One of the most common complaints about the BCS system is that sportswriters or coaches shouldn't vote for who the best team is. Critics claim that college football should be like all other sports and have a playoff to prove which team is best. The championship should be "settled on the field."
While there is no doubt that playoffs successfully crown an undisputed champion, it's equally clear that playoffs don't always match up the best teams in the final.
For example, in NCAA's basketball tournament they have been seeding the top teams for the last 30 years. In only one of those years have the four regional No. 1 seeds all made it to the Final Four.
- B/R Ticket Guide
"Cinderella" teams regularly knock out teams who are clearly superior. This cheats fans out of an opportunity to watch the best teams play against each other at the end of the playoffs.
While this isn't as big a problem in 4 out of 7 playoff series in basketball and baseball, it has a much greater impact in single game elimination tournaments like football.
I often call college football's regular season a kind of playoff. The BCS polling system also has its version of a "Cinderella" team.
For example, right now just about everybody agrees that Florida looks like the best team in the country. But, in September, the Gators were beat by Ole Miss.
Is Ole Miss a better team than Florida, or did it just play over its head for 60 minutes and catch some breaks that day?
If it had been a real playoff, we wouldn't get a chance to see Florida play in a final game for the national championship. But because of the BCS polling system's "second chance" opportunity for one loss teams, now we just might get that chance.
It's true that, year in, year out, a playoff crowns an undisputed champion. But it's also true that, year in, year out, the BCS does a better job of matching up the best two teams in a final.
comments (33) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Very good points, and not just because I am a Florida fan. I have been thinking the same thing for years. My favorite aspect of college football is the regular season and how every single game matters so much. A playoff would diminish that more than people think. In college, every game is exciting because you can not lose five or six games and still have a shot at a championship. In the pros, I find myself saying, "well we lost today, but it was a nonconference game, we'll get 'em next week." It is not the same.
from about 1 month ago
In an 8 or 12 team playoff, it would be very difficult for a team to lose more than 2 games and make the playoff. Every game would still matter. One loss would really hurt non-BCS teams and 2 losses would eliminate them. As for BCS teams, a loss would hurt their seeding (and possibly home field advantage). Two losses would eliminate some teams.
For example, look at Texas Tech v. Oklahoma. If we had an 8 team playoff, the game would still be vitally important. OU could not afford to lose the game because they would drop out of the top 8 and lose any chance they had at playing for conference title. Texas Tech could not afford to lose the game because they would lose homefield advantage and possibly a chance to play for their conference title.
Another example, Florida v. Alabama. Assuming both win out until the SEC title game, Bama would be playing for the #1 seed and homefield advantage. Florida would be playing for its playoff spot. If Florida lost, they would likely fall behind undefeated non-BCS teams and 1-loss BCS teams. If Bama lost, Florida would gain homefield advantage and a higher seeding and Bama would likely be force to play its first playoff game on the road.
from about 1 month ago
Welcome to the brotherhood, Jackson!!!!
from about 1 month ago
That makes sense. There are a couple things that still come to mind for me though. The first is what do you do about extending the season for the playoff? Each team would have to add at least one or two extra games depending on how far they go in the "playoff". Not to mention, after they lose, do they go to another Bowl game? Or are the Bowl games part of the playoff? Coaches and students are not going to want to play and practice for games all throughout finals and Christmas for one or two extra games. They would never go for it. Also, if you are a follower of college football, you know that if you are going to lose a game, the earlier in the season you lose, the better. Meaning you have more time to bounce back in the standings. With this 8 team playoff, my team could lose in November and it would not matter except for playing at home. They would still be in. Where as if Texas Tech loses this week, they are pretty much done. If Florida lost to Florida State next week, or South Carolina last week, their National Title hopes would be finished as well. Luckily for me they lost in September and have become the hottest, most efficient team in the nation, therefore winning back points in the BCS and spots with voters. I like to think of myself as a die hard college football fan. It is by far my favorite sport to watch. Maybe I love the option a little too much. Or maybe I enjoy the importance of every game. I still feel as though the idea of a playoff lessens this importance. Even if it is just a little bit.
