We Demand Playoffs

Votes have no place in determining a college football national champion, first and foremost. But in non-common-sense-land we like to call college football, one of the three main factors in deciding BCS #1 and #2 is the Coaches Poll. The final votes are going to be held secret again after 4 years of being made public.

Great idea.

Less transparency in the process of pairing #1 vs #2 for the “mythical national championship” sucks. College football decision makers are idiots. Instead of making progress, they move backwards.

Perhaps this is all a secret ploy to fuel the fires of calling for playoffs, as suggested by Rivals, but the skeptic in me (or is it realist?) says it is what it is: coaches wanting to avoid public scrutiny in the BCS mess.

Sure sounds like it in this Yahoo! Sports column by Dan Wetzel and Josh Peter.

Okay so let’s get this straight… the BCS wants us to believe that the bowl system should stay intact because:

• Bowl games give “tens of millions of dollars” to local charities
• Loss of economic impact on host cities would be disastrous

Don’t look now, but it appears that neither excuse is valid and it appears that the BCS reps lied about at least one of their main arguments.

The remaining 23 games enjoy tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service, but combined to give just $3.2 million to local charities on $186.3 million in revenue according to their most recent federal tax records and interviews with individual bowl executives.

Bowl games actually received more in direct government spending (almost $5.5 million) than what they gave directly to charity, according to the tax records.

Bowl games donated less to charity than they received from the government. Let that sink in for a moment.

The BCS’ main argument is a fraud. What will they say now? They have no defense. Here’s the real reason they don’t want to change:

Thompson, the Mountain West commissioner, testified that the six major conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC) received 87.4 percent of BCS revenue. In contrast, the same six conferences took home just 61 percent of the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament revenue.

We, the fans, are not stupid. When will we collectively demand change?

Well, so much for hopes that incoming PAC-10 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott would be reasonable with regards to playoffs vs BCS.

“[PAC-10 Commisioner-to-be, Larry Scott] will reflect the position of the Pac-10, and the position of the Pac-10 is that it is very supportive of the bowl system and doesn’t see positives in a playoff”, [current PAC-10 Commissioner, Tom] Hansen said.

No positives in a playoff, eh? If anyone can interpret that statement in any way other than “we lose money on the deal”, please, enlighten me. What this says to me is that the PAC-10 is NOT interested in fairness, equality, competition or setting a good example for its students.

Shame on the PAC-10.

I hope PAC-10 fans can see the positives in a playoff and really rail on their elected and appointed officials for being so narrow-minded.

A popular criticism I’ve seen recently surrounding the BCS vs Playoffs debate is that Congress is wasting time thinking about college football and our political leaders have much bigger fish to fry than an amateur game’s rules.

Ridiculous argument.

Here’s why the BCS should be on Congress’ radar:

• College football generates hundreds of millions in revenue annually
• College football has a small majority that colludes to create a non-competitive marketplace (the BCS)
• The colluding parties (BCS Auto-qualifying conference members) receive federal funds (i.e. taxpayer money) every year
• Colluding in business to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the market is AGAINST THE LAW!

The BCS member institutions don’t want to compete with smaller schools for money, players or coaches. It is anti-competitive. It is against the law. It’s that simple and it’s for that reason that Congress needs to get involved and say enough is enough.

The only reason it’s lasted as long as it has is because people continue to say “but football is just a game – worry about more important things”. It’s not just a game – it’s big business. That means it has to live by the laws our country has in place to govern and regulate big (and small) business.

In addition to the youtube highlights above, check out Andy Staples’ column on the hearings. These are exciting times for college football fans who want a playoff system adopted.

Fox couldn’t answer Barton’s question about why the bowl system is beneficial when most schools that play in lower-tier bowls lose money on the deal. Nor could Swofford explain to Barton why Notre Dame wielded as much voting power as 51 other schools. Tradition, Swofford stammered. “Using that logic,” Barton said, “Delaware — which was the first state in the nation — ought to have 50 votes in the House. … That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

So true. The whole Notre-Dame-super-powerful-special-treatment thing has got to go. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Paterno has repeatedly called for a playoff system and reiterated his stance recently. He also blasts the Evil Emperor, Jim Delaney. Check out this article on ESPN.

With the conference commissioners holding so much power, Paterno said, the whole landscape could change if two or three people change.

“We’re not talking about invading Normandy,” Paterno said. “We’re talking about some alignments that could happen very quickly.”

The winningest coach in the game renewed his call for a four- or eight-team playoff to replace the BCS. He also decried the NCAA decision to force Florida State coach Bobby Bowden to vacate 14 victories in which the Seminoles players were later found to have committed academic fraud.

WASHINGTON — A congressman who wants to see college football adopt a playoff system is comparing the Bowl Championship Series to communism.

Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said Friday that efforts to tinker with the BCS are bound to fail. He told a House hearing that the BCS is like communism and can’t be fixed.

Barton has introduced legislation that would prevent the NCAA from labeling a game a national championship unless it’s the outcome of a playoff system.

The coordinator of the BCS told the panel Friday that a switch to a playoff system — favored by fans, President Barack Obama and some lawmakers — would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games.

Sponsorships and TV revenue that now go to bowl games would instead be spent on playoff games, “meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game’s history, to survive,” BCS coordinator John Swofford said in prepared testimony. “Certainly the 29 games that are not part of the BCS would be in peril.”

