What is Purpose of Football Championship?

[Dadof2Vols]

I have seen lots of debate here today about BCS vs CFP-4 vs expansion to CFP-12 after the terrible NC game last night. AND TERRIBLE AP Poll.

I have seen some want to go back to BCS so we have a great game of 1 vs 2. Even though we had teams playing cupcake schedules think Cincinnati crying to be in over the 1 loss SEC team who lost in SECCG to the undeafted SEC Champ whenever most knew the best two teams were from the SEC.

With CFP-4 we are seeing due to Biases/Politics/Allegiances whatever that we are not necessarily getting the best 4 teams which is why so many are calling for expansion to 12 so that those that should get in think Alabama/UT this year should get a shot.

The problem with a longer playoff however comes with the fact that moving forward the more teams that are in a “playoff” the lesser the chances that the actual champion will be the best team in the country that year due to seedings/matchups setup by committee for ratings etc.. If you doubt me just look at the soon to be 90 team field NCAA Basketball tournament.

My poll question is simple.

Is the goal of the Football National Championship to crown the best team out of the two teams that has played the hardest schedules and proved themselves to be either 1 or 2 every year (even though we know that would mean only 1 SEC team ever playing in BCS due to Biases and currently teams play cupcake schedules to argue their case to be included).

OR

To crown a Playoff Tournament Champion out of 12 deserving teams which this year would have allowed Alabama and UT to be part of it since most would agree that SEC had 3 of top 6 and easily 4/5/6 out of top 12.

 

[TrueOrange]

Money. The purpose is money.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Money. The purpose is money.

This.

The same reason there are 40 something bowl games with about 80% of them in mostly empty stadiums; they make money.

 

[Raebo]

I read years ago that ESPN was pushing for all these bowl games so they would have more programming options during December.

 

[Adam Sandler]

The goal is for you to talk about it until you are inevitably disappointed again next year

 

[05_never_again]

College football fans are impossible to please.

For decades people complained that there was no mechanism that pitted #1 vs. #2 in a game at the end of the year. Now such a mechanism exists, and is on the cusp of being expanded, and the general response is things like "This is just about money" and "If you allow more teams in, then the champion is not the best team in the country" and "The regular season is becoming meaningless."

With any playoff system, you open the possibility that the team who wins the playoff isn't the "best" team that year. That's why European soccer fans have always scratched their heads at playoffs in American sports (they don't have them in domestic league play). They don't understand why the championship isn't given to the team with the best regular season record, and why you play all these games just for the purpose of playoff seeding, and then have it come all down to a single game.

 

[VolPack22]

It’s always about money. I wish they would keep the BCS rankings minus the polls for the playoff selection to eliminate the human biases. If computer formulas are deciding the rankings then there would be less controversy imo. There would still be people upset but if the formula is set in stone from the beginning of the season and everyone knows what it is then you can’t really be that mad about the results. There wouldn’t be this issue with Tennessee and Alabama where the CFP has a clear set of criteria on their website and completely ignore it.

 

[Volprofch05]

While anyone with a brain knows that the SEC is the superior league, I think we have to acknowledge that in football there aren't enough quality inter-conference games to prove which conferences are good on the field each year. Also, teams in each conference will beat up on one another and only 1-2 teams will likely emerge with top records. So, if you only have a 4-team playoff, you're going to have teams from multiple conferences and will likely max out at having 1 conference send 2 teams (as we've seen). Expanding the playoff should address this and hopefully produce more competitive playoffs.

Perhaps more importantly, top recruits won't feel that they have to go to the top 4 recent teams to have a shot at playing for a title.

 

[Firebirdparts]

I thought it was obvious, even to the dumbest person, that all the machinations of recent years were to avoid split championships. Opinion-based championships where teams hadn't even had the chance to play each other used to be the norm, and in that era there could easily be differences of opinion.

The history here, again obvious to even the dumbest person, was that opinion-based champions were giving the opinion of THE BEST TEAM. Clearly, that has always been the idea of that. But with a 12 team playoff, we won't be calling that team the champion anymore. It's a new idiom. Doesn't matter what we think of it, it's here and that's what we have.

