I-AA sets model for postseason

If you're not a resident of the Granite State with an interest in football, you probably never have heard of R.J. Harvey.

In case you missed it, the 5-foot-9 running back scampered for a 52-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter of New Hampshire's game against Georgia Southern on Saturday, and it turned out to be the game-winning score in the Wildcats' first-ever postseason victory.

But here's the best part - Harvey's heroics didn't ensure that his team would end perhaps its most successful season with a win.

It ensured that his team's season will continue.

In an idea that makes far too much sense for it to be adopted by its wealthier cousin, Division I-AA football doesn't revolve its postseason around individual games boasting large payouts and obscure sponsors.

Instead, the best teams in the nation play each other in a tournament spanning four weeks in November and December, a tournament that will crown one legitimate champion at its conclusion.

One champion. Quite a concept.

The flaws of the Division I-A system continue to manifest themselves - up to three teams will have no opportunity to play for the national title, despite ending the regular season undefeated.

Meanwhile, the simplicity of the Division I-AA serves as a glaring reminder that there's a better way to determine a champion.

Look at it this way. The participants in this year's Silicon Valley Classic, for example, will spend four weeks in practice, rehearsing plays repeatedly with no game on the immediate horizon.

How obscure is this game?

If you can even name the two teams involved in the last Silicon Valley Classic, well, you either are closely affiliated with UCLA or Fresno State or you watch entirely too much college football.

This isn't to say that the bowl system is worthless. In fact, if the sole aim of the NCAA and its members is to create an opportunity for revenue and exposure, they have accomplished just that.

But if that's the sole aim, we need to stop pretending that anything close to a legitimate champion can emerge from these games.

Wouldn't it make more sense to follow Division I-AA's lead and develop a tournament in which the nation's best teams can determine a champion on the field?

In Division I-A, rather than allowing the best teams in the nation to compete against each other, polls and computer calculations assign only two teams to compete for the national title.

It doesn't matter if three other teams have no losses, and it doesn't matter that those teams never have a chance to prove their worth on the field.

It only matters, it seems, that we preserve a system of bowl games that earns money for both schools and sponsors but does nothing to allow a clear-cut national champion to emerge.

Sure, a 16-team playoff would eliminate dozens of teams from postseason competition, North Carolina among them this year.

But the purpose of postseason play shouldn't be to create extra fund-raising opportunities for schools, and it shouldn't be to create advertising opportunities for corporations such as EV1.net and Pioneer PureVision.

The purpose of postseason play should be to showcase the nation's best teams and to allow as many teams as possible to compete for a title.

When the NCAA understands that, let me know. In the meantime, I'll be watching R.J. Harvey compete for a national championship.

Contact Brian MacPherson at brimac@email.unc.edu.