Why a Playoff Would Ruin College Football

by user Swilson3

I'm new here. I've just been around a week or so. And I am already doing the unthinkable. I'm writing an opinion that 99% of loyal, God-fearing, sports nuts are going to hate.

I'm going to defend the BCS. I'm going to show love to the current bowl system. I'm going to show why a playoff for college football would be a terrible idea.

And you will all hate me for it. And probably never listen to what I have to say ever again. It's ArmchairGM suicide. But somebody has to stick up for the poor Bowl Championship Series. If not me, who? If not now, when?

There appears to be general feeling throughout college football fandom and a playoff for college football is imminent. Eventually enough teams are going to "get screwed" out of playing for National Championship, enough sports reporters are going to throw crazy fits in front of a TV camera, enough coaches are going to write formal complaints, and "the powers that be" are eventually going to get tired of having to answer for the BCS system that everyone apparently hates. They'll bite the bullet and eventually a playoff will be in place for College Football, and all will be right in the world again.

God, I hope not!

College Football, as it exists right now, is special. It's special for a couple of reasons. It's special because it has more history associated with it than any other mainline sport. With that history comes tradition. Each team, carries with it the weight of all the teams that came before them. I mean, they were playing College Football 1800's! The Rose Bowl has been around since 1902! That's before Major League Baseball existed as it does today! There is more to these games, than the games. It's an event. Drastically altering this event, would be a huge mistake, because the history, the tradition is part of what makes it special.

Another part of what makes it special is the emphasis it places on the regular season. From the first game of year to the last, each game carries with it a playoff atmosphere. There is very little chance a team will be playing for a NC if they lose one game. Just one game. College Football is about perfection. No other sport can boast the same. Take for example College Basketball. It has a great post season, but that only lasts for three or four weeks. The majority of the regular season is just about tring to make the tourny, which really isn't all that difficult. 20 wins... and you are pretty much in. And if you don't have 20 wins, all you have to do is string together a couple of wins in the Conference Tourney. Really, the regular season in College Basketall is pointless. A playoff in college football would take the amazing regular season, rich with all the meaning in the world, and empty it. It would be just a another NFL. That would be a tradgedy.

The BCS, provides for a way to (1) maintain the importance of the regular season, (2) maintain most of the tradition with the bowls, and (3) compare Strength of Schedule to put the two most deserving teams on the field for the Championship Game.

It is a great option, because it gives us a way to have an actual champion, without ruining the game. A playoff would only subtract from what is a very special sport. The sooner fans realize this the better off they will be.

Date

Fri 08/04/06, 9:03 am EST

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1216 days ago

Score -3

I agree with you entirely. Part of what would make it great is the fact that you can have discussions about who is best despite not knowing about it. I presume the current system involves the team with the best record winning. That seems fair. It is used throughout the world in football, where, e.g. the leader of the League wins the title. I know they don't play all the teams, but a definite winner is not that important. It's a College Game, so there aren't going to be multi-million dollar deals that cripple a franchise for years to come. The bitterness of defeat will pass in three years when the next generation comes through. College Football is about getting them into the NFL. Knowing who the 100% outright winner is is not that important.

Permalink | Reply

I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer

1216 days ago

Score -1

Never really though of it like that before. Good points and welcome to the site!

Permalink | Reply

Bball3345Draft Pick

1216 days ago

Score 2

I agree with your argument; however, major league baseball existed before 1902.

Permalink | Reply

Swilson3Waterboy

1216 days ago

Score 2

Well, at least Wikipedia agrees with me, what ever that is worth.

"...National League and the American League, by means of a joint organizational structure which has existed between them since 1903..."

http://en.wi...gue_baseball

Permalink

Swilson3Waterboy

1216 days ago

Score 2

Ok, nevermind about that. I stand corrected. 1876 is when MLB was officially formed. 1903 is when the National League and American League joined.

Permalink

Bball3345Draft Pick

1216 days ago

Score 1

That is true. The American League began in 1901 and the National League in 1876; however, they did not combine until 1903.

Permalink

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 0

Nice try, I'll try to go gentle on you since this is your first article:

Minor point: MLB in it's current form has been around since 1901, when the first World Series was played. The National League even futher back then that.

Permalink | Reply

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 0

Oops, 1901 was when the American league joined. The first World Series wasn't until 1903. Never mind.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1216 days ago

Score 3

Good to see everyone knows what's going on...

Permalink | Reply

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 3

Second point - History: College football has already changed since the days of yore. Teams have come and gone, there wasn't even an NCAA back then. So it's hardly fair to compare the 1870's when Princeton and Harvard played their first game to the game of the 21st century.

Furthermore, teams routinely keep the tradition along with the changing times. The Cubs are still remembered as not winning a World Series since 1908, even though divisional play and an expanded playoffs has occured since then. Same with the NFL and Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals. The league has changed in a multitude of ways but they're still remembered as their last NFL championship being in 1947. Adding a playoff would not change what happened in the past. All it would change is how the champions of today would be determined.

