Asking the right question in the BCS v. Playoff debate
19 comments so far
May 12, 2009 by
Until last Thursday it was difficult to put a face on the cabal of conference commissioners, corporate sponsors, television networks and bowl committee members who continue to thwart the cries from the pro-playoff populace and offer up the BCS as some sort of bread line alternative. They were a nasty but mostly nameless group, out of touch with Obamamerica, people who probably don't give a damn about Shepard Fairey, and that made them painfully easy to rail against but tough to label as anything more insightful than "idiots."
Now, however, we have J.C. Watts, defender of the BCS and lobbyist for hire. Playoff-pushers now have not just a face for their scorn, but a price tag as well. According to Politico, Watts has been paid $620k over the past five years to essentially defend the BCS or, in the minds of many, $124k a year to defend the indefensible. Much like he carved up Big 8 defenses 30 years ago at Oklahoma, Watts can now stand as a well-paid figurehead neatly cleaving college football fandom into two unequal parts.
But as is typically the case with any issue viewed as black and white, people argue until they're blue in the face about the grey areas and everyone ends up with a red ass. It's all very colorful but not very productive as the central question is almost always lost.
This isn't another argument for or against a college football playoff, rather it's a questionnaire. A one question questionnaire that gets right to the heart of the matter: How important is it to you to know who the best team in college football is in any given year?
It's a personal question that requires a personal answer, but isn't that ultimately what the playoff versus bowls debate is about? How badly any given person needs to know definitively who is the best in any given year?
Personally, I don't think I need to know that badly. On a scale of 100, I'd rate my "need to know" about a 52. Sure, I'd like to know from year to year, but I don't need to know because I've never felt cheated watching college football. Every Saturday I hope Nebraska wins and, whether they do or not, I watch as many of the other games as humanly possible. For those glorious four months of the fall, this seems like the perfect existence regardless of the outcome.
And that's where the vehemence surrounding this issue--on either side--loses me. Locally, the bowl/playoff argument is almost irrelevant. The annual BCS scramble typically involves three to four teams and the odds are long that your team will be involved. When they are, there is always the chance that they might be left holding the short straw because that's what happens when you draw straws.
I'll be the first to admit that drawing straws seems like a horrible way to decide a "national champion," but in every outcome other than the one just described your season following your team is unlikely to feel different than any other season. You'll feel the same sort of elation for the first game and the same sort of depression after the final game that you do every year. Then you'll do it again next year. The experience of college football is consistent, the outcome is not.
Or, at least for me, the experience is consistent. But the growing support for a playoff--you could probably have upgraded it to a "furor" once our president elect tossed his playoff hat into the ring--seems to indicate that for a large number of people, many of whom are the die hard fans reading and writing Internet sites such as this one, the experience is being diluted by that same lack of a consistent outcome.
For some fan out there, Michigan's 3-9 season last year was made worse by the fact that he or she believed USC was the best team in the country but they didn't get to prove it. Swap out the teams and you're starting to describe a lot of people. Why?
Rather than offer up some poetic explanation involving American's deep rooted desire for results, or, for the few bowl backers left, trot out the "beauty of the argument" argument, I'll simply be honest: I don't know.
There are two kinds of people out there: those who love movies that end ambiguously and those who hate movies without an "ending" and, while you can argue the superiority of one over the other, you can't answer it. But before you can even get to the arguments--the wacky and well conceived playoff schemes, the plus-ones, the bowl and conference realignments--you have to make sure you're asking the right question so I'll pose it again: How badly do you need to know who is the best team in college football?
The sport as it is doesn't have an ending and, like J.C. Watts I suppose, I'm perfectly fine with that.
How about you?
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: BCS
Post a comment
bnahusker May 12 09
I'm "Old School" (Some just say old)
I'll answer your question with another question.
How often does the underdog beat the "Best" team? (Giants 17 - Patriots 14)
In The Super Bowl as well as College championship games, there have been several upsets. And while we crown the winner and celebrate their title, we often "Know" that the losing team was the best team THAT YEAR.
A playoff is not going to answer the question any better than the Bowl System and may actually create more of a mess than we have now.
On the side.........
The economy is in shambles, we are at war and I've been out of work since November so screw the President's opinion on this until it is the biggest problem on his plate.
Make sure that the Utahs, Boise States and BYUs of the world are fairly included and keep the bowl system!
GBR!
Bob
darren May 12 09
The BCS/playoff discussion...here we go.
