Thursday, November 02, 2006

I'd Like to See It, But I Hope I Don't

I've heard this more than once: if the Michigan/Ohio State game is a classic, then it should be played again for the national championship.

The logic goes that if the game is very close, with, say Michigan winning on a field goal as time expires or Ted Gynn Jr. for Ohio State catching a TD pass with 2 seconds left, then the two teams should line up again and play it for the national title six or seven weeks later.

As much as I'd like to see Michigan play Ohio State ten times this season, this idea is stupid. Say Michigan goes into the 'Shoe and knocks of Ohio State. Fine. Now say they play eachother again in the National Title game and Ohio State redeems themselves and beats Michigan.

The two teams each won one game against the other. Both Michigan and Ohio State are 1-1 head-to-head. But Ohio State is your national champion becuase they won the second time around. How does that make any sense at all?

Why should the team who loses the first game get a second crack at the national title? Didn't they already have their shot to beat the best team in the nation? Are they that much better than every other one-loss team in the country? And what about the other schools who actually do finish the season undefeated? They are less worthy that Michigan or Ohio State with one loss?

This line of thought just makes no sense to me. The national championship shouldn't be double-elimination.

I understand that the national championship should pit the top two teams in the country, and those two teams are probably Ohio State and Michigan. But we will already know who is better between those two teams once they play. Playing it again is redundant.

Now, I'm not saying it a Michigan/Ohio State rematch wouldn't draw higher ratings; that match up would probably be the ideal national championship, ratings-wise. But does it make sense when crowning your national champion? I think not.

0 comments so far. Might as well add your own.: