Could Mark Cuban be college football's savior?

Those Saban-Meyer, Tebow-Tide matchups would basically be footnotes as well. As would my aforementioned Ohio State-Michigan post-Bo 1 vs. 2 battle. And Catholics vs. Convicts I and II, and Wide Right I and II, etc. etc. etc.

 

I'd rather have the No. 17 or No. 18 team whining that their two losses aren't as bad as the No. 16 team's (or last at-large team) two losses than have the No. 2 team going to to the title game when the No. 3 team beat the No. 2 team head-to-head during the regular season.

No system is perfect. But we would have 15 postseason games that impact the national title, not one.

 

If Alabama missed the playoff.

And Auburn would have been playing for no stakes at all (other than the aforementioned 1 vs. 4 playoff seed). That won't get too many eyeballs on the TV.

 

The idea that a playoff cheapens the regular season means that EVERY OTHER sport cheapens its regular season and only college football does it right. That's why the NFL is going bankrupt. People have caught on.
No one is silly enough to imagine a playoff wouldn't involve controversies and some injustices related to the selection process. But to argue it would be MORE unjust than the current system seems ridiculous to me.
If big-time football said "We don't have a real national champion in our system," that'd be fine, and the position would be defensible. But it doesn't.

 

I think on Jan. 2 when the NFL season is done, instead of having a playoff, we should just vote and have the Falcons play the Patriots for the Super Bowl a month later.

In the meantime, enjoy the Eagles playing the Packers in a game that means nothing.

 

The enormous difference between college football and the NFL is that every NFL team is playing in a common pool against essentially the same opponents, and the criteria for playoff selection are objective. Sure, there are blips like this year's NFC West. But with as many teams as college football has, there's never going to be a clear way to decide which teams are the top eight or the top 12 or the top 16 or whatever. Also, "pageantry" is a big word used to describe college football's appeal but not the NFL's, and people don't plan their entire year around being in Jacksonville in October or Columbus the Saturday before Thanksgiving.

To me college basketball is the greater parallel. And what is the last regular-season college basketball game you got really charged up about watching?

 

Me, not too many, but I hear tickets for Duke-North Carolina games still have some resale value. Come on. Fans of college basketball fill arenas for regular season games on a regular basis. And if I want pagentry, there's the Rose Parade and the upcoming wedding of Prince William and what's her name.

 

The last few times I was at Rupp it was pretty crowded. But I guess the regular season is meaningless.

 

Maybe college basketball's regular season would be more meaningful if at the end of the conference tournaments, we voted on the top two teams and had them play for the title a month later.

Who needs that pesky NCAA Tournament?

 

But college basketball's regular season doesn't generate nearly the $$$ that football's does. And college basketball can play a more complete schedule that allows for some objective measure of who belongs and who doesn't.

 

But would sponsors be willing to pony up for a second-class postseason game? Yes, the smaller bowls already are, but at least they can claim to be a part of the same postseason as the BCS games. Now, they'd be completely exposed as second tier, pathetically clinging to past glories. Not sure if they want to sign on for that -- especially since they'd be completely overshadowed by the tournament and forced onto weeknight TV slots.

They'd try, but my educated guess is that within five years of the start of an official postseason tournament, the bowl game will go the way of the preseason classic.

 

Yeah, I'm sure Oklahoma-Texas, Alabama-Auburn, Michigan-Ohio State, Florida-Georgia, and so on would be playing in front of empty stadiums if there was a playoff.

To make the 16-team tournament you would have to either win your Conference or be one of the five best teams in the country that didn't.

Yes, with a playoff, one loss is not as catastrophic as it is under the current system, but the majority of teams that have won recent titles have had at least one blemish and in the case of Colorado and LSU, two.

Would Alabama and Auburn have been as important this year? Yes. Alabama would have had more to play for because it would need a win to have a chance at getting an at-large bid to the 16-team playoff.