from about 1 month ago
Yes Jackson, the point is that you can't have a mini playoff. It will create as many problems as it solves. Playoff advocates are thinking clearly when they propose an 8 or 12 team and say it won't effect the regular season much. The only playoff that will work for college is a 24 team, which will likely end up as a 32 team.
about 1 month ago
Thanks for this write up Lou. I figured I was the only one who didn't really want a college football playoff. As long as there are upsets in the game (Ole Miss over Florida), BCS or playoff, no system will be satisfactory. Someone let me know when that day gets here.
from about 1 month ago
Welcome to the brotherhood, J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
about 1 month ago
You made some good points. I still believe a playoff would make some compelling moments college football. If you take the top eight team right now in the BCS and throw them into a playoff you would have some of the best college football games ever. Each game would have that National Championship feel.
First round would be:
No.1 Alabama-No.8 Penn State
No.2 Texas Tech-No.7 Utah
No.3 Texas-No.6 USC
No.4 Florida-No.5 Oklahoma
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment, Walter. If you go to my blog and read back a few posts, I will prove to you that an eight team playoff will have to expand very quickly to a 24 team playoff. If that happens, you will miss our exciting regular season matchups and you would rarely see the top eight actually play off as you have listed above.
about 1 month ago
Considering the college football regular season a 12 week long playoff is pretty accurate. sometimes, losing a single game knocks you (in the case of this year if Bama and Texas Tech go undefeated, one loss teams "lost" the playoff). some years, it's double-elim. i'll give the BCS this: no other sport has such an exciting regular season.
the flip side of the coin is the unfair way some of these 18-22 year old athletes, who may have superiour talent, yet tanked a single game, get left out of the picture. Everyone agrees the two "most talented" teams in CFB as of right now are USC and UF. if bama and TT win out, those two teams don't even have a chance to prove they are the best. but, they DID lose a game where as bama and TT have not.......ok, i'll stop arguing with myself now.
Classic example of "peaking at the right time" as opposed to having superior talent in a playoff system was last years NFL playoff. The giants back into the playoffs, have a micacle play or two in the super bowl, and are crowned champions of the leage, despite the patriots laying waste to team after team in the regular season.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Jamie. Good point about the Giants last year.
Yes, college football is more unpredictable than pro football because of the youth of the athletes. Also, because of classes, the player are less prepared and the opposing teams aren't scouted and game planned as much. That's why we see so many more upsets.
Unfortunately, due to the basic nature of the 119 team 1-A "league", it's impossible to set up a pro style playoff. That's why the college basketball tournament lets in 30 or 40 teams in every year that have absolutely no prayer of winning.
Playoff advocates who think they can set up an 8 or 12 team mini playoff in college football are deluding themselves.
about 1 month ago
"...the BCS does a better job of matching up the best two teams in a final." What about the last 2 years?? 41-14 and 38-17. I think I'm right with the LSU score. In a playoff "elites" from the conferences would be able to play each other and A joke like USC or OSU wouldn't make it. Sorry trojans I said it. =)
from about 1 month ago
Well, if that's the standard, then playoffs do an even worse job. What about all those Superbowl blowouts over the years?
from about 1 month ago
Since 1998(BCS begins) the only blowouts in the Super Bowl are '01 and '03. Those are the only years that teams won by more than 2 scores. There have been 5 blowouts in college football since the BCS started. A four team playoff would be perfect! If you can't get in the top four then how can you argue your case for goin' to the game? Those teams play each other and have a bowl system under that. The only reason I'm against the BCS is teams can get shafted bad. In '04 when AU got ripped that was terrible. In the cp standings Utah is 4th. 4th?? I count 15 teams I think could beat then. Most of them KILL Utah. Utah will get a big bowl and get blown out most likely. I just think the cp's are broken. lol Oh and you keep on saying welcome to the brotherhood. Can I join? I've never really been a part of a group...lol jk
about 1 month ago
How does one define the "best" team? I always though it was whoever wins the championship game, whether via the BCS or a playoff. If a team does not win a championship either way, how can it claim to be the best? I don't think being undefeated qualifies either. One can have a perfect season and not play anyone, and multiple teams could finish undefeated without a playoff system, and there can only be one "best" team. If a team goes undefeated, let's say Utah, without playing anyone in the top 10, then perhaps they should wise up and try to adjust their schedule.
