Before you guys all start saying I’m nuts for even asking this question, hear me out.
While the BCS system is sports fan’s favorite whipping boy, I can argue that it really works.
Why the BCS works (and why a college football playoff wouldn’t)
-A college football playoff would ruin, if not destroy, the traditional bowl system. The bowl system allows 56 teams, nearly one-half of division I-A teams to stamp their season a success by reaching the postseason. If an eight or 16 team playoff occurs, 20 of those teams would get squeezed out of bowl games.
-A playoff would diminish interest in the regular season. College football’s regular season is the most meaningful and drama-filled in all of sports. With only two teams making it to the ‘championship’ game, there is little margin for error and every single week matters, whether it be in September or December. For example, this week’s game between Texas Tech and Oklahoma wouldn’t be nearly as important as it is now because both teams would most likely make the eight team playoff and still have a shot at the national championship. If Texas Tech loses on Saturday, they can kiss their national title hopes goodbye.
-With a playoff, the college game would become even more commercialized and professionalized. The regular season wouldn’t matter, and it would all be about positioning yourself for the playoffs. If a star player was 50/50 for the last game of the year or was slightly injured, he would be rested for the playoffs, just like it happens in the NFL all the time.
If an eight or 16 team playoff occurred, would anyone even care to watch the other bowls? Would an Iowa-Virginia Tech Insight Bowl (which could happen this year) matter to anyone besides Iowa or VA Tech fans? Nope. I sure as hell know I wouldn’t want to watch Maryland and South Carolina in the Gator Bowl because that game wouldn’t matter.
-Big time BCS bowl games generate major revenue for universities and their respective conferences. For example, if the Big Ten gets two teams into the BCS this year they are going to make $10 million plus. That’s a huge payout for the conference and for the schools going to BCS games.
-It tries to guarantee the top two teams play in the championship game every year. The odds of USC-Texas playing for the national title in basketball in 2005 like it did in football would have been very slim with all the upsets that occur. These were the best two teams in the nation that season, and it turned out to be what call the greatest college football game of all-time.
Why March Madness works (and the BCS doesn’t)
-The 64-team tournament gives fans what they want: a true champion decided on the court (not by polls and computers like in college football).
-March Madness is a lot fairer than narrowing the championship game down to two teams. For the few times the BCS has gotten it right, (USC-Texas) there have been plenty of times it’s been wrong. How could Nebraska jump Oregon in 2001? How could USC be left out in 2003 in favor of an Oklahoma team that got routed by Kansas State in the Big 12 title game? The game is played on the court in college basketball, and while upsets do happen, the majority of the time the top teams advance to the Elite 8 or the Final Four.
-Fans love it: the brackets, the toughest road to the Final Four, office pools across the country. Who isn’t into March Madness?? Even people who don’t follow college basketball during the regular season and could care less about it fill out a bracket and follow the three crazy weeks that ensue.
The top 10 March Madness buzzer beaters, courtesy of ESPN
-College basketball is played in both semesters of an academic year and there are no problems there. I don’t understand all the bitching from school officials saying that a playoff would tax the players too much and affect their studies. If you cut the regular season down to eleven games an eight team playoff would be three extra games at most, two for the teams that make it to the semi-finals. 14 games played for the national championship as opposed to 13 after playing in a bowl game. That’s a crock of shit. Basketball players play 35 games during the season and then another 6 if they play in the national title game. The season goes from early November through early April. I think college football can go from early September through mid-January.
-Even certain athletic directors and former college football coaches are wising up and clamoring for a college football playoff, similar to March Madness.
"I've looked at the Big 12's 10-year revenue projections — basketball television, basketball tournament, football championship game — and (most) percentage increases range from 20%-50%. Postseason football is like 2.6%. And you're thinking, 'Our bell cow, our big money producer, is going to generate 2%-3% more in 10 years. People ought to be in jail.' "
— Texas athletics director DeLoss Dodds
"Surely, the NCAA and Division I-A football can join the other 23 intercollegiate sports and devise a system that determines a true champion, preserves the integrity of the game and levels the playing field."
— Retired Brigham Young football coach LaVell Edwards, to the Senate Judiciary Committee last October
I WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINION!! POST YOUR COMMENTS!!!!!!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Which is a better system in determining the national champion in collegiate sports, the BCS or a playoff system like March Madness???
Posted by UISJMC Chiakulas at 10:31 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Let me say I'm not necessarily a fan of the BCS, but I do like the bowl games because of the tradition. There has to be a better way than how we do it now though to crown a champion. I'm in favor of a 4-team playoff by using 3 of the BCS bowl games for the games. Keep in tact all of the other games. We have a true national champion and the traditions continue.
