This winter when I sat down and watched the Ohio State Buckeyes get thrashed yet again by an SEC opponent in the BCS National Title Game, this time at the hands of the LSU Tigers, I figured the NCAA would finally take the right path of a playoff system.
Unfortunately, this problem is trying to be solved while still keeping the BCS system. I cannot disagree more with this approach. No computer, no "plus 1" idea is going to solve the ever growing controversy of Division I College Football's lack of a playoff.
The arguments will always be there about giving everyone a chance at a postseason and the players missing class, but those are not solid arguments. For those saying everyone deserves a shot, everyone does get a shot at the postseason. It is called the regular season.
For those complaining about the players missing class, there is a simple solution. If the bowl season itself was removed entirely, the playoffs could replace it in that time frame. Now the players would not be missing class, or at least any more than usual. Those types of arguments are trying to tiptoe around what the true blocking force is to a playoff: money.
Every athletic department around the country, specifically those with football programs, are under the gun to stay in the black financially (many football programs lose money by the end of the year). With teams now trying to build state of the art facilities and doing everything possible, whether it be legal or illegal, to bring in blue-chip athletes from around the country.
Money is becoming more important. Every program around the country now knows a 7-6 record with a victory in the prestigious Independence Bowl will bring the program money to stay afloat. There can still be a few bowls with their ever-important sponsors, however, the bowl games could now be playoff games.
For instance, if it was decided the Rose Bowl was the national title game and it was an 8 team playoff, then the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Cotton Bowl could be used as the sites. There we have neutral locations for the games to be played just as they are in the NCAA tournament for basketball.
I do have a deeper issue with this lack of a playoff. As an avid college football fan, I continue to be disappointed in seeing completely mismatched bowl games. Take last year's Sugar Bowl featuring the red hot Georgia and up and coming Hawaii. By all accounts Hawaii was destroyed in that game.
All this game proved was Hawaii couldn't pass block for poor Colt Brennan, and Georgia was one of the best teams in the country at that point. The conclusion of that game did not leave me satisfied, all it left was a feeling of "what if." What if Georgia had played LSU for the title as opposed to Ohio State?
What if LSU was really only the third or fourth best team in the country at that time? My questions could only be answered by a playoff. Now we could finally see that team that heats up at the right time of the year because of a key injury or perhaps one bad game, that typically would be playing in only a BCS game, get its shot.
If there were a playoff last year, LSU probably would not have been in the title game. At that point in time, I figure the seemingly unstoppable teams of Georgia and USC would square off for an epic battle.
Now that my point has been made, it is time to ask yourself if you feel satisfied with the way Division I football runs itself. Right now, you may agree completely or think I am just some nut, but before I am finished I want you to ask yourself what is more exciting, the Final Four or watching College Gameday for the final BCS standings?
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
I'v decided to just stop worrying about it because it's not happening. Not any time soon anyway. With the new TV contract and the BCS for another 6 years, that's the earliest you could even think about having anything other than what we have now.
Basically the Big 10 and the Pac 10 suck because they don't want their precious Rose Bowl to be ruined by not having an annual Big10-Pac 10 matchup. With a playoff, they wouldn't have any control over who they get and they might get an SEC-ACC matchup, who knows. But their commissioners and AD's are a bunch of stuck up pansies who obviously don't care about the college football fan or doing the right thing.
I am personally for a plus one. If you have a playoff, the number nine team will be crying that they got left out, and if you lose 3 games, you shouldn't have a shot at the title. I don't want to see an undefeated team get upset in the title game by a 3 loss team. That sure wouldn't decide who the best team is, would you really take a 3 loss team over a one loss team? It would just decide who got hot at the right time. The regular season is the playoff, then take the top 4 teams and do a plus one. That's the best formula I think.
I also like the bowls. There are too many bowls, but I think the bowls have tradition and reward teams for having good seasons with going to a good location and having a good time. But there don't need to be 34 bowls, that's insane. You just take the top 4 teams, rotate them through the 4 major bowls every year, and then do a plus one for the championship.
4 months ago
Pleae stop hawking Georgia- they did not even make the SEC championship game- they did not deserve to be in the BCS NC game-
You point is well taken about a play off system but money and politics rule- it simply will not happen
4 months ago
Yea sorry about Georgia. I know they didn't make the conference title game but I was using them because they were real hot at the end of the year and were the first team that came to mind. Thanks for the feedback guys!
4 months ago
Good article. Oregon would have been had Dennis Dixon not been hurt.
4 months ago
I keep wondering why the non-BCS Conferences don't just organize a national championship with a spot for each of the BCS Conf champs that would go to a non-BCS team if they (as expected) would decline. I think a playoff system demonstrated by non-BCS teams would rapidly gain fan support and convince the rest of the conferences to either join or risk becoming marginalized at season's end.
4 months ago
This article doesn't really have anything new that hasn't been said yet, nor does it have any proposed ideas for how to reasonably implement any kind of playoff system that would be acceptable.
However, Jeff's idea above makes a lot of sense, and it would barely require any major change to the system. There are just a couple of problems: (1) the Rose Bowl-Big 10-Pac 10 bloc doesn't want any plan that will decrease the frequency of their "traditional" Rose Bowl matchups and (2) most conference commissioners assume that a plus-one (i.e. four-team playoff) would lead the way to an 8-, 12-, or 16- team playoff. The response to those dilemmas:
(1) who cares? The best Rose Bowl ever was the Texas-USC championship game. Was anybody disappointed in that besides the 11 Big Ten teams who weren't in it? I seriously doubt it.
(2) if the conference commissioners are in charge of the playoff system, then why do they worry it will grow into a larger pool of teams? It's not like the playoff will just grow when none of the commissioners is watching; they have to agree to increase the size. It's ludicrous!
I really like Craig's idea for just organizing a separate postseason. Since the NCAA doesn't sponsor a specific championship for football, who's stopping the remaining five non-BCS conferences from organizing their own championship? I guess they would lose their ties to bowl games if they switched to a different postseason format. That's a lot of assured money to lose.
write a new comment