And they say the BCS is faulty ...

All tournament formats are susceptible to the "hot streak" and you can make countless arguments about but X beat the tar out of Y during the regular season how can you call them NationalWorldEtc champs?  I say in the same way that LSU and USC won national championships in the same year.  It just happens and we as fans get to argue about it.

You yourself, indirectly, pointed out that the ambiguity of the whole situation is what makes it fun on PWD's blog.  This shows that even a tournament format allows for that ambiguity while also using a series of on the fieldcourt results to better determine who deserves to be in that position.

As for I'm A Realists point about crowning both, I think that technically can happen.  Tech didn't jump to #2 in either poll just for playing in the title game (though claiming that a team that beat UConn once, UNC twice, swept ACCT champ Maryland, ended Duke's win streak at Cameron, and finished with 28 wins isn't a top 10 team is a little silly).

I can't find a site with the numbers, but in recent years I believe that the b-ball champ was ranked high enough going into the tournament that jumping to #1 for winning it all hasn't been out of the question.  Florida will test that this year though as a #10#11 coming into the tourney from the most recent poll I could find.

So if basketball were to use a poll-driven system, who's the champ?  If this isn't a valid system, why would a system similar to football's be valid?

Duke?  They just lost to LSU (whom Florida beat), Florida State, UNC.
Connecticut?  They lost to George Mason (whom Florida beat), as well as Villanova.
Villanova?  They lost to Texas and errr... Florida.
Memphis?  They lost to UCLA (whom Florida beat) and Texas.
Texas?  They lost to LSU (whom Florida beat).
UCLA?  You must've watched the game, right?

I have trouble seeing where a subjective system would produce anything more valid than the current objective system.  It comes down to a fundamental thing that I have a problem with: the substitution of one's own (or some writer's own) perceived genius for that of objective on-field/court results.  That's the problem I have with college football's system, and surely we've been through it plenty of times before.

But the question remains...  if Florida isn't deserving of being the National Champion (and Lord knows I never wanted to write that they are), who is?  

If, however, the question is framed as "college football's method of selection is closer to flawless than college basketball's", I strenuously disagree.  Neither can produce a flawless champion.  One system might approach more closely the idea one has of "the best team" - the football method.  That's arguable though.  As I'm certain there are many Auburn fans (and Georgia fans like myself) who think that one person's idea of "the best" is quite different from another's.  But that's the point: it's just someone's opinion.  Whether it's a consensus opinion or the mad ravings of some guy in a shack in the woods, it's all opinion.  College football's system of selecting a champion relies more on consensus, which is not shocking to the conscience of most people.  But that doesn't mean the consensus is correct.  

College basketball on the other hand, does not rely solely on opinion.  It relies on objective fact: did team A do what is necessary to achieve the title?  "What is necessary" is primarily objective in itself.  As for Xon's example of "a coin toss" is objective... well, it confuses ideas here.  The point is not the method of winning or losing that is objective, as that's the case in football too.  The point is that in football, assuming that winners are chosen via coin toss, the "Champion" is determined not by who won the most coin tosses, but how good they looked doing it and how strong their opponents are.  That's the difference, and that's subjectivity intruding.

As for the requirement that subjectivity and objectivity "must blend", well, I half agree with it.  If we assume that a method of selection is never realistically going to create a flawless and indisputable champion, yes, you have to rely on some form of subjectivity.  But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek to limit it's influence.  What we're left with in comparing these systems is this, in my opinion:

College football selects a flawed, disputable champion based on intangibles and opinions (which likely comports more closely with conventional wisdom), while restricting entry into the competition to a limited number of participants.

College basketball selects a flawed, disputable champion based on who won the most consecutive games at the end of the year (which may be less likely to comport with conventional wisdom), while not restricting entry into the competion to any participants.

Personally, I've been proven wrong too many times by what I thought would happen and what did happen on the field to believe that opinion should govern, or that conventional wisdom is worth more than the ramblings of a sidewalk apocalyptist.  Further, the little d democrat in me believes that sport, perhaps more than anywhere else, should be a meritocracy and not limited to a few well-funded, well-covered or well-traditioned (yes, that's a new word) teams.  I beleive anyone should have a chance at winning a national title, and they should know what it takes to do so before the season starts.  I believe that if George Mason had won the tournament, they would have deserved to claim a national title.  I believe that Utah had as much a claim to a title as USC (or Auburn) did in 2004, in that nobody proved they were better than any of them.  I believe that Milan High were Indiana state champs.  None of these things fits within conventional wisdom or the predictive abilities of experts, but each would have been or was the result of the opportunity presented by a democratic and fair system.  I'm willing to sacrifice my own sense of self-assurance in predictive abilities or have my personal opinions (which I can still have regardless of whoever is annointed champion) conflict with the t-shirts and SI commemorative covers in exchange for a level playing field.  

Meanwhile, Kyle, if indeed you stand by that statement that USC is the best team because they beat Florida two out of three, you should know that USC lost 14 games this year.  If losing the season series renders one team better than another, then several teams have superior claims to USC, and among them are Tennessee (who swept Florida), Kentucky (who was swept by Florida) and none other than the Georgia Bulldogs.  

But, yes, seriously, what would be your subjective judgment, if the NCAA tournament were only a portion?  I still think Florida has the best argument of anyone.  If not them, then who?