|
Yes, many times the #1 bball team doesn't win the tournament. However, at least they have a chance. Which would a team rather have: A playoff where you have to win several games but at least your destiny is in your own hands or the BCS where you might win out and still have no shot at winning the NC?
A playoff can be overly inclusive in that it includes teams that don't deserve to be there. The BCS can be overly exclusive in that it excludes teams that do deserve to be there. Which is better?
I don't get this "detracts from the regular season" stuff. Doesn't it detract from the regular season that coaches of undefeated teams have to go out and sell themselves to voters? Somebody go to Tommy Tubberville and say, "Tough break about not getting a chance to make it in, but at least the BCS preserved the sanctity of your regular season."
With a playoff, the last weekend is often filled with "Playoff contender A has to win and hope that Playoff contender B loses". With the BCS, it becomes "BCS contender A has to dominate and hope that the 6-4 team it beat in week one doesn't lose to some team that neither BCS contender A nor BCS contender B has played." You have to hope that Notre Dame doesn't lose at Syracuse so that LSU doesn't jump USC in the computers.
As to "A win or go home playoff only determines who wins the playoff, not who is the best team", how is the BCS champ game any better? The BCS formula doesn't even try to get the best team in the game. It tries to get the two most accomplished teams. The computers certainly don't care about "best team". They are even prevented from attempting this by being barred from looking at MOV. The BCS at best determines "the best of the two most accomplished teams". Even then, 'best' is defined solely as who wins one game in January.
__________________
|