College Football Playoff Would Only Enhance AQ Schools and Conferences

On the same week that Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee proclaimed that TCU and Boise State shouldn't be in the BCS title game (click here for a great article on that), Boise State loses a heart-breaker to Nevada, not an AQ school, but a fellow WAC opponent.

Way to show them you belong Boise State!

However, all of this, plus Les Miles' comment that a one-loss SEC school deserves to be in the BCS title game more than Boise State and/or TCU got me to thinking of one thing believe it or not:

College basketball.

Of course while we scorn college football for their lack of a playoff system and talk about the fairness or lack thereof of the BCS, we praise college basketball as having the best system.

But then I also thought about who winds up winning in the end.

I did some research at not just who won, but who were the Final Four teams each year, and came to the conclusion that the BCS actually helps non-AQ schools.

Here's why.

I took a sample from 1998 (the first year of the BCS) up to 2010, and found that:

• No No. 16 seed has beaten a No. 1 seed. I know every year during the tournament this is brought up, but it should be noted that usually a No. 1 vs. No. 16 is between an AQ school and a non-AQ school.
• The top six conferences in all-time bids? The AQ conferences. The Big East leads the pack with 315, while the Pac-10 is last among AQ conferences with 176.
• Here's where it really counts: Final Four appearances. Sure, in the early rounds David slays Goliath. But how many times has David made it to the Final Four? Here's a list of non-AQ teams that got to the Final Four since 1998:

1. 1998: Utah (MWC) lost in the final to Kentucky (SEC).
2. 2003: Marquette (C-USA) lost in semifinals to Kansas (Big XII).
3. 2005: Louisville (C-USA) lost in semi-finals to Illinois (Big 10).
4. 2006: George Mason (Colonial Athletic Association) lost in semifinals to Florida (SEC).
5. 2008: Memphis (C-USA) lost in the final to Kansas (Big XII).
6. 2010: Butler (Horizon) lost in the final to Duke (ACC).

That's six teams from non-AQ conferences out of a possible 52 Final Four teams, only 11.5 percent.

Of those teams, three of them (Utah, Marquette, Louisville) have either since joined or are about to join AQ conferences, two of them (Marquette, Memphis) were fortunate enough to have players that would become mega-stars in the NBA (Dwyane Wade at Marquette in '03, Derrick Rose at Memphis in '08).

Then there's the two that made the finals (Utah, Butler). That's two out of 26 potential finals teams, rounding it up, eight percent.

While we love March Madness, its the AQ schools that play in tougher conferences that dominate, while non-AQ schools tend to get exposed. They may pull off the first-round upset, then follow that up with a second-round upset, but rarely do they make the Final Four.

Just ask Gonzaga, who have been mid-major media darlings the last decade. Their best finish has been an Elite Eight appearance in 1999. They lost to eventual national champion UConn, of course, a Big East school.

So, if you're Boise State or TCU (of course that's if Boise would've taken care of business Friday night against Nevada), what would you rather have?

Would you rather maybe pull off an early tournament upset against a Wisconsin followed by losing to Oregon or Auburn?

Or would you instead just not play any of those teams and complain about being hosed?

Because the truth is, if there was a college football playoff, the first one would be more likely to happen.

Teams from the AQ conferences have tougher schedules. Week-in and week-out, they play against schools with athletic department budgets bigger than most countries GDP, and in many cases in stadiums that hold more people than the total enrollment of most colleges in the country. And those stadiums are loud and hostile places to play, even for middle of the road AQ schools like Michigan or Cal.

This gives them the experience to deal with neutral site bowls and playoff games, something that for the most part, non-AQ schools don't have. 

With or without a playoff system, Ohio State is going to be Ohio State, Texas is going to be Texas, Florida is going to be Florida. The only reason these teams will slip will be because of incompetence like what's going on at normally powerhouse programs like Miami, Michigan and USC right now.

And while its true that anyone can beat anybody at anytime, the norm will wind up showing that the current AQ conferences will win the majority of national titles, whether its through the BCS or a true playoff system.

Maybe in the end, it should be the AQ schools fighting for a playoff, and the non-AQ's championing the BCS. 

For a playoff system would benefit the AQ schools as they would dominate almost year-in and year-out, while the BCS gives non-AQ schools the illusion that they could've won it all, but will "never get the chance."