I'm against a playoff system. First, it will never happen b/c the NCAA doesn't want to "extend" the season (i.e., don't want to cut games at the beginning, because they would lose $). Also, playoffs aren't perfect either. Were the Cardinals and the Steelers the two best teams in the NFL? Doubtful....
So, if we are left with the inherently flawed current system, oh well. College football has been flawed since the dawn of time. I mean, it was/is decided primarily by *opinion* polls. The debate is what stirs the drink.
Finally, if the BCS wants to spend their lobbying dollars wisely, they might want to direct Mr Watts to force the Big 10/11, PAC 10 and Big East to add schools. Once they are all at 12 schools and have title games, it will all work much, much better.
The fact that the BCS allows for such unequal qualifications across conferences is the real problem.
And, then, with everyone playing a title game to *qualify* for the BCS, won't that first week in December (those title games)feel a whole lot like playoffs? It already does with just the 3 conferences doing it. So, join the fun Pac, Big and East.
James Moore May 12 09
Well I went to the archives and under "Blow Up The BCS" dated January 8, 2009 and I'll just stick to what I posted then regarding the BCS:
"I've always thought that they should keep the Bowl and BCS System but add one tweak to the end of the process. . .
The Bowl Season and all the bowl games are great. Every one is important because they offer the few teams who are fourtunate enough to earn the rights to go the opportunity for an extra month of practice, the chance to finish the season with a win, more reps, more hitting before Spring Practice, and most important, momentum going into the spring. This process is priceless for college football, and the fact that some merit is involved with being invited to a Bowl Game should not be removed. It is essential for the maturation of programs and players. . .
Keep the BCS. Polls, standings everything. They bring attention to the sport. But where the BCS is GREAT for college football is the payouts for winning a BCS game. West Virginia, Boise State, Utah, Kansas & Virginia Tech have all been awarded payouts between $10-$14-17 million over the past few years. For Boise State and Utah to get 8-figure payouts for winning their games is EVERYTHING for those schools, the respective athletic budgets, and their ability to meet their student-athletes needs in the in the best manner possible. It means as much for football facilities as it does for Water Polo traveling accomodations. Not every school has a T Boone or a Phil Knight as alumns. . .
Play all the Bowl Games, every one & make the Cotton BCS too. When they're all done, play a Final Four taken from the final Coaches and BCS poll standings. So for this year you would have the winner of Oklahoma/Florida, Utah, USC & Texas. Oklahoma (assuming a loss to Florida), this time you would be out because you got the first chance to play for the BCS National Game BUT because Texas beat you head-to-head, you would get voted out for the Final Four. If Oklahoma wins then you have Oklahoma, Utah, USC & Texas for the Final Four in my solution(Florida with two losses could not get in if they were to lose to Oklahoma due to everyone ahead of them being undefeated or with one loss). Play the Semifnals of The Final Four the Saturday of NFL Conference Championship Weekend and the National Championship the week before the Super Bowl. The money is EVERYTHING for those Cinderellas who crash the dance and the win. Those payouts mean a lot, for a lot of people. . ."
AustinHusker May 12 09
I am all for a playoff. I have heard every argument at least a million times. It reminds me of the old saying 'Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink'. I will never be convinced of the arguments, longer seasons etc. It works for every other sport in every other division but not Div I football. Are you kidding me? It is the most idiotic comment I have ever heard repeated a million times.
I could go on for hours but let me just answer the question. Scale of 1 to 100, 83 for me. It is easier for me though because as a husker fan I can almost be assured that if the Huskers go undefeated they will win the NC, no if, ands or buts. Others cant.
So I can live with either, but there should be a playoff.
Paul May 12 09
I'm with AustinHusker - I think people just want something to bitch about. Do you think if we went to a playoff system the debate would go away? Nope, schools ranked 9th would bitch that they were "shut out" of an 8 team playoff, so they would expand to 16, then 32, then 64.....
I think the main problem with the BCS is the long layoff between the end of the season and the BCS Championship game. Rarely do the two teams playing in the game resemble the teams that played during the season and I think the long layoff has a lot to do with it.
Dwayne May 12 09
We already have a playoff. Right now, it's two teams. And trust me, it will be expanded to more at some point. I never ever thought I would see 1 vs. 2. It's here. It's flawed. And nothing will ever be perfect. I would never want to see an expansion of more than 4 teams and 6 at the unmistakeable most.
