(12-03-2014 10:07 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Actually I think it is the exact opposite- because of upsets that always happen, one and done tournaments aren't the best way to determine who is the "best", but they are clearly the absolute best way to determine the "most deserving".

This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

(12-04-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:07 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Actually I think it is the exact opposite- because of upsets that always happen, one and done tournaments aren't the best way to determine who is the "best", but they are clearly the absolute best way to determine the "most deserving".

This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

You really think the best team always wins tournaments? The most deserving team does. There is a difference. For example, no one would argue that the 2011 New York Giants were the best team in the NFL that year. They had seven losses, including two the 5-11 Redskins and barely qualified for the playoffs the last day. But they upset the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau Field and got on a roll to win the Super Bowl. But you can't tell me they were the best NFL team that year.

(12-03-2014 11:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:47 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:15 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  This comittee is a joke, this "playoff" is a joke, and all you P5 fans b*tching and moaning are a joke. Until the cartel let's EVERYONE have an equal opportunity to the "playoff", and not just a token best of the G5 pity slot, than this "playoff" should be ridiculed. Mercilessly.

The playoff is far worse for the lower conferences than the BCS for sure. Many currently G5 fans wanted the BCS dead, so I guess it's a case of careful what you wish for.

Can't see it. A couple of those Boise State teams would have made the playoff. At least once for Utah and TCU (when they were MWC teams) as well.

With a win over Fresno State, Boise State makes a major bowl this year. That would not have happened in the BCS era.

Oh.....you mean the "best of the G5" pity slot? You actually believe that's a big game?

It's a big game because "They" say it's a big game.

No games besides the semifinals and finals are any more meaningful than another. They are each meaningless exhibitions. Fun, but meaningless.

(12-04-2014 05:20 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:07 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Actually I think it is the exact opposite- because of upsets that always happen, one and done tournaments aren't the best way to determine who is the "best", but they are clearly the absolute best way to determine the "most deserving".

This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

You really think the best team always wins tournaments? The most deserving team does. There is a difference. For example, no one would argue that the 2011 New York Giants were the best team in the NFL that year. They had seven losses, including two the 5-11 Redskins and barely qualified for the playoffs the last day. But they upset the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau Field and got on a roll to win the Super Bowl. But you can't tell me they were the best NFL team that year.

No- there are times in every tournament when a team that I think is inferior to another wins in an upset. So, I guess I don't think the 'best' team always wins tournaments. But so what? Do we want a champion or do we want to argue about about what constitutes 'best'?

(12-04-2014 05:30 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:20 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:07 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Actually I think it is the exact opposite- because of upsets that always happen, one and done tournaments aren't the best way to determine who is the "best", but they are clearly the absolute best way to determine the "most deserving".

This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

You really think the best team always wins tournaments? The most deserving team does. There is a difference. For example, no one would argue that the 2011 New York Giants were the best team in the NFL that year. They had seven losses, including two the 5-11 Redskins and barely qualified for the playoffs the last day. But they upset the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau Field and got on a roll to win the Super Bowl. But you can't tell me they were the best NFL team that year.

No- there are times in every tournament when a team that I think is inferior to another wins in an upset. So, I guess I don't think the 'best' team always wins tournaments. But so what? Do we want a champion or do we want to argue about about what constitutes 'best'?

I think we agree- tournaments are definitely the best way to determine a clear cut champion, and every sporting league should have some sort of tournament to determine that. But they aren't the best way to determine who is the best team.

This all kinda reminds me of the difference between the Survivor winner and their "Sprint Player of the Season" winner.

You can have an opinion about who was the best player... but the million dollars goes to the one who earned it on the field... er... beach... the one who ultimately proved to be the champion, no matter what anyone's opinion was of his/her strengths and weaknesses.

(12-04-2014 05:34 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:30 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:20 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:07 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Actually I think it is the exact opposite- because of upsets that always happen, one and done tournaments aren't the best way to determine who is the "best", but they are clearly the absolute best way to determine the "most deserving".

This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

You really think the best team always wins tournaments? The most deserving team does. There is a difference. For example, no one would argue that the 2011 New York Giants were the best team in the NFL that year. They had seven losses, including two the 5-11 Redskins and barely qualified for the playoffs the last day. But they upset the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau Field and got on a roll to win the Super Bowl. But you can't tell me they were the best NFL team that year.

