To divert from the Death to the BCS posts just a bit, I couldn't help but include these tidbits from CollegeFootballNews.com to further deconstruct the playoff argument. Reading the Cavalcade of Whimsy today brought the main point of the anti-playoff argument to the forefront...you have to be really good and play really well all season to win the BCS Championship:
For all of BCS Grand Poobah Bill Hancock’s ridiculous talking points, he’s missing the one that actually holds water: There’s nothing soft about winning the college football national championship.
There’s a terrific chance that the Super Bowl will be played by two No. 6 seeds who couldn’t even win their own respective divisions. New England and Atlanta were the two best teams in their conferences, and that meant a fat load of jack squat when it came to the playoffs. And then there are the Seattle Seahawks, who provide the BCS’s No. 1 reason why there shouldn’t be a playoff.
And then later in the article:
Again, go through the 13-year history of the BCS and give the one national champion that didn’t earn it. Sure, there can be debates about other teams that should’ve had a shot to play for it all, but there isn’t a fluky champion anywhere on the board like the 2007 New York Giants.
There’s one undeniable truth in this entire argument; everyone else has screwed up when it comes to playoffs. The biggest concern for college football fans is that someday we might all get a playoff, and it’ll suck just like all the other ones do.
...Yes, winning the BCS Championship is the hardest title to win in all of sports mainly because there are no gimmicks and it takes a special, often flawless season to pull it off, and while other sports need all the playoff teams to keep the interest of fans, that’s not necessary in college football.
It doesn't get much better than that. Back to Chapter 2 of Death to the BCS next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment