|
Clay,
I hope this was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek article, although it sure didn't seem like it. While I can appreciate the desire to reward the top 65 teams (or conference winners and the top teams to fill out a 65 team bracket), no system would be without flaws and would lead to even more controversy: i.e. too much weight is given to conference strength or polls or not enough weight is given to quality wins (or even quality losses - now there's an oxy-moron if I've ever heard one). Every year, there would be just as much griping about the system as there is about the current process - maybe more as it would be "tweaked" year after year in an effort to improve the selection system.
Only one team below a 6 seed (top 24) has won the national title and that was a #8 seed (top 32), so getting the "exact" best 65, if there is such a thing, will likely not have a huge impact on the outcome of the tourney.
Moreover, I like giving the committee the control to not strictly adhere to an s-curve. Top seeds (1 to 4) should be given a reward for their performance throughout the year and be allowed to play closer to home when possible. This is a much bigger advantage than the s-curve as the difference between the number 5 and number 8 team or the number 9 and number 12 team etc. is extremely small and not consistent from game to game. I also like giving the committee the liberty of altering seeding and moving from the s-curve to allow for interesting 1st round games and potentially intriguing second round match-ups.
This tournament is one of, if not the most, entertaining three weeks in sports for America (more entertaining than most professional playoffs and other college playoffs/bowls and totally killing the Olympics coverage). Let's not fix what isn't broken.
P.S. It "only" takes six wins to lift the trophy, not "eight one-game seasons."
|
