my nat'l title game scenario...a little long
I was having lunch today at this sports bar when espn's college football live came on the t.v. with the debate of what the ncaa should do about the bsc title game and so on. Not a big fan of the bcs nor a fan of this four team playoff (which would be better than what they currently have) so I did some thinking.
Debate me if you'd like, but here is what I came up with.
The only team that should have any claim to be the National Champion should only be their respective conference champion.
Now, before everyone goes off on the last sentence I wrote...just hear me out.
Why punish a team who wins their own conference, with what ever record not be able to play for the national title? These young men work hard enough to just to win their own conference but not be allowed to play for the title. I can think of more than one team that had gotten the screws put to them because of this and it honestly makes no sense. Or for that matter, punish a team for having already beaten the team they played earlier in the season (see LSU/Bama) with the other team not even winning their own conference championship?
Now, what about Notre Dame or for that matter any other independents, you say? I figure that if any team wants to make a national title run they should find a conference home and stay there. I personally like the Irish, but any team without a conference is just not right, in my opinion. Never liked the idea that they can assure themselves of a bcs game if they win so many games in a season. Does any other independent teams get that opportunity?
Although, you must consider that if two teams from different a conference won their own conference but played one another during the season, then this would eventually go out the window seeing that they both won their own conference. I could only forsee very few, if any of these games during the season that would matter much when it came to the bowl games.
I know a lot of people will say: What about the team that is ranked higher and so on? Should this really matter if everything was put into place for the conference champions to play one another? I think not. Teams are ranked because of different criteria, but that doesn't always make them worthy of such rankings. Out of all the years I have been following college football I can come up with more than my share of teams that were ranked, at any point in the season, when they shouldn't have been and some that should have been but weren't...so that debate will go on. Honestly don't like ranking teams, but this has been in place so long I don't forsee it going anywhere.
If the ncaa went back to the way it was before all this big crock of something came about, and let the conference champions play in selective conference affiliated bowls (i.e. the old Big 8/Orange Bowl, SEC/Sugar Bowl...and so on) which would be a collective of the conference and the bowls themselves deciding on who goes where. Well, we all know that the big and pac 12 champions have the Rose Bowl so that's a start.
Here is where it will really matter.
If only one conference champion team has the best record after the bowl games are done, considering they win their bowl game, then they are ultimately the national champion. If a team with the best record was to lose their bowl game then the next team with the best record would then become national champion, as long as they win their bowl game and so on.
But, if there are two teams with identical records won their bowl games, then a 'play one' game would be played at a neutral site determined by a special committe made up of random athletic directors (nine in all) for only this occassion. These a.d.'s would be selected more or less by putting everybody's name (except for the a.d.'s from the conference champions) into a hat and drawn out the old fashioned way. This way there should not be a lot of bias b.s. and so forth. This could be done at the beginning of the bowl selection or in the following weeks and be secertive of who gets selected so nobody tries to influence the others.
Now, if there are multiple teams (3 or more) with identical records after the bowl games, considering that they all win their respective bowl game (again, only conference champions) the the criteria for determining the national champion would go like this:
1. Strength of schedule. This would help determine what team is worthy or not of becoming the national champion.
2. Common opponent(s). If the teams in question have a common opponent(s) that they played during the season, then only that teams' s.o.s. at the time they played one another would come into play and the out come of such when the teams had played them. *Style points should not be awarded as this is dumb as heck! I know that a lot of teams have ran up scores on lesser teams for these so called style points and this should never come into play.
3. Computer rankings. Not a huge fan of this, but with the s.o.s. on the list it was hard not to put this one on here either.
I am pretty sure there are a ton of you out there who will debate this heavily, but that is what I like about this board.
SO LET THE DEBATE BEGIN...GO!
Cyclone fan since 1964 and proud of it!
Keepers of the Faith -- Member
Re: my nat'l title game scenario...a little long
This seems like a proposal that responds to the controversy last year, but doesn't seem to take into consideration the 4-team playoff that seems to be on its way.
Re: my nat'l title game scenario...a little long
I've got a crazy idea.
Have everyone play everyone else. Team that comes out with the best record wins. No wondering what would happen in different match-up scenarios, as every possible scenario would be covered.
Plus, we get football year round. Win-win.
Originally Posted by CyFan61