Ontology May 12 09
I think most playoff-backers (like me) wouldn't have such an aversion to the current system if its proponents didn't claim that it does decide who the "best" team is in any given year. As long as the winners of the BCS Championship Game get the cool trophy and a trip to the White House, the BCS system is rewarding what it determines to be the "best" team. That only a handful of teams from a few historically strong conferences have a chance at achieving that designation is the primary injustice of the current system, in my opinion.
People care, Brandon, because almost no one exclusively follows their favorite team in the manner you describe. I'm a Husker fan first and foremost, but I'm also a college football fan. I, like 95% of fans I'd imagine, watch other teams and care about the broader goings-on in the sport. The BCS is a giant stinking cow-pie in the middle of the college football landscape. Even if your team isn't involved the in the BCS hunt, it still stinks things up for everyone else.
TundraHusker May 12 09
The vast majority of the calls for a playoff are seriously flawed and wouldn't solve anything. Here's why.
Each playoff plan I have heard calls for a playoff field, generally 8 teams, to be determined then played to a conclusion. This would solve nothing because there is no subjective way to determine the playoff field.
Most plans call for the top 8 ranked teams. If you think setting a playoff field for a championship tournament in such a manner would settle anything you are mistaken.
The only objective way to determine a National Champion among BCS teams it to restructure the schedules and dates with the purpose of determining a champion. Mandate an end date for regular season play and then take conference champions and at large teams, put them in a bracket then play the bracket out.
This objective playoff system would be at the expense of the bowl season and that simply won't fly.
The point is that people will be complaining about the way the national champion is determined regardless of the method.
TundraHusker May 12 09
sorry second paragraph 3rd line should read
"nothing because there is no OBJECTIVE way to determine the playoff"
James Moore May 12 09
The BIGGEST problem with the BCS is the lack of INCENTIVE of the NCAA to bust flagrant cheaters, or at the very least when Heisman Trophy TB's get caught getting $250K (Reggie Bush), driving SUV's from prominent local dealers (Maurice Clarett), academic cheating scandals (Florida State), and others to ENFORCE rules & regulations. Simply put the NCAA doesn't want to throw Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Florida State, or others on probation because the thought that a flagship program not being able to make a BCS game, travel, help TV ratings, and the NCAA coffers is too much of a loss. There is a serious conflict of interest between enforcing existing NCAA rules and holding those who break them accountable. . .
The proof? Well since 1998 name the last big time program from a BCS tie-in conference to go on serious probation (lose scholarships, TV & Bowl bans)? THIS is the strategic flaw in the BCS system. . .
TundraHusker May 12 09
"The proof? Well since 1998 name the last big time program from a BCS tie-in conference to go on serious probation (lose scholarships, TV & Bowl bans)? THIS is the strategic flaw in the BCS system. . ."
Florida State 2009
Oklahoma 2007
Kipe May 12 09
JC, I really hope you're successful with this. People just..don't...REALIZE that the BCS is what makes college football the best game in America. Everybody's screaming and yelling for a stinking playoff system, having no idea how artificial that 'National Champion' would be.
The BCS just needs to publish its criteria for determining where teams are ranked on how their seasons have evolved on a weekly basis. I hope you folks understand and study the previous sentence.
Look at college basketball, or most Super Bowls, especially when my Steelers won the Super Bowl after winning, what, 9 regular season games? They were really the best team from week 1 through week 19? Of course not. They just got hot at the right time. That doesn't necessarily make them the best team of that year.
Giants-Patriots are an even better example. Sure the G-Men won the big game, but overall, they SPLIT the two games they played that year. New England beat them in New Jersey. The Patriots lost once that year, to a team they beat earlier. And I'm positive the Patriots beat teams who beat the Giants. They had to have!
Much like you are not evaluated by simply your final exam, the BCS takes other things, necessary things, to determine what team is having a better year than another. Where did this team lose? To whom? By how much? And what did that team do that year?
At the end of the day, the BCS gets is right more than they do wrong...
Erik May 12 09
First, I'll answer the question posed in the original post:
100 if my team has a shot, 60 or so otherwise
Unfortunately and unlike most all the other commenters here, I am a fan of a team that doesn't get to trade on it's name and tradition in college football. So allow me to pose a different question to all of you, for curiosity's sake:
How badly do you need to know who is the best team in college football if Nebraska ends the year ranked #3 in the BCS while having a perfect 13-0 record?
I know, I know, it's a ridiculous hypothetical. If Nebraska goes 13-0 there is almost zero chance they'd not end up ranked 1 or 2. But just imagine if it were to happen... how would you feel about the BCS then?
You guys have the luxury of getting all of the benefit from the rigged system (as seen by fans of teams like mine), so try to put yourselves in our place for a moment and re-examine the question from a different point of view.