No- there are times in every tournament when a team that I think is inferior to another wins in an upset. So, I guess I don't think the 'best' team always wins tournaments. But so what? Do we want a champion or do we want to argue about about what constitutes 'best'?

I think we agree- tournaments are definitely the best way to determine a clear cut champion, and every sporting league should have some sort of tournament to determine that. But they aren't the best way to determine who is the best team.

I think we agree too, so I am not trying to be argumentative, but what is the best way to determine the 'best' team, in your opinion?

(12-04-2014 05:39 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:34 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:30 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:20 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  This is ridiculous. The current 'playoff' is a one-and-done for those four that make it. If tournaments can't tell you the 'best' team, then let's just play 12 games and have the committee pick the 'best' team right then? No need for a postseason- let's remove the pretense and get to a true beauty pageant.

If it weren't for those darn 'upsets that always happen' it would be so much easier to crown a champion.

You really think the best team always wins tournaments? The most deserving team does. There is a difference. For example, no one would argue that the 2011 New York Giants were the best team in the NFL that year. They had seven losses, including two the 5-11 Redskins and barely qualified for the playoffs the last day. But they upset the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau Field and got on a roll to win the Super Bowl. But you can't tell me they were the best NFL team that year.

No- there are times in every tournament when a team that I think is inferior to another wins in an upset. So, I guess I don't think the 'best' team always wins tournaments. But so what? Do we want a champion or do we want to argue about about what constitutes 'best'?

I think we agree- tournaments are definitely the best way to determine a clear cut champion, and every sporting league should have some sort of tournament to determine that. But they aren't the best way to determine who is the best team.

I think we agree too, so I am not trying to be argumentative, but what is the best way to determine the 'best' team, in your opinion?

For sports like football where the "n" number is so small, I think the statistical analytics are. I really like efficiency ratings like football outsiders F/+ and ESPN efficiency as the best measure of who is better than who in a sport. Those look at every play, every drive to see how efficient a team is. But Vegas power type rankings that combine SOS and MOV data like Sagarin predictor and ESPN FPI are good, too.

(12-04-2014 03:06 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 03:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 03:32 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 03:24 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The issue I have is with a TCU being in over another 1 loss team that beat it—Baylor. SOS is nullified when it comes to a head-to-head loss. The only way to cure this sick system is for fans to neither watch nor attend the playoff games—which isn’t happening….

The competing argument, of course, is that if the Saints win head-to-head against the Falcons for the year, but the Falcons have one more win than the Saints at the end of the season, for some reason we've decided that it doesn't matter about head-to-head... the Falcons supposedly earned the division title based on that one more win, regardless of how things turned out when they played each other.

TCU doesn't "have one more win" sturt: both Baylor and it have identical records. The issue I have is with the committee rewarding TCU’s SoS instead of rewarding Baylor for its head-to-head victory over TCU….

The reason you can't use the head to head as a tie breaker is you are comparing the two teams to the other 8-9 top teams. For it to work, you now have to put Baylor over FSU because of their head to head over TCU. Can't really do that. I realize in a vacuum it seems wrong, but ifunless it purely came down to those two, it's hard to eliminate everything else.

Besides is you can show that undefeated doesn't matter, then certainly head to head can't be the end all be all (note I don't necessarily agree, but the logic for one dictates the other is optional as well). Besides head to head ends up in circular logic anyway. So in a top 25 ranking, yes you sort of have to dismiss it to an extent. Besides Alabama was ranked ahead of ole miss when both had only one loss. There were a couple of others as well.

... which is the point of the thread adcorbett. The committee subjectively placed TCU in the playoff because it has a tougher SoS, but did not reward Baylor for its head-to-head victory, which is illogical in my opinion. In addition to this, the B12 has touted the “One true champ” campaign. Therefore, if TCU and Baylor finish with identical records, wouldn’t Baylor be the B12’s “One true champ” for its head–to-head victory over TCU? Consequently, this system is absurd and an absolute joke. Nevertheless, I will admit that I think TCU the better team—but the head-to-head loss to Baylor should prevent it if from getting a playoff spot over Baylor. Regarding your FSU comment, it has nothing to do with the situation regarding Baylor and TCU, which the committee has screwed up…..