 

[tnutater]

IMHO
The 12 team playoff will change nothing except providing more games.
If the selection committee can't get the top 4 right, the top 12 will be just as biased.
The teams that get the byes will be the same 4 we get now.
The extra time to heal and prepare will be insurmountable.
The round 2 games will be a lot of TCU type beatdowns.
A non bye team will have a difficult, if not impossible, path to a championship game.

 

[LouderVol]

I have seen lots of debate here today about BCS vs CFP-4 vs expansion to CFP-12 after the terrible NC game last night. AND TERRIBLE AP Poll.

I have seen some want to go back to BCS so we have a great game of 1 vs 2. Even though we had teams playing cupcake schedules think Cincinnati crying to be in over the 1 loss SEC team who lost in SECCG to the undeafted SEC Champ whenever most knew the best two teams were from the SEC.

With CFP-4 we are seeing due to Biases/Politics/Allegiances whatever that we are not necessarily getting the best 4 teams which is why so many are calling for expansion to 12 so that those that should get in think Alabama/UT this year should get a shot.

The problem with a longer playoff however comes with the fact that moving forward the more teams that are in a “playoff” the lesser the chances that the actual champion will be the best team in the country that year due to seedings/matchups setup by committee for ratings etc.. If you doubt me just look at the soon to be 90 team field NCAA Basketball tournament.

My poll question is simple.

Is the goal of the Football National Championship to crown the best team out of the two teams that has played the hardest schedules and proved themselves to be either 1 or 2 every year (even though we know that would mean only 1 SEC team ever playing in BCS due to Biases and currently teams play cupcake schedules to argue their case to be included).

OR

To crown a Playoff Tournament Champion out of 12 deserving teams which this year would have allowed Alabama and UT to be part of it since most would agree that SEC had 3 of top 6 and easily 4/5/6 out of top 12.

Why not a little of both. It should be about the best team. But there can still be a playoff when there are questions. At some point you have to let the guys play to see how things shake out, but you dont need a committee.
You could easily take the BCS formula and apply it to the playoffs without committee input.

The issue with the BCS is it played the game on paper, the issue with the playoffs is they are political. It's not an either or situation.

 

[landscapingvol]

It needs to go to a straight playoff with at least 16 teams. That way if you happen to make it to the finals then you have earned it regardless of the score. That is the problem with the current format and the conference championship games. Not all conference championship games are created equal and shouldn't be a deciding factor. It should be the top 16 teams based on numerous factors like strength of schedule, record, and margin of victory; top four teams get a bye. Everything else is just window dressing and largely irrelevant. A 16 team field would also open it up to a G5 team who has a really good season. The bowls could then be used as game locations and with no goofy tie-ins that limit competition. Bowl games are largely becoming a relic of the past regardless of the playoff

 

[iuvol]

Money. The purpose is money.

BINGO

 

[GoVols1998Yeah!]

You have to fix the unevenness in regular season schedules before you can do anything about the post-season. There was far too little opportunity for Michigan and TCU to be correctly weeded out. Our schedule would've done it.

 

[Voltopia]

College football fans are impossible to please.

For decades people complained that there was no mechanism that pitted #1 vs. #2 in a game at the end of the year. Now such a mechanism exists, and is on the cusp of being expanded, and the general response is things like "This is just about money" and "If you allow more teams in, then the champion is not the best team in the country" and "The regular season is becoming meaningless."

I'm not impossible to please. I never complained about pitting #1 vs #2. It never mattered to me. I've always maintained that a "tournament champion" is near-meaningless in a sport like football, and calling that tournament winner the "national champion" is farcical. A team that goes 14-0 with a tough schedule, but loses that last game to some streaky 10-4 team, had a better year and was the better team. A team that's able to win 14 or 15 games over a season is MUCH more impressive than a team that wins one game at the end.

But that's not as easy to package or sell, not to mention own. The playoffs, and much of the "demand" for them, came from the media, and from ESPN. Consolidating college football into a single event makes it much easier to exert control over it. ESPN couldn't own all the bowls, which belonged to cities, bowl groups, etc. ESPN couldn't own the post-season. It was messy. But they CAN own the College Football Playoffs. They got a foot in the door with the bowl alliance and BCS, and then slammed a lock on football with the CFP. They've bought the conferences, too - hell, they OWN the sport now. And the schools sold it to them.

