I love the irrational rationalizations non-playoff proponents make.
1 - too many games - really? they have had 16 (and now 24 in the lowest division(s)) team playoffs in the lower divisions for years. The teams that go deep play 15 and 16 games. I think some could play 17 in d3 now with the 24 team playoffs.
2 - the regular season wouldn't "mean" anything. Would they mean less, absolutely, would they mean nothing, not at all. A realistic playoff to reward all conferences would be 16 teams (though I would say 17 is better since the Sun Belt really doesn't deserve an at large, so let them play in). There are 11 conferences, all conference champs should get in leaving 5 at larges. Currently those at larges would go to Bama/UF, OU/UT, TT, OSU, Mizzou or Ok St. you get one "free" loss, lose two and you are most likely pissing in the wind. Sure, regular season means nothing.
3 - would any of accept an NFL, MLB, or any other sport subjectively determining its champion? Never, not ever. D1 football is the only sport I can think of that subjectively awards its championship. That subjectively (as Ice points out), eliminates more than 50% of teams before any snap is taken. That is insane, 54 teams start the season with essentially (and many literally) no chance to win their sport's top honor. Hell, 13-0 Auburn, almighty SEC champion, was left playing for scraps. How this can be justified on a rational (as opposed to emotional) level is beyond me.
This retarded system exacerbates the impossibility of the smaller schools competing. Those teams (Utah, Boise, Hawaii) that show any level of competitiveness from the lower conferences are unable to schedule better non-conf games. You justify leaving them out by claiming they should play someone, THEY CAN'T. No big team will play them and none would ever play them on the road. They can barely get games against credible BCS conf teams and would never get a home and home against one. It doesn't behoove teams with national title hopes to schedule good non-conf teams, they lose, they are out. And smaller playoff formats (4 or 6 teams) wouldn't remedy that. Nor will a smaller playoff provide a realistic chance for lesser conferences to compete. An added side benefit of a larger playoff would be more titanic non-conference regular season games. These were common place in the 80s (OU/UT, OU/Miami, Miami/ND, ND/FSU, SC/OU) and teams could schedule them again if they weren't afraid of being out of the national title hunt in mid-September.
It is simply beyond me why you, as sports fans, justify and accept this farce when you wouldn't do it in any other sport. You wouldn't accept 50 coaches awarding the "championship" to the Angels after the regular season, or the Lakers, or whoever. It makes no rational sense.
1 - too many games - really? they have had 16 (and now 24 in the lowest division(s)) team playoffs in the lower divisions for years. The teams that go deep play 15 and 16 games. I think some could play 17 in d3 now with the 24 team playoffs.
2 - the regular season wouldn't "mean" anything. Would they mean less, absolutely, would they mean nothing, not at all. A realistic playoff to reward all conferences would be 16 teams (though I would say 17 is better since the Sun Belt really doesn't deserve an at large, so let them play in). There are 11 conferences, all conference champs should get in leaving 5 at larges. Currently those at larges would go to Bama/UF, OU/UT, TT, OSU, Mizzou or Ok St. you get one "free" loss, lose two and you are most likely pissing in the wind. Sure, regular season means nothing.
3 - would any of accept an NFL, MLB, or any other sport subjectively determining its champion? Never, not ever. D1 football is the only sport I can think of that subjectively awards its championship. That subjectively (as Ice points out), eliminates more than 50% of teams before any snap is taken. That is insane, 54 teams start the season with essentially (and many literally) no chance to win their sport's top honor. Hell, 13-0 Auburn, almighty SEC champion, was left playing for scraps. How this can be justified on a rational (as opposed to emotional) level is beyond me.
This retarded system exacerbates the impossibility of the smaller schools competing. Those teams (Utah, Boise, Hawaii) that show any level of competitiveness from the lower conferences are unable to schedule better non-conf games. You justify leaving them out by claiming they should play someone, THEY CAN'T. No big team will play them and none would ever play them on the road. They can barely get games against credible BCS conf teams and would never get a home and home against one. It doesn't behoove teams with national title hopes to schedule good non-conf teams, they lose, they are out. And smaller playoff formats (4 or 6 teams) wouldn't remedy that. Nor will a smaller playoff provide a realistic chance for lesser conferences to compete. An added side benefit of a larger playoff would be more titanic non-conference regular season games. These were common place in the 80s (OU/UT, OU/Miami, Miami/ND, ND/FSU, SC/OU) and teams could schedule them again if they weren't afraid of being out of the national title hunt in mid-September.
It is simply beyond me why you, as sports fans, justify and accept this farce when you wouldn't do it in any other sport. You wouldn't accept 50 coaches awarding the "championship" to the Angels after the regular season, or the Lakers, or whoever. It makes no rational sense.
