re: Does college basketball or football more accurately decide a champion?

quote:

---

I think football is much more accurate because it does more to account for an entire season. As we saw this year and in most previous years, a teams effort must be dang year perfect for a chance at the title.

---

So you would rather people just arbitrarily pick the subjective "two best teams" to play for a title rather than have a system where a select number of teams play to determine who is the best? It's no coincidence that every other major US sport has a playoff system.

In just the last 10 years CFB is riddled controversy regarding who should play for the title.

2001- why was Neb. more deserving of a shot to play than Ore. or Colo.?

2003-what real justification was there for leaving USC out, and letting Okla. "in"?

2004 - "Nice season Auburn. Sorry, you can't compete for a NC"

2006 - Fla in, Mich out. Even though both only lost 1 game.

2007 - what a disaster! I guess LSU should be able to play over the 4 other 2 loss teams. A playoff letting all those teams battle it out would have made too much sense.

2011 - Well Bama didn't win their conf. Uhhhh they didn't win their division. Who cares, we still "think" they're one of the top 2 teams. Sorry all you other one loss guys, win 9, 12, 43 NCs in your program's past and you'll get the benefit of the doubt.

2013 - How is AU any more "deserving" than Baylor, MSU, OSU? Just because a bunch of "coaches" who didn't watch many of those teams games this year and some nerd statisticians think so? Sounds fair.

68 teams in a tournament is probably too many, but at least no team that has earned the right to play for a title gets left out.