The problem of the current bowl structure is probably the biggest problem, but a national playoff and the bowl structure do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1216 days ago

Score -2

I think the point Swilson3 was trying to make was that a change in the structure would be a bad thing, as it would detract from the past. The current method would be better than a revised version. If it ain't broke...

Permalink | Reply

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 3

Except it is broke. Who was the 2003 national champion? Or how about 2004?

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1216 days ago

Score -3

But does it matter who won? Since all it is really for is getting the standout players into the NFL, the winneing and losing team isn't that important.

Permalink

Swilson3Waterboy

1216 days ago

Score -1

Ok, so I knew I would get slammed for this. To answer Icemanvt's questions. The 2003 winner of National Championship was LSU. In 2004 the winner was USC. Those questions were REALLY easy. (I would have expected more difficult ones).

Permalink

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 1

Funny, I could've sworn that ESPN was saying that USC was going for a three-peat last January. Or did I heard differently?

Permalink

Swilson3Waterboy

1215 days ago

Score 0

That's because ESPN is a load of crap.

Permalink

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 3

Third point - The regular season: You're point is valid if they expand the playoffs to some ungodly number where you can be half-way decent in the regular season and still make the playoffs. Of course, you can still be only half-way decent and still make the BCS (see Florida State last year or Pitt from 2004).

By only having a four team playoff with no conference restrictions, you can solve that problem by having the regular season still matter. As soon as you start adding rules and restrictions, you end up with teams that do not deserve being on the bigger stage being there.

The fact of the matter is that the BCS is an ass-backwards way of determining a national champion, which is what it is designed for. To begin with, it's biggest failure is the way they determine the teams playing in the BCS. Between the Notre Dame exception, the guaranteed spots for the BCS conferences and the fact that it relies on the collective "wisdom" of sportswriters and coaches who do not see every team play, the BCS ends up crowning a champion based not on what is done on the field, but what is done off the field. That's what a playoff would solve.

Permalink | Reply

Swilson3Waterboy

1216 days ago

Score 0

The four team playoff would not take as much away from the regular season as a 16 team playoff, correct. But it would still take something away. Picture this: There are three undefeated teams at the end of the year and three one loss teams. First of all, why should an undefeated team have to prove itself against a team with a loss. Second of all, who decides which one loss team gets to go to the playoff? It doesn't make any more sense than leaving out the third undefeated team that played a weaker schedule than the two other undefeated teams. That is what the BCS does, and it is, in my opinion, the best way to have the important regular season as well as an official National Champion!

Permalink

IcemanvtWaterboy

1216 days ago

Score 1

So what you're saying is that if there's only one undeafeated team, we should just hand them the title without playing the BCS Championship game?

Since we're playing what ifs: How about no undefeated teams? Or one undefeated team and a whole bunch of one loss teams? What if that undefeated team is Utah? Who plays in the BCS Championship game then?

The fact of the matter is that the BCS takes what should be decided on the field and decides it in the court of public opinion. That's not good for college football, even if it does generate alot of needless debate.

Permalink

Swilson3Waterboy

1215 days ago

Score 0

"So what you're saying is that if there's only one undeafeated team, we should just hand them the title without playing the BCS Championship game?" Even if the team is undefeated before playing the BCS Championship game, they are not the Champion. The Champion is the team that wins the BCS Championship game, which matches the two most deserving teams - based on record and schedule strength. This is why USC does not have any claim whatsoever at having a 2003 Championship. They were NOT one of the best two teams BASED ON RECORD AND SCHEDULE STRENGTH at the end of the season, therefore they lose all "claim" to the Chamionship.

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

1216 days ago

Score 0

Iceman's right. A 16-team playoff (which many playoff advocates want) would ruin college football and rob the regular season of its drama. But a Final Four would preserve the need to grab regular-season wins, allow all of the legit title contenders to settle things on the field (in most years, at least, there are no more than 4 teams with a true claim at #1), allow the existing bowl infastructure to continue to exist, and not extend the season by any more than a single extra week. It's perfect, and it fixes all of the current BCS' problems.

Permalink | Reply

CoreyisarealboyMajor Leaguer

1216 days ago

Score 0

Wow, my new best friend on AGM. Swilson, you're not alone. I wrote an article about a month ago defending the BCS against a playoff. Yours was a fresh point, though, and one I hadn't really thought of. Good work!

Permalink | Reply

DRE-LOAAA-er

1216 days ago

Score 0

I think you can get the best of both worlds by having a Final Four in college football and still having bowl games. Great article and welcome to ArmchairGm!

Permalink | Reply

Swilson3Waterboy

1215 days ago

Score 0

A final four, I believe would be the best of the possible playoff systems. One way to achieve the same result, however, would be have the BCS Championship game a week after the end of the other bowls, and include the bowl results in the formula. That might clear up many of the forseen controversies.

