quote:
Any system that ends with none of the championship-level teams actually playing each other and a bunch of newspaper writers “voting” on who is the champion is just plain stupid.

How is that any different from the system we have now? Yeah...the system we have at present is more efficient at awarding a national champion, but there's still a vote at the end of the season as to who the best teams are. In the Poll Era, the media would vote on the best team; in the BCS era, the media would vote on the two best teams; and in the Playoff era, a group of people is now voting on the four best teams.

And now there's an added dimension to the debate with the advent of the BCS and Playoff eras: best vs. most deserving team. Can you be one of the best teams in college football if you failed to win your conference? At the end of the day, there's still subjectivity to it. Which is why a lot of people such as the OP miss the old days when things were a little more dynamic.

The Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Cotton Bowl used to all mean something and used to all be played on the exact same day (January 1). Each one of those games had potential national title implications. Yeah...it's true #1 vs. #2 rarely collided in those match-ups, but did that really matter considering how subjective those rankings were to begin with? Almost all of those games were match-ups between Top 5/10 teams. So either way, you were getting a high-stakes game between two teams that were very good.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by BranchDawg

Flowery Branch

Member since Nov 2013

9844 posts

Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:02 am to RollTide1987

quote:
At the end of the day, there's still subjectivity to it.

Of course, but the more you can buffer the subjectivity involved with actual football games, the closer you come to a legitimate result. Is it better to play the “eenie meenie minie moe” game before or after the games are played? Obviously before, because it allows the stakes to be clearly and consistently defined.

quote:
it's true #1 vs. #2 rarely collided in those match-ups, but did that really matter considering how subjective those rankings were to begin with? Almost all of those games were match-ups between Top 5/10 teams. So either way, you were getting a high-stakes game between two teams that were very good.

If you’re arguing that a game between #2 and #8 is just as good a finalè as a game between #1 and #2, you’re fooling yourself out of pure nostalgia.

Also, you had no control, even if you were number 1 going into the bowl game, of actually being able to decide your championship. If you got stuck in a bowl game against #9, #2 could beat #3 by 20 and sorry you lose because........reasons. But then you just claim the natty anyway because nothing is actually real.

And guess what? That ultra-meaningful bowl you played in was actually meaningless.

This post was edited on 7/27/19 at 9:05 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Korin