Swofford was appearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s commerce, trade and consumer protection subcommittee, some of whose members back legislation aimed at prodding the BCS to switch to a playoff system.

Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate, and others do not. Conferences that get an automatic bid — the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC — get about $18 million each, far more than the non-conference schools. Swofford is also commissioner of the ACC.

Craig Thompson, commissioner of the Mountain West Commission, which does not get an automatic bid, said in prepared testimony that the current system is patently unfair.

“Such economic disparities and anomalies cannot be justified and should not continue,” he said. “Many have said the current BCS system ensures a permanent underclass. They are right.”

The MWC has proposed a playoff system and hired a Washington firm to lobby Congress for changes to the BCS, which currently features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.

The MWC proposes, among others things, scrapping the BCS standings and creating a 12-member committee to pick which teams receive at-large bids, and to select and seed the eight teams chosen for the playoff. The BCS has previously discussed, and dismissed, the idea of using a selection committee.

The four current BCS games — the Sugar, Orange, Rose and Fiesta bowls — would host the four first-round playoff games under the proposal. Thompson argued that a playoff system would be a boon for those bowls, because they would help determine the national champion.

Thompson said that under the current system, teams that don’t come from a conference with a guaranteed bid have no realistic chance of winning a BCS championship.

Swofford argued that criticism that the BCS guarantees berths and money to only some conferences “states the situation exactly backward.” Prior to the BCS, he said, the conferences that now have automatic bids were guaranteed an attractive bowl slot for its champion.

“If the BCS were to disappear tomorrow, each of those conferences would return to the marketplace and obtain a similarly attractive bowl slot on its own through individual negotiation, most likely in one of the current BCS games,” he said. But there would no longer be guaranteed annual bowl game pairing the top two ranked teams.

The BCS is in its final season of a four-year deal with the Fox network. A new four-year deal with ESPN, worth $125 million per year, begins with the 2011 bowl games.

The BCS has come under attack from a range of politicians. Last November, then President-elect Obama told “60 Minutes” he would prefer an eight-team playoff system.

“I don’t know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this,” he said then. “So I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit.”

In the Senate, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch has put the BCS on the agenda for the Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee this year, and Utah’s attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, is investigating whether the BCS violates federal antitrust laws.

Fans were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season. The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.

Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press

Interesting poll results on ESPN.com here. 93% of voters would change the BCS to some form of playoff system. Unsurprisingly, 8 or 16 team systems are the two most popular options. Either one would be fantastic.

How would you restructure?

That’s how I’m interpreting his column, anyway. In a nutshell, Maisel argues that the BCS looks bad in the public eye simply because they aren’t trying hard enough. And excuse my sarcasm, but I’m shocked that an ESPN columnist is starting a BCS defense campaign. (ESPN recently won the bid for the next 4 years of BCS game broadcasting rights, in case you weren’t aware.)

So Ivan, the BCS could look good publicly if they only tried harder? Yeah, right.

The truth is that no matter what the BCS does, they CAN’T look good in the public eye. There is no defense that rational, intelligent people can accept. We’ve all heard the common excuses out there, and the few that manage to sway some people are the best they’ve got:

• The season would be too long if there were a playoff (aka “what about academics?”)
• The regular season would be less interesting/meaningful/exciting
• Going to a bowl game is a reward for a great season that everyone loves and would miss dearly (aka “what about tradition?”, aka “what about the uniqueness of college football?”)
• Travel to all the playoff games would be too expensive for the fans

None of these arguments are strong enough to maintain a system of inequality and ambiguity which is overall unsatisfying to most college football fans. Let’s take a quick look.

The season would be too long if there were a playoff (aka “what about academics?”)

Weak, weak and weak! An 8 team playoff would mean a total of 2 extra games for the 2 teams that make the championship. It would be 1 extra game for 2 other teams. And that is only if the current 12 game regular season and optional Conference championship game remain.

The regular season would be less interesting/meaningful/exciting

Prove it. I believe instituting a playoff would have the opposite effect. Teams would actually have MORE riding on the line if they had a real shot at a REAL national championship.

Going to a bowl game is a reward for a great season that everyone loves and would miss dearly (aka “what about tradition?”, aka “what about the uniqueness of college football?”)

And there wouldn’t be any pageantry/tradition/uniqueness in a college football playoff? Of course there would be. Additionally, non-playoff teams could still participate in bowl games. Don’t try and argue that those bowl games would become less meaningful if there were a playoff system in place because they ALREADY ARE MEANINGLESS!!

Travel to all the playoff games would be too expensive for the fans

This one is tricky. If all the playoff games are held at current bowl locations, then yes travel would get spendy (but not moreso than NCAA basketball). I personally would prefer to see top seeds earning home field advantage through the semi-finals. Playing the first two or three rounds at the higher seed’s home field would eliminate this argument, plus provide a lot more revenue to the teams involved.

The bottom line, Maisel, is that your transparent attempt to be a good little “company man” reeks and is boring. And is totally predictable. Not to mention pathetic.

Maisel: Stop picking on the BCS [bullies], they don’t even have their fists up!

Yeah, right. They have thrown their punches and now have no way to defend what they’ve done and continue to do.

I just changed up the site a bit and released the emailing feature on the home page. Fans of all 119 FBS teams can now use this convenient feature to email their elected officials and school officials all at once.

I hope people will use it and that some good comes from it. Always ending football season without a real national champion has gotten really, really old. Let’s get this thing fixed!