BCS Football: In the Wake of Selection Sunday We Defend the Red-Headed Stepchild

I'm sure that most of you did the same thing I did Saturday night. You watched the Big XII Championship game. Whether you watched it with a big group, a few good friends, or just at the bar, the conversation ultimately moved to Texas and how they're getting screwed (they are) and how a playoff would remedy all of this. One night later, Texas' injustice was confirmed.

In the past, I've argued, often rather strongly, against the BCS and in favor of a playoff. The same can be said for Lisa, BabyTate, Dan Wetzel, and almost every other person who has ever watched or written about sports in any sort of capacity, paid or otherwise.

What everyone has said in their arguments for a playoff are, at least in theory, still true. Yes, far fewer people would be screwed. Yes, the increasing stakes would make it thrilling. Yes, it would help cut into the rampant nepotism that's ever so prevalent in college football.

It's too bad that it's totally impractical.

The more I talked about it, and then the more I looked into the real logistics of a playoff, the more I realized that it would help alleviate, but not eliminate, many of the problems we have with the BCS and still manage to present an entirely new set of issues.

We have to understand: A football playoff would be nothing like the basketball tournament we have each March. Ahead I will lay out a point-by-point case against a playoff; not because I don't want one, but because upon further inspection, it is just not possible.

First, it would have to be no fewer than 16 teams. An eight-team playoff is great on the surface, but it poses some significant issues when looked at more in-depth. The most immediate issue is with the Division I Conference Champions.

There are 12 D-I conferences. The basketball tournament, which everyone seems to reference when arguing for a playoff, includes all conference champions. An eight-team playoff tournament automatically eliminates at least four, if not several more, of those teams. The question that arises is: Who is to decide which conference winners are not deserving?

Having established that there are too many teams to build the playoff via conference champion, we must move to the next suggestion: have a selection committee conduct it, as with the basketball tournament. Again, this is easier said than done; and again, it raises some real questions.

Who determines who is on the committee? What criteria will they use to judge teams? How do we know that the rampant nepotism in the current system wouldn't permeate into the new system? A new way to have the same problem isn't a solution.

It's been suggested that the top eight BCS ranked teams be placed into the tournament, but again there are issues. Nobody is going to argue that the Sun-Belt Champion is going to need to be included, but this season we actually have a case study in how the “BCS Rankings” idea is grossly flawed: Boise State.

Boise State is ranked ninth in the BCS. They've won all of their games, convincingly. They won their conference, in dominant fashion. Every time they've faced a traditional BCS team, they've won and done it in rather spectacular fashion.

Under the “take the top eight teams” theory, they'd be denied, and for the exact aforementioned reasons, would have a very legitimate gripe. The message that would send is: It doesn't even matter if you win all of your games, you still don't even get the right to compete for the National Championship.

Ohio State is ranked 10th. Other than a brutal loss to the USC Trojans, they've done nothing to warrant being kept out of the chance to even compete for a Championship other than taking the Big Ten Champions (who, by the way, would be in) down to the wire.

Even if we have a panel select all eight teams, that still doesn't even come close to ensuring that the eight most deserving teams would be invited. Nepotism transcends generations.

Therefore, the 16-team format would have to be adopted. It would allow all the conference champions to compete, which would be the proper way to conduct a playoff, and would allow teams who finished a close second a chance to prove they are just as good.

However, we're led back to the questions of “who determines who happens to go,” etc. It also leads to a questions of logistics.

The next question would be: Where are these games going to be played? The popular idea seems to be home games (a la aforementioned Mr. Wetzel). However, again, glaring issues arise and are not addressed.

Who gets the home games? The obvious answer seems to be the higher seeded team. But, that's too simple of an answer.

Let's take Utah as an example. They're a team that has won every game they've played. They've won convincingly. Their conference beat up everyone. They'd also, more likely than not, be a lower seed.

They'd have a legitimate gripe. As a reward for beating everyone, they get to go on a marathon road trip? While on the flip side, their first round opponent, who would more than likely be an at-large bid, gets rewarded for not even winning their conference with the opportunity to stay at home.

Just as perturbing to the traveling school, would be the loss of revenue. Again to Utah, their prize for beating everyone? They get the smaller share of the gate as a visiting team.

The next obvious solution: Play all of the games on neutral sites. That's how the NCAA Basketball Tournament does it, and they get great results. Again, this is far easier said than done, and all the questions that I am about to pose are left unanswered by supporters of a playoff.