Underdog, how can the committee reward Baylor for its H2H win if it is more than a two-way comparison, which in this case it obviously is?

I mean, should Baylor be more favorably evaluated versus OSU because they beat TCU? Moreso than for beating any other top 10 team like say Oregon?

That would make no sense.

(12-04-2014 05:21 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:47 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:15 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  This comittee is a joke, this "playoff" is a joke, and all you P5 fans b*tching and moaning are a joke. Until the cartel let's EVERYONE have an equal opportunity to the "playoff", and not just a token best of the G5 pity slot, than this "playoff" should be ridiculed. Mercilessly.

The playoff is far worse for the lower conferences than the BCS for sure. Many currently G5 fans wanted the BCS dead, so I guess it's a case of careful what you wish for.

Can't see it. A couple of those Boise State teams would have made the playoff. At least once for Utah and TCU (when they were MWC teams) as well.

With a win over Fresno State, Boise State makes a major bowl this year. That would not have happened in the BCS era.

Oh.....you mean the "best of the G5" pity slot? You actually believe that's a big game?

It's a big game because "They" say it's a big game.

No games besides the semifinals and finals are any more meaningful than another. They are each meaningless exhibitions. Fun, but meaningless.

Depends on how you define "meaningless". If to you any game that isn't for a spot in the national title game, or is the title game itself, is meaningless, than you are correct.

But if I am USF, I would assign FAR more meaning to playing say Georgia in the Cotton Bowl than playing UL-Lafayette in the R/L New Orleans Bowl. The former will garner far more pre-game media attention, will garner far more viewers, and provide much more prestige than the latter.

And IMO, all of those things are loaded with meaning.

(12-04-2014 05:34 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think we agree- tournaments are definitely the best way to determine a clear cut champion, and every sporting league should have some sort of tournament to determine that. But they aren't the best way to determine who is the best team.

Tournaments are actually a second-best option, an imperfect way to determine a champ when the best way isn't available.

The best way is just one long regular season, where every team plays every other team home and away (so schedules are identical), and whoever has the best record at the end is the champ.

That type of format - basically what is used by European soccer leagues like the EPL, and the way baseball league pennants were determined before divisional play - is far less prone to flukes and upsets like a tournament is. I mean, if the Yankees and Red Sox both play identical 168 game schedules and at the end of it the Sox are 3 games ahead, well, there's nothing flukey about it, they proved they were better over a huge sample of games.

But obviously that is impossible in sports like college basketball and football, so it has to be done by a tournament.

(12-04-2014 11:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The difference from BCS to the CFP- the coaches poll was CONTRACTUALLY REQUIRED to award it's championship to the BCS champion. The Crystal Ball trophy that we all got used to seeing- that was the Coaches Poll trophy.

The difference is more than just that. In the BCS, the AP (initially) and the Coaches poll (throughout) were actually components of the formula that was used to pick the teams that played for the title.

So the BCS was heavily imbricated with the polls, or at least the Coaches poll.

In contrast, the CFP has nothing to do with either poll. Like the NCAA tournament for choosing a basketball champ, it has its own rules for selecting the playoff teams, and it awards its own national championship trophy. Both polls are irrelevant.

Quo I stayed away from this absurd crusade you are on about showing how little you know about the national championship, but seeing as how everything you have posted on this is wrong, and you keep posting, you really need to stop. Give it up. There is a reason NO ONE agrees with you. We understand be difference between a trophy and the actual national championship. And no I won't be responding when you repost the incorrect drivel you posted above be first time, so don't waste your time.

(12-04-2014 07:39 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Quo I stayed away from this absurd crusade you are on about showing how little you know about the national championship, but seeing as how everything you have posted on this is wrong, and you keep posting, you really need to stop. Give it up. There is a reason NO ONE agrees with you. We understand be difference between a trophy and the actual national championship.

You keep invoking "we" as if the ignorance of a few other posters can cover for you being wrong?

You claim to know what the difference between a "trophy" and an "actual national championship" is but you fail to articulate it. And why? Because in this case it obviously is an UTTERLY NONSENSICAL distinction! What on earth does a trophy with the words "National Championship" on it mean other than it is for the winner of the National Championship?