The media loves it too. They argued for it the whole way. More stuff to write about, more stuff to talk about, more content, more attention, more clicks. And the ESPN ones in particular love it, becasue they have monster influence. Charles Woodson happened because of ESPN. Teams move up and down in the rankings depending on how ESPN spins them. They use their platform to steer the sport. They have power.

None of these entities cared about the traditions and value of the sport as it was. They only cared about what they could make it into - and how much they could extract from it. I was fine without all of this. I still would be. But no one's going to give up their money - and they'll sell every last piece of college football off before they do.

 

[Preyed_On]

Purpose of football championship no matter. Football championship just scam. Me wish football championship go away and not come back.

 

[05_never_again]

I'm not impossible to please. I never complained about pitting #1 vs #2. It never mattered to me. I've always maintained that a "tournament champion" is near-meaningless in a sport like football, and calling that tournament winner the "national champion" is farcical. A team that goes 14-0 with a tough schedule, but loses that last game to some streaky 10-4 team, had a better year and was the better team. A team that's able to win 14 or 15 games over a season is MUCH more impressive than a team that wins one game at the end.

But that's not as easy to package or sell, not to mention own. The playoffs, and much of the "demand" for them, came from the media, and from ESPN. Consolidating college football into a single event makes it much easier to exert control over it. ESPN couldn't own all the bowls, which belonged to cities, bowl groups, etc. ESPN couldn't own the post-season. It was messy. But they CAN own the College Football Playoffs. They got a foot in the door with the bowl alliance and BCS, and then slammed a lock on football with the CFP. They've bought the conferences, too - hell, they OWN the sport now. And the schools sold it to them.

The media loves it too. They argued for it the whole way. More stuff to write about, more stuff to talk about, more content, more attention, more clicks. And the ESPN ones in particular love it, becasue they have monster influence. Charles Woodson happened because of ESPN. Teams move up and down in the rankings depending on how ESPN spins them. They use their platform to steer the sport. They have power.

None of these entities cared about the traditions and value of the sport as it was. They only cared about what they could make it into - and how much they could extract from it. I was fine without all of this. I still would be. But no one's going to give up their money - and they'll sell every last piece of college football off before they do.

Two things:

1) Everything you mentioned in the bold was exactly what most fans were clamoring they wanted for years before the CFP. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "The reason they don't have a playoff for FBS like they do for FCS is because it wouldn't bring in as much money as the bowls do," I'd be very wealthy. Keeping the bowls was supposedly all about the money. Now they don't like the playoff because it is all about the money. You are in a very small minority if you never have wanted a playoff, or even a mechanism to pit #1 vs. #2. Fans wanted a playoff.

2) Since about 1950, can you speak to an era in college football where it wasn't about the money?

 

[Voltopia]

Two things:

1) Everything you mentioned in the bold was exactly what most fans were clamoring they wanted for years before the CFP. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "The reason they don't have a playoff for FBS like they do for FCS is because it wouldn't bring in as much money as the bowls do," I'd be very wealthy. Keeping the bowls was supposedly all about the money. Now they don't like the playoff because it is all about the money. You are in a very small minority if you never have wanted a playoff, or even a mechanism to pit #1 vs. #2. Fans wanted a playoff.

2) Since about 1950, can you speak to an era in college football where it wasn't about the money?

I can't speak about what anyone else was clamoring for. I said I never wanted it. I don't care what group I'm in. I never wanted it. It never bothered me. Believe what you want.

And saying "when wasn't it about money" completely ignores the extent and influence of money that's come in the wake of the Oklahoma lawsuit, which didn't happen until the 1980s. Once the door was opened for TV contracts, everything changed - everything. Yes, there was money in it before that lawsuit, but the primary force reshaping college football today is the outrageous amount of money television networks throw at conferences to own their broadcast rights. The money in college football in the 1950s, or whenever, was magnitudes less impactful. There wasn't even a fraction of the money it would have taken to convince Southern California and UCLA to shrug off their entire region to play against the Big Ten in 1955, for example.

