Official BCS anti-playoffs website
Playoff Problem.com was built by the BCS group to provide information, insight and commentary about the challenges associated with a hypothetical playoff in college football.
The BCS must think the average college football fan has the intelligence of a cocker spaniel, based on all the ridiculous arguments made on PlayoffProblem.com. However, it’s thrilling to me that the BCS feels so threatened that they deem it necessary to publish propaganda in an effort to bolster their indefensible position.
You’ll get many a great laugh browsing through PlayoffProblem.com. Among my favorites:
… some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS.
Oh really? How convenient of you to forget to cite sources for such a claim. I’d like to see the proof. Oh wait, it’s pure conjecture and can’t be proven. And you are affiliated with America’s system of higher education? Any professor at any community college would immediately fail a paper that made unsubstantiated claims like this one. Woof woof, BCS.
Just try to create an eight-team playoff based on the latest rankings (December 6th). Should two-loss Oregon (10-2, #7) and Ohio State (10-2, #8) get in but not the other FOUR teams with two losses: Georgia Tech (11-2, #9), Iowa (10-2, #10), Penn State (10-2, #13), BYU (10-2, #14)? If you think the BCS is controversial, try sorting that out. A playoff would guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans.
No source cited for this “guarantee”? Hmmm… am I detecting a pattern in my little cocker spaniel brain?
So the BCS argues that playoffs would “guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans”, based on a hypothetical 8 team playoff in 2009 using an undefined selection criteria to create the illusion of playoff insanity. Surely we buy their argument, right? It is guaranteed after all.
Wait, let’s think about this for a minute. What is the BCS really saying? Isn’t the BCS saying that a situation where 4 of 6 teams with identical records NOT reaching an 8 team playoff would be WORSE than the current BCS system? That would imply that the BCS currently does not exclude teams with identical records, right? Because if the BCS does currently exclude teams under similar circumstances, how would it make sense for them to conclude that the same situation in a different system would be “worse”?
Let’s look to see if teams with identical records to BCS #1 and BCS #2 have ever been excluded from the BCS championship game (we already all know there are countless examples, but I might as well document a few since I believe in using facts, unlike the BCS). And to compare apples to apples, let’s look at how many teams have been excluded from a BCS bowl while having an “as good as” or better record than other BCS bowl participants.
2009 Championship Alabama vs Texas, both with 13-0 record
12-0 or 13-0 teams excluded: Cincinnati, Boise State, TCU
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 10-2 or 11-2 records: Penn State, Brigham Young
Total teams excluded: 5 (Dear BCS: ruh roh! Signed, Scooby Doo)
2008 Championship Oklahoma vs Florida, both with 12-1 record
Teams with 12-1 or better record: Utah (12-0 –WTF??), Texas (11-1), Southern California (11-1), Penn State (11-1), Alabama (12-1)
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 9-4 or better record (Virginia Tech at 9-4 in Orange Bowl): Georgia Tech, Ball State, Western Michigan, West Virginia, Pitt, TCU, Brigham Young, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Georgia, Mississippi, Tulsa, Rice, Boise State (12-0!!)
Total teams excluded: 27
Virginia Tech automatically qualified for the Orange Bowl in 2008 with a 9-4 record. There were 22 other teams with at least as good a record that were entirely excluded from a BCS bowl game. Among teams invited to BCS bowls, 5 had at least as good a record as the BCS #1 and #2 teams that played for the BCS title.
Is the BCS really trying to use an argument that teams with similar records being excluded from playoffs will be WORSE than the current BCS system??? Not only does the current BCS system exclude teams with identical (or better) records, but it does so on a larger scale. So how exactly do “playoffs guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans” again? Please explain, BCS.
So what do you think? Do you buy the arguments the BCS is trying to sell on their anti-playoffs website? I don’t.