A Message to All Media Members in Favor of a College Football Playoff: Shut Up!

I am so sick and tired of hearing about a playoff system in Division 1-A College Football. I read the article, "A Vote for USC Is a Vote for Change", by Lee Russakoff this afternoon, and I have finally boiled over.

So I have decided to respond to Mr. Russakoff and every other media member and fan out there.

Dear media members in favor of a playoff in college football,

You really need to stop all your talking about a playoff system. I realize the BCS is not a perfect system, but no system we ever come up with will ever be good enough for you.

This is because you will be unhappy unless the two teams you WANT to see playing for a national championship actually end up in the title game.

Your minds are all biased. Why do you think a team like Utah that went 13-0, beat an Alabama team that ALL of you voted the No. 1 team in the country for almost half the season, and will still probably not win any sort of championship?

This is because you didn't think they were good enough. I realize computers play a factor in determining the best team in the country, but two-thirds of the BCS formula is the human polls.

Don't even try and tell me I just made a reason for us to have a playoff, either. I didn't see Utah anywhere near the top of your precious and pretty much meaningless AP Poll.

Let’s face the facts here, folks. The only reason the AP Poll is around is because every sportswriter in America would be on strike if we got rid of it.

Ok, now it's time to look at your proposed solution to the BCS "problem."

The favorite amongst writers, ESPN analysts, fans, and even President Obama seems to be an eight-team playoff.

The top eight teams in the BCS are seeded by their ranking and will play on the sites of the four current BCS bowl games. They all seem to agree this is the only way to find a consensus No. 1 team.

Why do we need a system so everyone can agree on a champion? This system allows fans everywhere to believe they have the best team in the country.

Besides, more often than not, the hotter team ends up winning a playoff and not necessarily the best team.

Look at the NFL playoffs last year. Do the majority of you really think the New York Giants were really better then the undefeated New England Patriots? 

Also, do you really think the best team in college basketball wins the NCAA tournament every year? No, there are so many teams and so many upsets that the higher seeds don't even make the Final Four. 

Expanding a playoff field to any more than eight teams would cut into the bowl games, which are a big tradition. These games are a great reward for teams at the end of a season and should be left alone.

However, if you only have eight teams, then how do you explain to the team ranked ninth or tenth that they don't deserve to play in the playoff? Well that leaves us in the same situation we're in right now, because somebody still gets left out.

Oh and the reason Texas got left out of their conference championship game was because of their conference's choice of tiebreakers.

If they had the same tiebreaker as most of the major conferences, then it would have come down to the head-to-head game, which means Texas would have been playing for the Big 12 championship.

This was not the BCS's fault; it is the Big 12's fault for having that tiebreaker. The Big 12 has been looking into changing their tiebreaker since this took place.

So now I will ask you all a question. What would a playoff really fix? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Now, Mr. Russakoff, it's your turn. In your article you say, "Season upon season of corruption, tyranny, and illegitimate champions." Just which champions are not deserving?

LSU played one of the toughest schedules in the country last year just like Florida the year before and Texas before them.

Just because USC beats up on pretty much no one in the Pac 10 and wins one big non conference game doesn't mean they should play in the national championship game every year.

This system was designed to make teams stop scheduling weak non-conference opponents. If you play the highest level of competition, and you have the same number of wins and losses as everyone else, then you're probably going to play for a national title.

So until USC stops stubbing their toes against unranked Pac 10 opponents like Stanford and Oregon State, they probably won't be playing for a national title. However, if they would just win the games they're supposed to, then we wouldn't have this conversation.

Also, you said, "If the BCS Championship Game consistently fails to give us the AP champion, how much longer will it really matter?"

Ok, why should their even be an AP champion? Who really cares who wins the AP championship? The real national championship is decided on the field in the championship game. If you don't like it, then stop watching college football.

In all reality, what does the AP poll really mean, Mr. Russakoff? The answer is absolutely nothing. It doesn't factor into the BCS formula and doesn't decide who gets to play for that big trophy with the diamond football on top of it.

So why don't we get rid of it? Well, if we did that then, the people on ESPN couldn't complain about the team that is ranked third and should win this stupid AP championship.

I have just one last thing to say to you, Mr. Russakoff. It is true college football  "crowns its champion with voters and computers." It is also true no other major sport does.

However, this is what makes college football so great. It's why people tune in every Saturday to watch their favorite teams.

This system isn't perfect, but a playoff is nowhere close to perfect either. So all of you sportswriters and analysts quit complaining YOU can't decide who gets to play for the national championship.

Sincerely,

Zach Dirlam