Most of us want to know which team is the best in the land. When I was young, the national championship in college football was often referred to as "the mythical college football championship." The reason for the qualification of mythical is obvious. No one could say for sure which team was truly the best in the land. All of the problems with ranikings that are operative today also plagued the rankings of yesterday. However, now we have a playoff system that is meant to reduce the problems and ambiguity of the namtional championship. The problem is that the problems with ranikings still exist to the same extent as they did in the days of "the mythical college footbal championship." By selecting four possible champions and subjecting them to a playoff, the effect of the ranikings error is meant ot be diminished to the point that "mythical" is no longer a necessary qualifier, i.e. we will now know which is the best team in the land.
I submit that the tourmanent will do no such thing. For example, there are valid disagreements about the inclusion and exclusion of teams to the tournament. Further, there is the insoluable problem (that Lou Holtz mentions frequently) of "which team shows up on any given day. So, the team that wins the tounmanent is the champion of the tournament. Whether or not that team will be the best in the land is simply not known. Is Oregon really better than FSU or is it just that the Oregon team tht showed up was better that day than the FSU team that showed up. Is Ohio State really better than Alalbama? Ohio State and Oregon are going to play for the national championship. Is one of those teams the best in the land? I doubt it, even though I am biased as Ohio state is my "second team."
Every team has a potential or maximum possible effectiveness. No team plays with that potential on any day--at least it is extremely unlikely. Consider our game agains WKY as an example. They were a lot closer to their potential that day than we were and they won. But our team has far more potential than WKY. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. What was important was that the WKY boys and fans felt great after beating us by a point and our boys and fans felt lousy about it for a day or two. Then, the next week we won and felt great--especially since we had been reminded of how lousy we felt when we lost. In my opinion, that is where the focus should be--the results game to game and the pleasure we take in watching the boys play. National rankings should be unimportant because the error in them is so enormous.
Let's try a thought experiment. Lets eliminate bias. Randomly rename each D1 team using three letters, e.g. DFA. Each week, publish the results of all the DI games, statisitcs and films (identify disguised(. Let the pundits, whoever they may be, choose the top 25 each week through the season. Do you think the top 25 would look anything like the top 25 we see year in and year out? I don't. So why should I get all exercised over the current biased ratings systems? Let's just enjoy our team. We know we're pretty damned good and feel good about it and that doesn't change no matter what the Ollie Lucks of the world think or do. (And go Boise State, who beat Arizona who beat Oregon who beat FSU!)
I submit that the tourmanent will do no such thing. For example, there are valid disagreements about the inclusion and exclusion of teams to the tournament. Further, there is the insoluable problem (that Lou Holtz mentions frequently) of "which team shows up on any given day. So, the team that wins the tounmanent is the champion of the tournament. Whether or not that team will be the best in the land is simply not known. Is Oregon really better than FSU or is it just that the Oregon team tht showed up was better that day than the FSU team that showed up. Is Ohio State really better than Alalbama? Ohio State and Oregon are going to play for the national championship. Is one of those teams the best in the land? I doubt it, even though I am biased as Ohio state is my "second team."
Every team has a potential or maximum possible effectiveness. No team plays with that potential on any day--at least it is extremely unlikely. Consider our game agains WKY as an example. They were a lot closer to their potential that day than we were and they won. But our team has far more potential than WKY. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. What was important was that the WKY boys and fans felt great after beating us by a point and our boys and fans felt lousy about it for a day or two. Then, the next week we won and felt great--especially since we had been reminded of how lousy we felt when we lost. In my opinion, that is where the focus should be--the results game to game and the pleasure we take in watching the boys play. National rankings should be unimportant because the error in them is so enormous.
Let's try a thought experiment. Lets eliminate bias. Randomly rename each D1 team using three letters, e.g. DFA. Each week, publish the results of all the DI games, statisitcs and films (identify disguised(. Let the pundits, whoever they may be, choose the top 25 each week through the season. Do you think the top 25 would look anything like the top 25 we see year in and year out? I don't. So why should I get all exercised over the current biased ratings systems? Let's just enjoy our team. We know we're pretty damned good and feel good about it and that doesn't change no matter what the Ollie Lucks of the world think or do. (And go Boise State, who beat Arizona who beat Oregon who beat FSU!)