And how can you explain away this link, which contains these words:

"The College Football Playoff National Championship Trophy presented by Dr Pepper is the ultimate goal of college football teams across the United States. It will be presented on-field to the winner of the College Football Playoff National Championship on January 12, 2015."

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/trophy

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, how can you possibly continue to maintain that the CFP isn't hosting a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP game, the winner of which will get a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP Trophy, emblematic of winning the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP of College football?

How can you be this obtuse?

And equally obviously, the AP and Coaches polls are now COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in this entire process. They can vote whoever they want #1 to their heart's content, of course, just like You or I can, but their vote is no more meaningful than if they voted some team other than the winner of the NCAA basketball tournament the "National Champion" of basketball either. Utterly meaningless.

If the AP were to conduct a poll the day after the NCAA Tournament Final, and vote some team OTHER than the team that just won the tournament as their "AP National Champion", would that meant that college basketball had a "split national championship" that year? Of course not, that would be a ludicrous notion. Laughable. Same thing with football and the CFP.

Why do you continue to deny the obvious?

So, if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words NATIONAL CHAMPION on it, would that make the winner the national champion? Or is it just reserved for games where people agree to vote for the winner because ESPN is paying them millions of dollars to get to make that claim?

(12-05-2014 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  So, if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words NATIONAL CHAMPION on it, would that make the winner the national champion? Or is it just reserved for games where people agree to vote for the winner because ESPN is paying them millions of dollars to get to make that claim?

No, in the same way that if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words "NFL champion" on it, that wouldn't make the winner the NFL champ either. Because neither is sanctioned by the organization that confers those titles. I only mentioned that the CFP trophy says "national championship" on it because Ad actually denied that it did!

And with the CFP system, there is no "vote for the winner". The winner of the CFP National Championship Game is the National Champion, in the same way that the winner of the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion.

That's how the CFP differs from prior systems: Votes of polls and pollsters, AP and coaches, are completely irrelevant, before, during, and after. They play no role at all, just like in the NCAA basketball tournament. They are good for giggles and sh*ts only.

(12-05-2014 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  So, if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words NATIONAL CHAMPION on it, would that make the winner the national champion? Or is it just reserved for games where people agree to vote for the winner because ESPN is paying them millions of dollars to get to make that claim?

No, in the same way that if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words "NFL champion" on it, that wouldn't make the winner the NFL champ either. Because neither is sanctioned by the organization that confers those titles. I only mentioned that the CFP trophy says "national championship" on it because Ad actually denied that it did!

And with the CFP system, there is no "vote for the winner". The winner of the CFP National Championship Game is the National Champion, in the same way that the winner of the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion.

That's how the CFP differs from prior systems: Votes of polls and pollsters, AP and coaches, are completely irrelevant, before, during, and after. They play no role at all, just like in the NCAA basketball tournament. They are good for giggles and sh*ts only.

No, the winner of the CFP championship game is the CFP champion in the same way that the Super Bowl winner is the NFL champion. Just like the winner of the BCS championship game was the BCS champion, not the national champion.

The difference in basketball is that the winner is the NCAA champion. The fact that people tend to equate that with the term "national champion" is secondary. The fact that so many people are willing - even eager - to call the winner of a made for TV mini-tournament "national champion" just speaks to the need for the NCAA to find a more inclusive way to crown an NCAA champion.

The fact that all the FBS conferences are willing to go along with the charade that this is truly a "national championship" would be more meaningful if they weren't being paid handsomely to pretend that it is.

(12-05-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  So, if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words NATIONAL CHAMPION on it, would that make the winner the national champion? Or is it just reserved for games where people agree to vote for the winner because ESPN is paying them millions of dollars to get to make that claim?

No, in the same way that if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words "NFL champion" on it, that wouldn't make the winner the NFL champ either. Because neither is sanctioned by the organization that confers those titles. I only mentioned that the CFP trophy says "national championship" on it because Ad actually denied that it did!

And with the CFP system, there is no "vote for the winner". The winner of the CFP National Championship Game is the National Champion, in the same way that the winner of the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion.

That's how the CFP differs from prior systems: Votes of polls and pollsters, AP and coaches, are completely irrelevant, before, during, and after. They play no role at all, just like in the NCAA basketball tournament. They are good for giggles and sh*ts only.