As far as the UF-Ole Miss game, UF played horrible and had injuries, and on that day Ole Miss and Houston the Nutt had the better team, but if it were the playoffs, I think the preparation and intensity would have been dramatically different. Ole Miss is not a traditional rivalry and in a different division, so the implications of a loss early in the season are not as grave as losses to SEC East rivals. In fact, it seems to have been a good thing. Ole Miss is a very good team, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them knockoff LSU and finish 2nd in the West. If UF wins out, then they are in the title game against whichever Big 12 South team survives the shootouts.
from about 1 month ago
In my opinion, the only way to accurately assess the quality of two teams would be to have them play each other ten straight times on a neutral field with identical weather conditions and no injuries to key players.
Since that is not practical, no team can truly claim to the better than the other.
In a playoff, you can just claim you beat a team one time.
In the BCS, at least the pollsters are trying to take the whole season into account. I think in the long run, they do a better job of telling us which team is the best.
Playoffs just tell which team got hot for a couple of weeks and had the ball bounce their way.
about 1 month ago
Lou thinks that champions should be decided by voters rather than by results on the field.
about 1 month ago
It seems to me that the BCS needs one more round of knockdown drag-out cross-conference games to truly be effective every year. It is very close, but there seems to be one or two teams wondering "if" each year. Auburn a few years ago is a good example. Maybe a 4-team playoff would work. Or, perhaps teams could be forced to give up one game and let the BCS schedule a worthy non-conference opponent. More games like OSU-USC, Tenn-California, PSU-Oregon State, and Bama-Clemson should be scheduled for those who do not play significant out of conference rivals. UF plays FSU every year. I think Texas and Arkansas play quite a bit. Hawaii travelled to Florida this year.
Imagine if OSU-USC didn't happen this year. OSU would still be in the BCS hunt and overhyped. Who did Texas Tech play OOC this year? Eastern Washington (5-5), Nevada (6-4), Southern Methodist (1-10), and Massachusetts (6-5). Are you kidding me?
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Zeptogator.
The only expansion I favor is a 3 or 4 team playoff only in years where there are more than 2 undefeated teams with credible strength of schedule.
Your comments about scheduling go right to the heart of the matter. Div 1-A football is not anything like the NFL. They have a 119 teams, not 32. There is no Commissioner that the "owners" ie the colleges have ceded power to. Power resides mostly at the conference level, but individual teams have a great deal independence in setting their own schedules.
It's not possible to set up a pro style playoff in this kind of environment, especially since there is no reverse record order draft system to maintain a balance of power among the teams.
That's why NCAA basketball invites 64 teams to their tournament. It's the only way to do it. In football, that means at least 24.
about 1 month ago
Lou,
Call this returning the favor. This is so illogical as are all of your posts. Of course, the playoff is the right way and notwithstanding your rhetoric it will eventually happen. The BCS will be exposed as a cartel and be disposed of.
from about 1 month ago
Please point out what is illogical about anything I've said.
I don't think there is any question the BCS is a cartel. So what?
about 1 month ago
I can see by your recent articles that you sure aren't too supportive of a playoff in college football. i think a playoff would take away from the intensity of every football game.
from about 1 month ago
Welcome to the brotherhood, Dusty!!!!!
about 1 month ago
It's illogical that Cinderellas aren't worthy to win championships, such as the Giants and Steelers in the NFL. Cartels are bad because they're illegal.
from about 1 month ago
Isn't the argument against the BCS is that it does not have the best teams playing each other for a national championship? I would think the "Cinderellas" are certainly not considered the most deserving of that title.
from about 1 month ago
The system is unfair to Cinderellas, but there is nothing illogical about my argument.
The non-BCS conferences should form their own sub-league and have their own championship. They have the freedom to do that, last I checked.
from about 1 month ago
The system is unfair to Cinderellas, but there is nothing illogical about my argument.
