. Never would have happened.

And again, no non-BCS team would ever play for the BCS championship

This is a very cynical view and I highly doubt that a non-BCS conference school can never get in. If TCU or Boise State had gone 12-0 in 2007 they would've played in the championship. If Oregon had lost to Oregon State, or if South Carolina had beaten Auburn in the SEC Championship game this year, TCU is in. These types of scenarios can happen. If Appalachian State can beat Michigan in the Big House, either of these upsets is possible, and these situations create the opportunity for non-BCS Conference teams to make the championship game.

Yes, the BCS adds a lot of value to the regular season of the No. 1 and No. 2 guys, but all it does is put pressure on them to not lose. A playoff adds importance to the whole regular season because dropping even one game can alter your seeding and chance of winning it all. 

The whole point of the season is to win! Of course there is pressure to not lose, that is why you play the game! Look, my point is that from a viewer's perspective and from a competition perspective, each regular season game in the BCS system is more meaningful than a regular season game in the NFL system because they have a direct impact on a team's chances to qualify for the championship game. There is simply more at stake for each game and this is undeniable. I realize that if you lose your first game, your likelihood for making the championship game has been diminished (so don't lose your first game!). But that is why college football's regular season is better, because those games in week 1, and each week, have an impact on the championship game. Losing a game means more than “altering your seeding,” it can knock you out of the race, so don't lose! In the NFL, each individual game does not have as much of an effect on the Super Bowl. Lose your first 3, lose your last 4, it doesn't matter. Heck, you didn't even have to win half your games this year if you wanted to make the playoffs!

I understand that after the season, you can make the claim that only the games in Auburn's season or Oregon's season mattered, but that is hindsight. While the season is going on and you are in the moment, the college regular season is far more exciting and meaningful than the NFL's, and it is because of the fact that college only has a 2 team playoff.

 So you have admitted inadvertently that the Southern Miss and Tulsa game meant nothing to you

I didn't inadvertently admit it, I made a point of it. While I'm sure the residents of Hattiesburg and Tulsa were watching the game on the edge of their seats, if we use the model in Death to the BCS, this game would be very similar to the St. Louis Rams vs Seattle Seahawks crapfest

What do the BCS championship participants have to do to earn their spot? Have a flawless or near flawless season. That is really quite pathetic. That’s no criteria at all. Why you ask? Because ANYONE can have a flawless or near flawless season

I had to read this sentence a few times because it blew my mind. Apparently, a flawless season is pathetic. I'm not sure I will ever understand that, but then you make another very interesting point, perhaps inadvertently. You repeatedly make the argument that the BCS is only a 2 horse race, that the other teams' seasons don't matter, that non-BCS teams could never play in the championship game, etc. But then you come out and say that ANYONE (emphasis yours) can have a flawless season and, thus, qualify for the title game. You have summed up the beauty of college football's regular season and contradicted yourself in 1 sentence. Anyone, all 120 teams from Akron to Alabama, can be in the title game, but the team has to earn it. The BCS selection system, while not perfect, doesn't care if an average team with 3 losses from an awful conference is the leader of that conference. That isn't good enough to qualify to play for the title.

I should also say that the NFL Super Bowl is not intended to match up the two best teams in the NFL

You would think that would be the point of a championship game, but maybe I am mistaken. Somehow, we have come to accept a playoff format that regularly does not let the 2 best teams in a season play for the championship. Perhaps because it has happened gradually and has been adopted by most sports because no one dared to deny average teams the right to play for the title. Maybe because that playoffs with more teams make mean more money. Trying to identify when and why playoff formats have mostly become bloated and overblown is a futile exercise, and time is better spent focusing on the systems that reward excellence.

College football's system does what the other playoff systems don't do, and that is match the season's two best teams in the championship game for all the marbles. Aspiring for less than the best is an insult to the game and its competitors.