01-03-2014, 02:47 PM
There are lots of ways to determine champions that don't involve playoffs. In golf, match play is the exception rather than the rule, though obviously golf is different than sports where opponents play each other. But boxing also does not have some sort of championship. Professional baseball, basketball, and hockey all use best 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 rather than single elimination tournaments. College baseball uses a double elimination format. Even in tennis, while a given tournament uses a single elimination format, the "best player" is not determined that way, but rather based on the cumulative results over the prior year.
I don't think that "every other sport" does it is a good reason for football to do it. For one, in football you are limited by the number of games you can play. Multi-game rounded tournaments (NBA, NHL, etc.) are better at determining the better team than a single elimination tournament, but you can't do "best three out of five" football games. Secondly, there is a much stronger conference tradition in college football than in other sports (though that is being eroded quickly). Hypothetically, a nine game round-robin among 10 teams is a pretty good way to determine the best team in a conference, and historically, being a conference champion was as much a goal as winning a national championship (and the bowl game was the reward, not just another game in achieving some larger ambition).
The best argument you have is that it will produce some awesome games that many people will want to watch, and that's a perfectly fine argument that is broadly shared; it simply doesn't sway me. But as I said, I probably fall in the realm of "vocal minority".
BC
I don't think that "every other sport" does it is a good reason for football to do it. For one, in football you are limited by the number of games you can play. Multi-game rounded tournaments (NBA, NHL, etc.) are better at determining the better team than a single elimination tournament, but you can't do "best three out of five" football games. Secondly, there is a much stronger conference tradition in college football than in other sports (though that is being eroded quickly). Hypothetically, a nine game round-robin among 10 teams is a pretty good way to determine the best team in a conference, and historically, being a conference champion was as much a goal as winning a national championship (and the bowl game was the reward, not just another game in achieving some larger ambition).
The best argument you have is that it will produce some awesome games that many people will want to watch, and that's a perfectly fine argument that is broadly shared; it simply doesn't sway me. But as I said, I probably fall in the realm of "vocal minority".
BC
