NolePride
Well-Known Member
We as Americans are entirely obsessed with the idea of using a playoff to determine a 'champion'. What we are really getting is a winner of a select invite tournament. That's what you are 'crowning'. You aren't determining an undisputed 'best team' that season, just who won an invite only tournament. That's different.
We even try to bring that into the 'worlds sport' of soccer as I don't believe most other national leagues have any sort of playoff and just crown the team with the most points for that regular season. And there are others with similar championships. It isn't required to have a tournament to give a crown.
But no, if you aren't having a post season battle here you aren't doing it right. That's our mentality.
College football used to vote for a champion and there were some problems with it, but what they were voting for was who was the best team that whole year. If you want a true 'champion' that is closer to it than bringing in even dangerous teams with 3 losses (which any 8 team playoff would do) and having a tournament of who is more healthy and playing better at that moment and giving them a crown kind of thing.
So no, having a larger tournament of league champions would not in any way put to bed controversy of who the best team of that season was and thus who should be rightfully given the title 'champion'. Far from it IMO.
Really...so America prefers a meeting, behind locked doors, by 13 guys PICKING 4 teams
as a solution? I didn't know that. btw...How's Hillary working out for you guys on the Left
Coast?