BCS vs Playoffs: Why is there so much emphasis on one game?

I’ve never really understood the uproar in Division I College football about the need for a playoff system. It seems as though every sports pundit out there is overwhelmingly in favor of a playoff system. Yes, every other sporting league crowns their champion using a form of a playoff system, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a playoff is the optimal strategy for choosing a champion. A playoff doesn’t guarantee a “true” champion nor necessarily add excitement. In fact, a playoff in college football can detract from both areas.

There are 110 or so teams in Division 1 College football and if there were a playoff only one team would be able to win the championship. The system in place right now allows for multiple champions while a playoff, of course does not. Does anyone else think it completely sucks that there can only be one champion out of all 110 teams? Our society and media coverage seem to be focused on crowing champions and basically making kings out of our superstars (Can I be the next Andre Ware). Why can’t multiple teams have the chance to call themselves champions? Is it really that horrible that there is not a single champion? The top division in high school football in the state of Texas crowns two champions every year. Nobody seems to complain about this.

Football is a game of very high variance and incredible randomness in each and every game. Many games are decided by a couple very fluky plays. Take for instance, last year’s SEC championship game that matched up the eventual champion Florida vs. Arkansas. The game was pretty even except for one huge, terrible mistake on special teams by one of the return men for Arkansas. He called for a fair catch while backing up in his own end zone, something most junior high players don’t do. He fumbled and Florida pounced on it for an easy seven points. If the return guy has a heart attack and falls dead instead of trying to catch the punt then Arkansas might win. The point I am trying to make is that no one game should determine a champion. Also, we put way too much emphasis on championship games. Games can go either way with one person having an enormous impact. Why must we always award this randomness to one team? It really is OK to have multiple champions.

Was UT really so much more deserving of the title two years ago over USC? They were just one play away from being “losers”. I wonder how Vince Young would have been perceived if he was brought down just before the goal line on UT’s final possession that won them the game. Would he have still come out early to the NFL and still have been picked at the same spot? I remember so many people calling in on talk shows right after the game saying how little of an impact Reggie Bush had on the game. He only had almost 200 total yards and a touchdown for that game. Actually, if he doesn’t try his ‘And one’ street ball going full speed lateral in the second quarter then USC probably wins.

A playoff will one day produce a winner with two or even three losses. There has never been a champion with 2 losses in the history of college football. I can’t imagine all the hysteria that will ensue when a three loss team takes down the national title. Not that I believe this to be a bad thing but I’m sure most everyone else will.

Basically, I don’t see too much wrong with the system in place. There will never be a way to crown a true champion so why not let there be many.