In Reply to: Re: Several reasons why you're wrong posted by SehornBlew on December 22, 2024 at 20:26:54
If they wanted to determine the best team in any sport, everyone would play the same schedule and the team with the best record would be declared champion. But it doesn't work that way and can't for many logistic reasons. So all sports have a competition to determine a "Champion" and that is the winner of the post season tournament. Of course the best team won't always win it with a small sample of games. In MLB the team with the best regular season record has won the World Series only six times in the last 30 full seasons. Nobody complains about that. A #1 seed wins the Super Bowl only slightly more than half the time. Nobody complains about that. The team with the best regular season record in the NBA has won the championship only seven times since 1999-2000. Nobody complains about that.
But the purpose is (a) to make money and (b) to generate fan interest. Clearly a larger tournament will better achieve these goals. Sometimes the winner is clearly the best team, sometimes not. So what if the "champion" isn't the "best team"? The team who plays the best wins, not necessarily the best overall team. That's how sports works. It's compelling and a big upset resonates with fans.
I fail to see your logic in saying "The more steps you add, the less likely you get the best teams playing for all the marbles". That the "best teams" have more chances to get upset? (Then they probably aren't the "best teams".) Or the team you have designated as the "best" shouldn't have to prove it more than once or twice? Or that those you feel unworthy shouldn't get the chance to win? College football rankings are subjective and often proven wrong, which you yourself has claimed.
I can suggest your take is not realistic or logical and I can do that without the insults you always seem to heap upon anyone who disagrees with you. And I don't need to make over 40 posts on this page like you to infer you know better than anyone else.