The non-BCS conferences should form their own sub-league and have their own championship. They have the freedom to do that, last I checked.
about 1 month ago
My argument is that if the Cinderellas want fairness, then they need to play one of the big teams. Otherwise, they should quite whining until their conference as a whole belongs year in and year out and has strength top to bottom. Hawaii was in the BCS last year and received a large payout, but they did not belong and everyone knew that. This year they traveled to UF and got throttled. If you can't compete year in and year out, you don't belong in the BCS. If anything, one could argue that the BCS is too soft with the Cinderellas. I say smack the Cinderellas around a bit first, let them break a heel two, and if they bounce back and prove worthy, then invite them to the ball.
I don't think the BCS is inherently a cartel. Cinderellas have just as much of a shot at winning as any other team. What it depends on is the polls and media. If the media spun Utah as clearly the best team in the nation and they remained undefeated, then they could end up in the Championship game. If they had played TT, OU, Texas, or every Oklahoma State and won, then there would be less doubt. Let Utah and the like play against the heavy weights in Big 12, SEC, and Big 10 country.
about 1 month ago
Yes, the BCS is a cartel. There is no shot in hell that Utah, Boise State or Ball State makes it into the "championship game" You can justify it all you want and Utah has decimated Michigan, smacked Oregon State and defeated Texas Christian (two of these teams are ranked in the Top 25) and that's all they can do. Michigan because of its tradition is still a quality win. Boise State has defeated Oregon and while the Ducks have slipped when the Broncos beat them they were a Top 20 team. YOU CAN ONLY PLAY WHO WILL PLAY YOU! Do you understand that? It's unfair and completely illogical to withhold a shot at the title from teams who have done all they can do. By the way Gators fans, Urban Meyer and Bernie Machen are both playoff proponents. That's a conflict of interest. Because they were SCREWED at Utah in 2004 (yes the Fiesta Bowl berth was a monkey shine, what was Pitt doing in a BCS game) they realize how important a playoff is. Pay attention to your coach and president. They'll show you the path.
from about 1 month ago
Utah hardly decimated Michigan, and that isn't saying anything this year. And I'm well aware that Meyer leans toward the playoff system. I am also betting that if Florida goes to its second national title game in three years, he will back off of that argument a little bit. Does anyone honestly think that Utah would compete with the top teams from the Big 12 or the SEC? Ball State barely beat Central Michigan. Sure, that's a big game in that conference, but they wouldn't stand a chance in a game against Texas, Texas Tech, or Florida. And in a playoff, if Ball State did make it all the way through to the title game, ratings would be down and the NCAA would be worse for it. The bottom line is that the NCAA school presidents and all of the boosters will never go for a playoff, and I think that will always be the deciding factor.
about 1 month ago
Michigan, Oregon State, and TCU are not elite top 10 teams. Neither is Oregon. Certainly Utah and Boise State belong in the top 25, but they haven't proven that they belong in the top 5 or 10. Why doesn't Utah schedule Florida then? I'm sure Urban and Machen would be open to that and show Utah the path. Boise State's field should be outlawed. Ball State shouldn't even be in this conversation.
I hope you are right about the BCS being a cartel. I am tired of seeing teams like Hawaii and Notre Dame going to a major BCS bowl, and certainly would hate to see any unproven team getting an undeserved payday. Where is this money coming from anyway? The fans of the Cinderellas? I don't think so.
It is what it is, and right now there are no playoffs, so either your team can try to work within the system like everyone else, or continue to beat it's head against the wall and whine.
about 1 month ago
This is funny. Utah's only win against a ranked opponent is a 3-point win against #15 TCU at home.
The Michigan (3-8, soon to be 3-9) win was by 2 points, 25-23. The Oregon State win was by 3 points. Hardly a decimation.
Decimation signifies a factor of 10, not +2. Florida's 50-point margin against South Carolina would be considered decimation. So would the margins of 30-points (triple decimation of LSU), 46 (Hawaii), 23 (Miami), 24 (Tenn), 31 (Arkansas), 58 (Kentucky), 39 (UGA), and 28 (Vandy).
Certainly Utah is a good team and probably has a good kicking game by squeaking out these wins, but they are nowhere near to being a top 10 team this year and should not be going to a BCS game, with or without a cartel. Sure, lets have a playoff and schedule them in, I've got no problem with watching Utah get decimated.
from about 1 month ago
Well said. I couldn't agree more. haha
write a new comment