Shouldn't NCAA have a college football playoff series for "big" teams like they do for their smaller colleges?
NCAA has a playoff series for its Division I, II, and III. The "lower" divisions know which team is actually the best because they have to beat them. But the "bowl" division of NCAA just takes some opinions of eastern sports writers and calls it a championship. That's nuts, in my opinion. Their "champion" is total bullshit because they didn't beat the other good teams. Isn't it time to have a real champion that is credible. Agree?
Related Questions to Shouldn't NCAA have a college football playoff series for "big" teams like they do for their smaller colleges?
Answers to questions are provided for entertainment purposes only.
You should never use answers to questions provided here to replace professional advice, such as from a doctor or lawyer.
This page is for providing answers to the question "Shouldn't NCAA have a college football playoff series for "big" teams like they do for their smaller colleges?"
1 Answer to "Shouldn't NCAA have a college football playoff series for "big" teams like they do for their smaller colleges?"
Posted by automatrix Feb 17th, 2013 at 10:28PM
Division I-AA, II and III play ten game regular seasons, meaning the most games any team plays is 14. I-A expanded to 12 game seasons (and 13 for "conference championships") for the money. A bowl game means those teams are playing 14 games per year. The only way a playoff will happen in I-A is if the regular season is shortened, and that WILL NOT happen because the bastards are too greedy. Adding a playoff would mean college players might play 16 or 17 games.
jective, rankings are based on performance not popularity, and it doesn't require a playoff. It will never happen because "big" teams would actually have to win games instead of hyping themselves.
There is a solution to having a legitimate champion, but the "big" schools would be too ***** to go along with it: Take scheduling away from teams and have the NCAA do it. Every team that wants to compete for the national championship is given a schedule of equal strength. The team with the best record (or its losses are to the best opponents) will be ranked highest. So, if Team A was 11-1 after losing to Michigan and Team B was 11-1 after losing to Maryland, Team A would be ranked higher. It's ob
Instead, the "big" teams hide in their conferences and play weak non-conference opponents to build up their records, like Larry Holmes fighting palookas to try and beat Marciano's 49-0 record. They only play two types of opponents: champs and chumps. They play "champs" who have a 50% chance of winning because losing probably won't hurt their ranking (e.g. if Texas lost to USC). They play chumps with a 1% chance of winning to build up an unbeaten season (e.g. SEC teams play I-AA teams with 2-8 records). They are absolutely terrified of playing a team with a 25% chance of beating the #1 team (e.g. Fresno State).
Like (1)