First, who hosts these games? If the sites are determined more than a year in advance, which one would think they'd have to be, what happens if a team involved in, say, the Final Four, happens to be hosting it as well? Do they get a larger cut? If not, why? Who determines which teams play where? None of these questions is unimportant and none ever gets answered when people argue for a playoff.

Second, many schools aren't going to want to go to any stadium where there is any sort of disadvantage, real or perceived. Ball State didn't even want to take a guaranteed pay day, national exposure for their franchise, and a very winnable matchup against Boise State in the Humanitarian Bowl.

Can you even begin to imagine the uproar that would occur if, say, Boise State had to travel to Happy Valley in the dead of winter?

Sure, I'll concede that what Ball State did was a small-time move by a small-time program, but it teaches us an important lesson when discussing this: Schools understand that the winner's share is bigger, and they'll do everything they can to make sure they'll get that particular cut, bowl game or not.

In fact, I'd go so far as to throw this out: Many teams with longer shots might even decline a playoff invitation in favor of the much larger, guaranteed pay day of a major bowl game.

Let's use Ball State again. They'd, at best, be a three seed (the approximate equivalent of about a 12 seed). If offered the chance to play a neutral site opener in Los Angeles, or to take the guaranteed (and more than likely significantly higher) pay-out or the Orange Bowl, which do you think they'd choose given their recent actions?

No matter what your playoff scenario happens to be, the bowls won't go away. Any smaller school that was offered a spot in that large of a bowl game, no matter what the reason, would be acting highly imprudent.

The increased exposure, the chance to win something tangible to build on, and the higher pay (at least for the first round or two, depending on if the playoffs are eight or 16 teams) would do a program far better than being shelled in the opening round a playoff tournament.

And if we can't even get all the deserving teams into the tournament, what are we playing for? We'd be left asking if we'd really made any improvement at all.

The third issue with neutral sites has to do with money. The NCAA tournament does well because you can often purchase a pass for all the games, and thus increase your dollar's entertainment value. The significantly more physical nature of football, combined with how long each game takes to play, all but guarantees that that can't possibly happen.

Finally, we have to wonder who will be going to all of these neutral site playoff games. Obviously the Championship Game will sell itself, and I'll even go so far as to concede that the semifinals would sell themselves. But beyond that, it's a tougher sell than you'd think.

Considering all that was on the line Saturday night, one would have thought Arrowhead Stadium would be packed to the gills, but there were plenty of seats (some quite good) clearly still available.

This, despite the fact that Oklahoma was, for all intents and purposes, in a championship semifinal, and despite the fact that it was being played in the home state of the other team, Missouri. In fact, the Missouri campus isn't even too far from Kansas City.

If conferences can't even sell out their own championships when trips to the national title game are on the line, how can we expect to fill neutral site playoff games on a consistent basis?

I understand that some teams travel very well. But there are only so many alumni of the big-time programs to go around, and many of them plan their trips as once a year flings because said trips happen to be very expensive.

You can say that you're a die-hard fan, and that you'll follow your team anywhere, anytime, as much as you want. When you're looking at several hundred dollars per ticket, plus food, travel expenses, and hotel rooms, then looking at repeating the process for the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals, the price tag beings to get rather daunting, which will be compounded as the costs are bound to increase as the stakes do. More often than not, even the one trip is a real stretch for alumni.

You're looking at several thousand dollars, per group, per week, minimum. Most people, particularly in a recession like we're in now, don't have that kind of money for entertainment. If you do, I'd like to become best friends.

The bottom line is that postseason college football is expensive, and the bowl system not only accommodates the schools with both glory and big cash compensation, it also gives the fans the chance to enjoy first hand, a meaningful postseason without spending several thousand dollars.

Again, in a perfect world, we'd still have a playoff. If done properly, it would leave no more questions as to if we got it right. Everything on that end, at least in theory, does hold water. And if you really think you can think of one, God bless ya, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to have a great epiphany.

A playoff would be great, but it's just not practical. No matter what solutions are offered up, there are often a plethora of unanswered questions, all of which, if left as such, pose significant issues of their own. As that old song goes “you can't always get what you want.”

Now, sit back, relax, and enjoy the bowl season.

I know I will.

You're currently logged into Facebook

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