I listen to a lot of sports radio. I listen to it almost every morning on the way to the gym and work as well as on the way back from both of those places. So during the last couple of weeks I have been subjected to the popular dish that sports radio personalities love to serve up- the NCAA football postseason format. There is a huge split between proponents of the current BCS, bowl and computer ranking-based system and the establishment of some sort of playoff system. However, this afternoon's debate really got me fired up.
The hosts argued amongst each other and with callers about two distinct points- 1) how meaningful or meaningless the bowl games were because they have nothing to do with winning a championship and 2) that a playoff system needs to be put in place to determine a "true" champion. The commentators kept going on and on about how playoffs are used to determine champions "everywhere in the world of sport"...yadda, yadda, yadda. This was the statement that really grinded my gears.
After much thought, I have made peace with the BCS system. Sure, it has its flaws. Boise State, TCU and Cincinnati all won all of their games during the regular season and will not have the chance to play for the national championship. They were determined by the BCS rankings to not have an impressive enough resume to be deemed worthy of such renowned consideration. However, they all are playing in other BCS bowl games and the schools are raking in millions of dollars in revenue to improve their programs. I sincerely doubt that any of the three schools' athletic directors are unhappy about that fact. Furthermore, the two teams playing in the national championship, Texas and Alabama hail from two of the most challenging conferences in college football. Say what you will about the other undefeated teams, but strength of schedule should mean everything when it comes to determining who gets what in the world of college football- as it should.
As I continued further down the rabbit hole while internally debating the systems flaws and merits, something dawned on me. When Brock Huard noted that "everywhere in the world of sport" championships are determined via the playoff system, I said to myself, “Brock did not check his facts.”
The most popular sport in the world is soccer. It’s commonly known as the “world’s game”. The vast majority of its leagues have ZERO playoff system that determines its league championship. Leagues base their championship off a single table format which puts extreme relevance and importance on each and every game during the actual season. If you lose and the frontrunner wins, your team is that much further behind in the standings. Sucks to be you. Unlike the NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL where teams can barely make it to the playoffs, get hot at the right time and claim the right to be champions of their league despite probably not being the best overall team during that campaign.
When I first started following European soccer, I wasn't sure if I liked this single table idea. However, I noticed something as the season continued on...I was hanging on each week's results with tremendous interest. Why? Because every single match MATTERED.
As sports fans in America, we grow up knowing the playoffs are when games "matter the most". This works great for the casual sports fan. Essentially, no one really has to pay any attention to any sport's regular season. Because all a team has to do is get to the playoffs and be hot at the right time to raise silverware or claim the league championship. Take the New England Patriots of two years ago. They were undoubtedly the best team in the NFL that season. After the regular season, they stood unblemished at 16-0. They even won their first two playoff games to push their record to 18-0. However, the upstart NY Giants pulled out a last minute win in the Super Bowl to deny the Patriots from winning the overall NFL Championship. Did the Giants deserve to win Super Bowl XLII? Of course, they were the better team during that game. But did the Giants deserve to be the CHAMPIONS of the NFL that season? That is tremendously debatable.
Now take the example of last season's English Premier League champions, Manchester United. My beloved Liverpool only lost TWO matches during their 38 match campaign- only to finish second to United by four points. The Red Devils lost twice as many matches. So how could this be true? Liverpool didn't seize the opportunity to win enough games during the season while instead settling for a draw. That result certainly stings for Liverpool supporters, like myself, but Manchester United won when it mattered the most for the championship- during their actual season. This works so well for actual sports fans and if commonplace here, would draw more passion from the casual fan as well.
Naturally, European soccer league structure is far different than NCAA FBS football. However, the BCS is the closest thing that we have to a single table format in America. It pits all the teams against each other and whoever wins when it matters the most (considering the strength of opponent) is crowned champion. Sounds good to me.
Sure, there are plenty of holes that you can poke in my argument. Most leagues here have far too many teams to make a single table format relevant. Or the Patriots were the best team in the NFL that season they would have found a way to win during the Super Bowl. (Believe me, I despise defending the Patriots. Despite the fact that I cannot stand them, doesn't keep me from giving them their just respect for that season.) However, the phrase "any team can win on any given Sunday" bothers me a great deal. It definitely backs up the legitimacy of the Giants championship, George Mason's 2006 Final Four run and the Cardinals Super Bowl run last year. But doesn't it also mean that even the worst team could beat the best team to win any game? Those stories make great headlines. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that the right team won the game or in some cases....the championship.
No comments:
Post a Comment