Once the conferences consolidated their conferences into singular objects of ownership - in particular its post-season - college football was destined to be forced into the same tournament mentality every other big media sport in the US follows, regardless of whether it makes sense or really determines a "true" champion. Which, it doesn't. At least, I don't think it does. But oh well.

 

[05_never_again]

I can't speak about what anyone else was clamoring for. I said I never wanted it. I don't care what group I'm in. I never wanted it. It never bothered me. Believe what you want.

And saying "when wasn't it about money" completely ignores the extent and influence of money that's come in the wake of the Oklahoma lawsuit, which didn't happen until the 1980s. Once the door was opened for TV contracts, everything changed - everything. Yes, there was money in it before that lawsuit, but the primary force reshaping college football today is the outrageous amount of money television networks throw at conferences to own their broadcast rights. The money in college football in the 1950s, or whenever, was magnitudes less impactful. There wasn't even a fraction of the money it would have taken to convince Southern California and UCLA to shrug off their entire region to play against the Big Ten in 1955, for example.

Once the conferences consolidated their conferences into singular objects of ownership - in particular its post-season - college football was destined to be forced into the same tournament mentality every other big media sport in the US follows, regardless of whether it makes sense or really determines a "true" champion. Which, it doesn't. At least, I don't think it does. But oh well.

It all comes back to the fact that people want to watch it. You can blame "money," or the TV networks, but the sport is able to sell those TV rights to the networks because of the number of people that watch it. Fan interest ultimately drives everything, not media or conference/school admins.

 

[Voltopia]

It all comes back to the fact that people want to watch it. You can blame "money," or the TV networks, but the sport is able to sell those TV rights to the networks because of the number of people that watch it. Fan interest ultimately drives everything, not media or conference/school admins.

Ok super, but that's not what the poll asked was it? The poll asked what the purpose was. I answered that it was to crown a playoff champion who may not be the best team that season, and expounded on why things are the way they are. It didn't ask me what "people want to watch." The poll didn't ask me what people want to watch.

I don't understand why I should care why people are making college football worse, which in my opinion they are. I don't like seeing the traditions and uniqueness of the sport sold off for Mickey Mouse money. I don't like the SEC being so big that rivalries atrophy and fade away. In my opinion, that mindset is going to impact the "fan interest" some day. But whatever.

 

[stolitonic]

I read years ago that ESPN was pushing for all these bowl games so they would have more programming options during December.

Bingo. Face it, the "minor" bowls are cheap to produce. December, it's bloody cold in most of the country, people on extended Christmas holidays, etc so watching more TV.

Hate to see how many crappy bowl games I have watched in my lifetime, but college football is kinda like crack to me. Hell, I would even watch a bowl game where Botch and Arky St are playing-if he ever got them to a bowl.

 

[CMcEver]

The CFP 4-team was a good idea, but the committee is too prone to public pressure to put the "deserving" teams in. The BCS involved computer rankings, along with polls to put the BEST teams in.

 

[Nationdom]

College football fans are impossible to please.

For decades people complained that there was no mechanism that pitted #1 vs. #2 in a game at the end of the year. Now such a mechanism exists, and is on the cusp of being expanded, and the general response is things like "This is just about money" and "If you allow more teams in, then the champion is not the best team in the country" and "The regular season is becoming meaningless."

With any playoff system, you open the possibility that the team who wins the playoff isn't the "best" team that year. That's why European soccer fans have always scratched their heads at playoffs in American sports (they don't have them in domestic league play). They don't understand why the championship isn't given to the team with the best regular season record, and why you play all these games just for the purpose of playoff seeding, and then have it come all down to a single game.

That’s why the BCS era was the best and why we need to go back to that and scratch the playoff. I don’t agree with much over the pond but this just makes sense to preserve the best sport in the world. NFL is awful and CFB is on its way

 

[05_never_again]

That’s why the BCS era was the best and why we need to go back to that and scratch the playoff. I don’t agree with much over the pond but this just makes sense to preserve the best sport in the world. NFL is awful and CFB is on its way

The BCS was a way better system than people gave it credit for. I'm OK with the CFP, but I wasn't necessarily clamoring for it. I think lots of CFB fans who wanted a playoff are having buyer's remorse with the CFP.