College football, it could be argued, is the greatest spectator sport.
The ratings are always great. Fans are as passionate as you will find. The action never fails to impress. All one has to do is look at Saturday’s SEC championship game to see that. The battle between Alabama and Georgia was probably one of the best college football games played in decades.
We’ve got something good folks, but believe it or not it could be better by adding one simple word: playoffs.
I remember years ago (in fact it was several decades) ago as a young fan asking my father why big-time college football determines its champion in such a bizarre way.
“Who knows,” my father would say. “It’s hard to change something that’s been the same way forever.”
Yet, we all know that changes have to be made at times. The talking heads on the four-letter network tried to tell us the game was in reality a semi-final game with the winner advancing to the championship. Here in the land of reality, we know that argument is flawed.
First, the other “semfinal” team had no game. Notre Dame did not play in a conference championship game because, well, it doesn’t play in a conference. Meanwhile, you had the Crimson Tide and the Bulldogs involved in a slugfest which would have made two heavyweight boxers proud. Back and forth they went with the ending being a fitting end to such a close game. If the teams played 10 games, both would have several victories.
And while the Notre Dame vs. Alabama matchup will be jammed down our throats in the next month (why in the world do we have to wait that long?), what about Oregon? What about Kansas State? What about Florida? What about Georgia? How great would it be to have all of these teams — and more — involved in an on-the-field battle for a true national championship.
It’s been said before in this space but it has to be said again.
The process we have now (and have always had) leads only to a mythical champion.
College football has a true national champion at all levels except the highest. What sense does that make? Forever, we’ve been told that a playoff system won’t work for Division I-A. Why then does it work everywhere else. We hear the ridiculous argument that it would be too much on the student-athletes. Baloney. The players at other levels of play are student-athletes too and they seem to survive the playoffs just fine.
The logical answer to all of this is that the higher-ups don’t won’t a playoff system because of money. That doesn’t make sense though because the television revenue alone from a major college football playoff would be enormous. You can’t have a champion by supposedly picking the two best teams and having them play. You can’t have a champion by crowning one by computer. And while I have nothing against sports writers (obviously), why are they having a say in who is No. 1. Polls are fine (like in college basketball) as long as a post-season tournament decides your champion.
Notre Dame and Alabama will play for the so-called national title this year. Is one of these teams the best? Probably so. However, we’ll never know because we are robbed of matchups like Notre Dame vs. Oregon or Alabama vs. Kansas State or Georgia vs. Notre Dame or Georgia vs. Kansas State. All of these would be great games if they were allowed to be played on the field.
With a 16-team playoff, we could even have the underdog like Northern Illinois involved.
How great it could be. For years we’ve been told the Bowl Championship Series works and that’s best for college football. Yet how many years in a row now has the system been changed, updated and “made better?”
Big-time college football is great and it could be argued that it tops any sporting event. However, without the one final piece of the puzzle, it continues to be a fraud to some degree. Even if someone holds up a trophy claiming them the mythical champion for 2012.
Chris Bridges is sports editor of the Barrow Journal. You can reach him at cbridges@barrowjournal.com.
