The Unenviable Task of Being John Swofford

(Photo by Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images)

Public Enemy Number One: The Bowl Championship Series.

If you were to take an unofficial snap Gallup Poll specialized and enhanced through Quinnipiac University, I believe that you would find 95 percent of all people polled in favor of a Playoff System in College Football. The +/- Margin takes into consideration College Presidents who selfishly lobby for their own institutions on a seasonal basis (I'm looking at you Georgia). Yes, even our own President has been quoted that he dislikes the BCS system—perhaps the only thing he has said to make him popular in Texas—and short of Congressional Athletic McCarthyism making the BCS on par with Communist Activities in Hollywood of the '50s. The government truly lacks the power to do anything about it. Given the economic fortunes of the United States as a whole, arguing over who gets what slice of a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry probably would not make lawmakers very popular—not even in Utah.

So, imagine being John Swofford, head of the current BCS system. It is your turn to stand on the block and try to avoid the gibbet. And really, is there any one person in all of the NCAA as hated as the man who began the domino effect of conference realignment? Lets just say that Mr. Swofford had better not visit Morgantown anytime soon as there could be a couch with his name on it. So this man, who is already vilified in many institutions along the East Coast, gets to further be the face of College Football Evils. Why change villains mid-race? Only Calvin Borel is allowed to switch horses when going for a Triple Crown. A quick Google Search of "John Swofford" or the BCS would reveal just how "popular" he and BCS are, And yet, how soon we forget, it was John Swofford along with Mike Slive of the SEC who proposed change to the BCS system. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/sports/ncaafootball/01bcs.html)

The Commissioners of the ACC and SEC, seemingly with the most to lose by changing the current system, were the ones who proposed and supported changes to the BCS system to be more inclusive (i.e. +1 or playoff) to their member institutions. Now, that's not to say that somehow Swofford is a double-agent who has ascended to the highest office in the enemy camp: He has a duty to represent the academics who preside over their universities in lofty Ivory Towers. Many of whom are so pleased at positive revenue stream and Bowl Sharing that they do not wish to ruin a good thing. Why should they? Oh, they have heard all the arguments, they know that possibly more money could be made with a playoff system. But it is those words "possibly" and "could" that cause them to cringe. University Presidents, as a whole, are creatures of the status quo. Especially when either the status or the quo part keeps their institutions in the black. So why leave a good area of profit for the potential of more profit but weighed against unforeseen downfalls? No. The Bowl System is fine in their reasoning.  Ask any President and he will say to the effect: "We are a school, not an athletics sideshow." And yet, as we all know, it is this sideshow that boosts the revenue and prestige of a University.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?