When the 2008 college football season came to a close, the familiar chant of Playoffs, playoffs,"" rose loudly from overzealous fans, angry columnists and a number of coaches.
With the way the season ended, how could it not?
USC strengthened its position as one of the most talented and best big game teams in the country (those small games against bad teams are an ignored issue, but that's another story).
Utah won every game it played, crushed Alabama and showed that only 70 of 119 Football Championship subdivision teams could actually win a national title.
Texas showed that it was slightly better than national punching bag Ohio State, but since it was a few plays away from winning a conference that flopped in the bowls, it also deserved a shot.
Oh, and there was Florida, which won everyone's favorite conference, the SEC, and actually lifted the crystal football in Miami.
The arguments seemed sound until the NFL postseason rolled around and suddenly a playoff system seemed a little iffy as a method of determining a champion.
Logically, a champion is the team that finishes ahead of everyone else based on whatever system and rules are in place. Many instill more meaning in the word (abstractions of glory and dominance), so just relying on the rules in place falls short.
In the NFL, however, fans just witnessed the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals play the 9-6-1 Philadelphia Eagles for the right to go to the Super Bowl. Is this really, as many like to say, settling it on the field?
The NBA and NHL avoid this issue with exceedingly long playoffs. Major League Baseball somewhat avoids the problem, but teams with 85 and 83 wins have snuck their way to World Series titles.
The Eagles stumbled their way through 2008, losing to a number of mediocre teams, putting up just three points in a crucial late season game and even earning a tie against the pathetically awful Cincinnati Bengal squad. Yet they drew a few favorable matchups and were ever-so-close to the title game.
And now to the Cardinals. This is a team that went 9-7, a mediocre record to begin with, and played in the NFC West. They swept the Rams, Niners and Seahawks, so two-thirds of their wins literally came from sweeping those three terrible teams.
And yet, that pathetic squad needs just one lone win to win the title.
This is the system that can save college football?
What does this system give us? It shows us who the winner of a second single-elimination season is, but not much else.
In the imprecise world of college football, this idea of an awful team that wins a few games and is somehow crowned champion will not stand. The sport is too rich with discussion and argument. Fans would find this fault (and probably a few more) and the whole campaign for a playoff will produce nothing.
There is some answer to give college football a sense of certainty at season's end, but we've yet to find a system that will deliver that. Now all we have are a bunch of half-baked playoff dream scenarios which simply will not cut it.
Do you think college football should have playoffs instead of bowl games? Let Ben know what you think by e-mailing him at breiner@wisc.edu.