Permalink

ShrubberyVarsity Captain

1215 days ago

Score 3

Your argument is valid if your assumptions are true. For your argument to hold water you MUST assume that the rightful team won every year. With the current system you can't even make the legitimate argument that the two best teams played for the title. Since 1990 you can legitimately say that the clear National Title holder was truly undisputed maybe seven times. That's less than 50%. 94 Nebraska, 96 Florida, 92 Alabama, 98 Tennessee, Oklahoma 00, 04 USC, and 05 Texas were the only true title winners. Miami didn't play an undefeated Colorado in 89, Colorado & Ga Tech split in 90, Miami & Washington split in 91, Michigan & Nebraske split in 97, Miami played Nebraska in 2001 when Oregon deserved it more, LSU & Usc split in 03. The system that doles out the most important prize in the sport that barely gets it right 50/50 is flawed by any definition. The argument that the regular season would be rendered meaningless is false. If the season is narrowed to 11 games plus conference championship, every win is still meaningful if the playoff involves 4-8 teams. Besides, March Madness eclipsed the NBA Finals in popularity and TV ratings long ago. The playoffs in NCAA Div I will never eclipse the NFL but a true playoff and title game could rapidly become the second greatest sports event in America. Until the NCAA stops handing out crystal footballs and starts handing out plaques the so-called National Champion will be a mythical title.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1215 days ago

Score 3

Precisely. Here's a handy chart displaying the current system's flaws... (FYI: "others w/ claim" denotes other deserving teams that could have made a case to play in the #1 vs. #2 game; I considered the season a "BCS Failure" if one of those "others" existed)

Year    BCS "Champion"    BCS Failure? (others w/ claim)
-----------------------------------------------------------
1992    Alabama           No
1993    FSU               Yes (Notre Dame)
1994    Nebraska/Penn St. No
1995    Nebraska          No
1996    ???               Yes (FSU, Florida, ASU, Ohio St.)
1997    Nebraska/Michigan No
1998    Tennessee         Yes (Ohio State)
1999    Florida State     Yes (Nebraska)
2000    Oklahoma          Yes (Miami, Washington)
2001    Miami             Yes (Oregon)
2002    Ohio State        No
2003    LSU               Yes (USC)
2004    USC               Yes (Auburn, Utah)
2005    Texas             No
-----------------------------------------------------------
# BCS Successes: 6
# BCS Failures:  8
-----------------------------------------------------------

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

1215 days ago

Score 1

And, yes, I know the BCS was not in effect until 1998. But it's pretty easy to predict who they would have taken in the "Championship Game" for years prior to that.

Permalink

ShrubberyVarsity Captain

1215 days ago

Score 0

Wylie, that chart was beautiful. But I would disagree about 04...even though they got pasted the Sooners in my opinion were clearly the #2 team.

Permalink

Swilson3Waterboy

1215 days ago

Score -1

The fact of the matter, is that BCS is a mathmatical formula in which NUMBERS are compared to decided the two most deserving teams after the regular season. This is factual, numerical, and objective. Auburn can not claim any part of the 2004 Championship because (and this is NO opinion - it is NUMERICAL FACT) they played a weaker schedule than Oklahoma. Oklahoma earned the chance at a Championship because they BEAT BETTER TEAMS. That's not a controversy. That is a fact.

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

1215 days ago

Score 1

The BCS formula is weighted arbitrarily, making it no longer purely mathematical fact. Tell me, in the pre-2005 version, why was strength of schedule divided by 25? Why was win/loss record of opponents weighted 66.6%, and win/loss record of opponents' opponents weighted 33.3%? Those weightings were totally arbitrary, and they colored the entire results. The formula also includes human polls -- again, not quite pure, objective mathematics. Why does it now take the arithmetic mean of the ranks of the Harris Interactive College Football Poll, the Coaches' Poll, and the Computer Average? Why not the geometric mean? The harmonic mean, even? And, hey, if the formula churned out numerical, objective facts so well, why did they change it every off-season from 1999 to 2005, fixing the latest weakness that the prior year exposed? Face it, the BCS formula is arbitrary, it's anything but objective, and hence its results are anything but scientific fact.

Permalink

IcemanvtWaterboy

1215 days ago

Score 1

Davis is exactly right. Just because the BCS throws a bunch of numbers together doesn't make it right. The fact that the polls are in the system makes the decision arbitrary at best. Since the polls are weighted so heavily, the teams in the BCS championship game are the two most popular teams, not necessarily the two best teams.

Permalink

Jgov05All-American

1215 days ago

Score 2

If college football is so based on tradition, then how come they created the BCS in the first place? Why are "tradition-filled" schools such as Miami, who won multiple championships in the Big East, changing conferences? How come there are coaches challenges this season? Just because the sport has been around for a while doesn't mean it can't change.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1110 days ago

Score 0

Please do tell how Nebraska/Penn State 1994 is supposed to be legitimate by that... you do realize that the "Bowl Alliance" was very impartial to Pac-10 and Big Ten teams from 1992-1994... in those years they basically decided on who they wanted the champions to be... not who really deserved it... Oh, and the PSU-INDIANA game was just a sign of why Paterno is such a good coach... he doesnt try to blow out teams.

Permalink | Reply