Who cares? Slate published my instant "Sports Nut" column on the logical flaw underlying the debate over college football's Bowl Championship Series: People think they need to pick the two (presumed) best teams for the national championship game.
Shorter Slate: "Playoff systems are designed to determine, in a fair manner, which is the single best team in a particular sport. Their purpose is not to pit the two finest teams against each other in a season-ending game. The Yankees and Red Sox do not play annually in the World Series. The Indianapolis Colts will never be given a chance to play the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl."
Recycled BCS complaining: A College Football Playoff That Works.
You appear to confuse the notions of "playoff system" and "BCS system," or perhaps you merely fail to make your assumptions clear at the outset of your article.
You begin by asserting that "[t]he BCS was created in 1998 with the stated goal of pitting the nation's top two football teams against each other in a championship game." You then continue your analysis under the assumption that the BCS is the culmination of a year-long "playoff system." You reason that, because Michigan has lost to Ohio State, they are not the best team, and Ohio State is, and that Michigan has already been eliminated from the "playoff" by losing on the road, by three, to Ohio State.
Your assumption that the season is a year-long "play-off" is at odds with your stated purpose for creating the BCS. Your references to professional baseball and football do not advance your argument because these sports--unlike college football--do not have a system designed to pair the two best teams in one final post-season showdown.
Further, you imply that you believe that Michigan is the second-best team in the country ("The fact that the Wolverines are probably the second-best team in the country doesn't mean they've earned the right to play in the national championship game.). If you believe what you write, then assuming the BCS is a system to pair the two best teams, Michigan should be playing Ohio State again in the BCS championship game. Alternatively, you should clarify your explanation of why the BCS was created at the outset of your article to include the assertion that the college football season is itself a year-long playoff.
I might also observe that your "year long playoff" characterization is curious given that, unlike any other playoff system I've ever heard of, a team's schedule is not determined by some performance-based criteria, but instead is dictated largely by traditional conference allegiances. I could also point out that, two years prior to the creation of the BCS, few people complained when Florida played Florida State again in a rematch; query whether it is only very recently that the regular season has been a “year long playoff” knock-out.
Posted by: notadoctor | December 12, 2006 at 06:55 PM
" I could also point out that, two years prior to the creation of the BCS, few people complained when Florida played Florida State again in a rematch; query whether it is only very recently that the regular season has been a “year long playoff” knock-out. "
an even closer analogy:
1979 Orange Bowl: OU v. Nebraska, both from the Big 8, rematch, OU lost by 3 in regular season to Nebraska, OU ends up victorious, national champions, crowds go wild, people weeping in the streets, mother's selling their children. It was great.
http://www.orangebowl.org/OB.php?sec=years&year=1979
Posted by: stu | December 12, 2006 at 07:50 PM