If you still mostly favor the BCS and the bowl system, I'll be surprised.
James Moore May 12 09
"The proof? Well since 1998 name the last big time program from a BCS tie-in conference to go on serious probation (lose scholarships, TV & Bowl bans)? THIS is the strategic flaw in the BCS system. . ."
Florida State 2009
Oklahoma 2007
Oklahoma was banned from TV for how long? Their Bowl Ban is in effect until when? Florida State got off easy. Imagine if TCU or Tulsa was accused of the same level of violations that Florida State, USC, or Ohio State? Do you think TCU or Tulsa would get off as easy as Florida State did?
Dwayne May 12 09
1 USC 12-0
2 Oklahoma 12-0
3 Auburn 12-0
That's what happened at the end of 2004. This will happen again. The BCS has no formula that best selects the top two. There is too much money at stake for programs to be denied with a very valid beef to play in that game. This is my only problem with the current system. It isn't any better than what the bowl system in the 80's offered. Erik, I totally agree with your hypothetical. And on one other note, an expanded playoff system in my humble opinion will hurt teams like NU and only benefit those like USC who are loaded with talent.
bnahusker May 12 09
Erik...........
Long version - Please provide the name of your team. I'm guessing Utah, but can't be sure.
Since there will not be a playoff anytime soon, I think that all efforts should go to ensure that there is an objective way to determine who is #1 and #2. (Computers only?) As long as the selection is based on voting by humans, there will be influence.
They should also have weighted values for playing tough schedules. A win over an FCS team should not count as a win. If you want to open with The Citadel or Missouri State, go ahead. But it will only count as a scrimmage in the BCS world. As I have mentioned in previous posts, I know that our Beloved Huskers are as guilty as any other team, so let's change it for everyone.
The BCS rules must also be amended so that all BCS aligned conferences have a Championship game. Don't ask Notre Dame, TELL Notre Dame to get into a conference if they want in the BCS, if only for football, and as an associate member or whatever. Then, the first two weeks of each season have EVERY team play a team from another conference that finished at a similar level the previous year. Power teams shouldn't be able to totally avoid the Utahs, Boise States, (Insert favorite school here) and BYUs every year. Let the NCAA or BCS force the issue.
Still not a perfect world but then again, no playoff is perfect either. I can already hear you when your school finishes 9th in a scramble for an 8 team playoff.
Short version - If your team is Utah, get over it. Your attendance average for a 10 year span needs to be double the 40,307 that is currently shown on the school's web site. If Utah is not providing some of the revenue that goes into the pot, they can quit complaining that they aren't getting enough out of it. Because at this level, and all others, it's all about the $$$$$
GBR!
Bob
Brandon May 12 09
Ontology,
I respectfully disagree. I'd say the majority of fans, particularly those outside of Big 12/SEC country, care more about the local goings on than the national scene. It's not that they don't follow it, but I would say most people are in depth with their team and sort of knowledgable about everything else.
People like you and I follow it all. I'd say most Nebraska fans are that way, but I wouldn't say that, to use my local example, Boston College fans are that way in general. The playoff argument to me has always seemed like something the lukewarm cfb fan is as invested in as the diehard is. In fact, I know huge sports fans who dismiss cfb out of hand because there is no "winner."
And to that I say fine. For the dyed in the wool fan of the game, the experience still remains the same.
(If this post makes no sense, it's because I typed it on my phone. Sorry.)
Daryl May 14 09
I agree with the post that the layoff of 4weeks between the end of the conf. season and BCS bowls changes a teams performance. At no other time do you get 30 days to prepare for an opponent. As for Utah, had they really wanted to up their chances for being considered for the championship game why did they cancel their game against Texas in both 08 and 09.
GBR
Robert May 23 09
I am against the BCS all the way! There should be a playoff. I know that some people think the BCS is good. A computer determing who goes to the championship is overated and unfair. If you think that if there was a playoff, there will be know more bowl games. Wrong. You can turn the current BCS system into playoffs. The could be a 16 team tournament. The teams that does not make it to the tournament go to a bowl game. In the tournament, The first round could be games like Papa Johns, Liberty and other small bowl games. The 2nd rould could be Cotton, Capital One, and other big bowl games. The 4 major bowl games,Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowl could be quarter finals. The you could have national semi- final, the Final Four. The winners of that could go to the National Championship. Its sad that the NCAA is to sturburn and money hungry. Its sad for players, teams, coaches, and fans.