No, the winner of the CFP championship game is the CFP champion in the same way that the Super Bowl winner is the NFL champion. Just like the winner of the BCS championship game was the BCS champion, not the national champion.

The difference in basketball is that the winner is the NCAA champion. The fact that people tend to equate that with the term "national champion" is secondary. The fact that so many people are willing - even eager - to call the winner of a made for TV mini-tournament "national champion" just speaks to the need for the NCAA to find a more inclusive way to crown an NCAA champion.

The fact that all the FBS conferences are willing to go along with the charade that this is truly a "national championship" would be more meaningful if they weren't being paid handsomely to pretend that it is.

Ken, do you place some mystical significance in the term "national champion"? E.g., In basketball, I don't think it's "secondary" that people equate "NCAA champion" with "national champion", as that is what the whole purpose of the NCAA Tournament is: To crown the National Champion of College Basketball. Is there more to it than that?

Ditto for the CFP system?

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  So, if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words NATIONAL CHAMPION on it, would that make the winner the national champion? Or is it just reserved for games where people agree to vote for the winner because ESPN is paying them millions of dollars to get to make that claim?

No, in the same way that if the Peach Bowl awarded a trophy with the words "NFL champion" on it, that wouldn't make the winner the NFL champ either. Because neither is sanctioned by the organization that confers those titles. I only mentioned that the CFP trophy says "national championship" on it because Ad actually denied that it did!

And with the CFP system, there is no "vote for the winner". The winner of the CFP National Championship Game is the National Champion, in the same way that the winner of the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion.

That's how the CFP differs from prior systems: Votes of polls and pollsters, AP and coaches, are completely irrelevant, before, during, and after. They play no role at all, just like in the NCAA basketball tournament. They are good for giggles and sh*ts only.

No, the winner of the CFP championship game is the CFP champion in the same way that the Super Bowl winner is the NFL champion. Just like the winner of the BCS championship game was the BCS champion, not the national champion.

The difference in basketball is that the winner is the NCAA champion. The fact that people tend to equate that with the term "national champion" is secondary. The fact that so many people are willing - even eager - to call the winner of a made for TV mini-tournament "national champion" just speaks to the need for the NCAA to find a more inclusive way to crown an NCAA champion.

The fact that all the FBS conferences are willing to go along with the charade that this is truly a "national championship" would be more meaningful if they weren't being paid handsomely to pretend that it is.

Ken, do you place some mystical significance in the term "national champion"? E.g., In basketball, I don't think it's "secondary" that people equate "NCAA champion" with "national champion", as that is what the whole purpose of the NCAA Tournament is: To crown the National Champion of College Basketball. Is there more to it than that?

Ditto for the CFP system?

Quite the contrary. I place zero significance in the term "national champion". You seem to be the one placing significance in it. The purpose of the NCAA tournament is not to crown the "National Champion of College Basketball". That is a term you just made up, just now. The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to crown the NCAA Division I basketball champion. Just like the purpose of the CFP tournament is to crown the CFP Champion. When the CFP tournament starts to include all the schools that have a reasonable chance of winning it, or at least influence who does win it, come back to me and we'll talk about what you can call its champion. Until then, I can live with the term "mythical national champion" that has been in use for nearly a century.

(12-05-2014 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  Quite the contrary. I place zero significance in the term "national champion". You seem to be the one placing significance in it. The purpose of the NCAA tournament is not to crown the "National Champion of College Basketball". That is a term you just made up, just now. The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to crown the NCAA Division I basketball champion. Just like the purpose of the CFP tournament is to crown the CFP Champion.

Funny, but this picture of the NCAA tournament champion's trophy says "National Champion" on it. Call me silly, but that seems to indicate that the NCAA thinks that the winner of the NCAA Division I basketball champion is also the "National Champion" of NCAA Division I college basketball, meaning that crowning this national champion is indeed the purpose of the tournament.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=NCAA...tedIndex=1

See? So it's not just the public mistakenly using the phrase "national champion" as shorthand for the truly-accurate "NCAA division I basketball champion", the NCAA itself uses that same term, meaning that must be how the NCAA thinks about its championship, too.