We Demand Playoffs

Alright so the latest buzz around college football is conference expansion. Will the Big Ten move to 14 or 16 teams? Will the PAC Ten follow suit? You’ve heard it all before. But what I want to know is how would any conference alignment changes impact a potential playoff.

This *could* be a step in the right direction for a playoff to occur organically. By organically, I mean without lawmaker interference. I think pretty much everyone would prefer that playoffs evolve this way, as opposed to the government getting involved. Right?

So let’s look at one scenario that could work out well for us playoff junkies: Four 16 team super conferences. Suppose it just happens and suspend disbelief for a moment. This could be a great segway to a playoff, and here’s why.

First of all, Conference Championship games could be a natural 1st round of playoffs, with 4 Regional Champions that emerge. Well, with 4 teams you have a quick and easy group for a Semi-finals and Championship game to follow. Each entrant would have earned their spot on the field. Opinion polls wouldn’t factor in at all. Good teams that did not emerge as a Conference Champ would be available for bowl games.

The only problem is equal access for all Division 1 Bowl Subdivision teams. I don’t like the idea of exclusionary playoffs any more than the exclusionary BCS. The media wouldn’t like this solution, but screw them – they don’t care about the actual sport, they care about their next pay check. If 16 team conferences become the norm, why restrict it to just 4 conference champions being entered in the new national playoff? I think any conference made up of 16 D1 FBS teams should have the champion of the conference championship game be included automatically.

Today, there could be a maximum of seven 16-team super conferences. Yes, there’s a remainder, but let’s just suppose for simplicity’s sake that there are a couple of 18 team conferences. A seven team playoff in college football would NOT be too much for people to handle, I don’t imagine.

PlayoffPAC has done it again. This time it is their 2011 BCS playoff bracket that makes a powerful statement in a very simplistic way. Great job!

Source: PlayoffPAC

There are some interesting quotes in this article about last year’s BCS distributions. College football really is about the student athlete, not the money, to all the top dogs in the BCS… and if you believe that, I have some high quality air to sell you for every penny you’ve got.

It’s really a question of value, says WAC Commissioner Karl Benson. When a Utah shocks an Alabama or a Boise State stuns an Oklahoma, doesn’t that demonstrate the value of those teams and conferences to the BCS? Shouldn’t the payout to the conferences like the WAC and the Mountain West that send teams to the BCS look like the payout to the big six conferences?

No, responds Harvey Perlman, chancellor at the University of Nebraska and chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. He says there’s a difference between playing well in a game and demonstrating the kind of value that drives long-term media contracts.

“Those teams have certainly performed well, but you’re talking about adding value,” Perlman said. “The real question is whether including those conferences when you negotiate a TV contract adds to the willingness of the network to increase the bid. I don’t think we’ve seen evidence that that’s true.”

The Boise State Broncos are the 2009-2010 college football bowl subdivision national champions. Congratulations Bronco nation!

We’ll give #2 to Alabama, who played a decent game last night in the BCS championship game, but just didn’t prove they could beat Boise State. To you, Alabama, we say congratulations on a great season.

To Boise State, we say congratulations on your national championship!!!

Deseret News columnist, Dick Harmon, is granting pre-emptive credit to Utahns for influencing the change in college football from bowl system to playoffs.

And really, he’s right… should the BCS ever actually be toppled in favor of playoffs (please, dear god!) Several Utahns have been at the front of the BCS battles.

But you could also give some credit to politicians in Texas and California who are also fighting the BCS, right?

What do you think – if the BCS empire ever falls, will you remember Utah as being one of the major players?

So the Senate is set to have some hearings on the BCS. Will it be more political grandstanding or will something actually happen? The optimist in me hopes for action, but the realist in me figures there won’t be any movement.

What do you think?

The BCS wouldn’t exist if it weren’t true. Year after year we keep buying the same crappy, unsatisfying post-season product. Year after year we hear each other making “merit” arguments for or against a team we think should be voted higher in the polls.

“Their conference is weak this year.”

“Their conference is a cake walk compared to this other conference.”

“Their out-of-conference schedule was weak.”

“They can’t be good because they don’t have the tradition of (Michigan, Notre Dame, etc).”

We have these conversations at water coolers, in bars, at tailgate parties and everywhere else. They all boil down to trying to figure out who deserves to be in the BCS title game. But how often do we question the criteria used to determine who deserves to play for a so-called championship? Fans are sheep because we don’t question, we just accept that “the voters” decide who deserves it.

But what criteria do the voters use to determine worthiness? Is it the same for all voters? Are there rules governing how they vote?

The answer, of course, is no. Voters can vote however they like. This is worse than any sport that uses judges to determine winners and let’s face it, the voters in college football are judges. Same thing.

Sports like gymnastics and figure skating require their judges to be trained and able to judge based on a fixed criteria. The athletes go in knowing, more or less, what they have to do to earn a certain amount of points, as long as they perform without flaw. Gymnastics and figure skating judges are then required to score performances according to the pre-defined criteria used by all. If they deviate too much, they will be discovered and appropriate action can be taken by the sport’s governing body.

Not so in college football. No voter is ever held responsible for how they vote. Nor are they asked to vote on any criteria besides “decide who you think is best”. This can be interpreted a million ways (and is).

In other words, college football voters are free to be totally and completely subjective.

For a sport like football to determine it’s top 2 teams using a system of complete subjectivity, which is known for its competitiveness and clarity of structure (cross the goal line with the ball, get 6 points; kick the ball between the uprights, get 3 points, etc), is ridiculous.

But the fans are okay with it. Why?

Because we are sheep and we do whatever we are told.

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.

The MWC is at it again, this time sending their playoff proposal to Congress. Will it make a difference? Does anyone in Washington really care? I personally believe momentum is building.

The poll shown is currently running at the link above and has some interesting results. By far, college football fans think BCS reform is either not the business of the United States Congress or Congress has bigger fish to fry.

I’d like to hear some reasons why people think it’s not the business of Congress to be concerned about collusionary financial anti-competitive practices in our country.

I think the BCS problem increasingly falls inside the realm of Congress. If University Presidents have sold their sense of equality and fairness for a bigger cut of football earnings, they deserve to be subject to the law just like anybody else. Microsoft wasn’t allowed to get away with monopolistic behaviors, why should the BCS be allowed to get away with it?