Wonder who you got this idea from? Anyway, all the BCS does is screw teams over. It's not even just about the championship either. The fact that if you win your conference gets you in is just dumb as the winners of the ACC and Big East are the perfect example of that. It should be about getting the 8 best teams to settle it on the field. And let's be honest. With the exception of the traditional bowl games, no one outside of the schools playing in it really cares anyway. Whatever bowl Iowa makes probably nobody except UI students and the students of the school we face even care. It's all about $. They should have an 8 team playoff and then they could keep the bowl games for the the schools that didn't get into the playoff. But most of the bowl games are pointless anyway. It needs to be settled on the field because believe me, so many schools can have an argument that they should have a shot. The BCS doesn't benefit anybody in my opinion.
The BCS is not a perfect system, but neither is a tournament. The NCAA tournament is exciting and gets ratings and all that jazz, but you can't convince me that George Mason is the 4th best team in the nation 3 years ago.
If you have a playoff you will have same problem we have now: Who should have been in the national title game? Instead it will be "Who should have been the 9th team in the tournament?" in an 8 team league (like Messiah Barack Obama is promoting). I will write more later.
The tournament adds intensity and excitement to the game. I say you take eight teams (the top eight teams in the BCS standings, disregarding conferences) and have a playoff. Then, you take the other 46 or so teams and put them into the same "who cares" bowl games (Motor City Bowl) as they are now. That way, the regular season still means a lot and the playoff is actually doable, requiring a team to play, at most, 3 games.
IMHO, there is no perfect way to do it. Obviously there is problems with the BCS. If you go to a playoff system it screws up the bowl system like you said Greg. Even if you do an 8 team playoff... what about the 9th team? you do a ten team playoff than what about the 11th team. It will be the same problem as the BCS, a team will always get left out.
When it comes down to it, no once cares about 90% of the bowls anyway. Who gets jacked up to watch the Gator Bowl or the Champs Sports Bowl if their team isn't playing in it. I think there are way to many bowls as is. It's like little kids soccer where everyone gets a trophy. I mean 6 wins makes you bowl eligible? Thats real, real stupid. So you could still have all the bullshit bowls for the bullshit teams to bullshit through and at the same time have an 8 team playoff for the real teams. The first four games could be played in the Orange, Fiesta, Rose and maybe the Cotten Bowl or something like that. That way, they still get to keep the big bowls anyway. I also don't think you would have too many teams who would be resting their players for the playoffs like in the NFL. There is usually little to no difference record wise between top teams.
I feel it is time to have a playoff system. The times of Oklahoma (as you mentioned) and Ohio State (two times in the past couple years) reaching the national title game and clearly being dominated and overmatched and not a worthy opponent would be resolved. A playoff system would determine the BEST team, not the better out of the supposed "best two teams", based on the faulty BCS system.
If you think about it competitively the playoff system makes the most sense, if you think about it economically the BCS makes the most sense. But I disagree with you about the Iowa vs. Va Tech argument being for the BCS; no one cares about the Iowa vs. Va Tech game accept for the prospective fans of each team either way.
Don't get me wrong, I love watching the bowl games as much as the next person, but I think a tournament system would be better. All the games would matter more. No more no name teams in no name bowls. Everyone would play for the eight spots instead of just making it to a bowl.
We have to have a playoff system...the BCS is just not cutting it. Look back to the 2005 bowl season, when Auburn went 13-0 in the nation's toughest conference (the SEC), and still did not make the national championship. That is a travesty and should not happen again.
One can also look at the past couple years, where teams like Boise State have gone to a BCS bowl game as an undefeated team, yet they did not play for the national championship.
All we need is an 8 team playoff. Have a 10 or 11 game regular season, with all the normal bowls intact. They should just get rid of the 3 bowls they just added to compensate for the playoff. The polls should still rank the teams, and an average of the Coaches and Media Polls should determine the top 8 teams in the playoff, with the higher seed getting home field advantage.
I'd have to say it's time to for a plus one system.
I think an 8 team or 16 team playoff would ruin the regular season in college football and the bowls.
But a plus one is needed to make a "final four" and then a championship game.
This would avoid 3 of 4 undefeated teams from being left out or a couple of 1 loss teams being shafted.
I agree with Andrew to an extent. A plus one system would be more plausible to me than an 8-team or even 4-team playoff.
The regular season is diminished too much. For those looking for a playoff, we have right now! Imagine what USC's upset against Oregon St. would have been like if there was an 8-team playoff (or even a 4-team playoff). How about Iowa beating Penn St? One of the reasons that win was so huge for Iowa was that Penn St. had everything to play for, but if they are playing to be a top 8 team, Iowa's win is diminished.
Also, if there's a tournament, we may not get dream matchups like USC-Texas in 2005.
Like I said before, the BCS is not a perfect system and I wish there was a better way to pick a championship game. However, putting in a tournament system diminishes the importance of many regular season games.
Greg, it's Dolan, I love the blog man. I do disagree with you though about the BCS. The bowl games do generate alot of money for the confrences, schools, etc. but do people really want to watch a 6-6 team play a 7-5 team in the Liberty Bowl? The BCS is just not a fair system. Teams are punished for losing in their conference championship games when not every conference has a championship game. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter because the NCAA and the Universities makes way too much money off the bowl system to ever even consider a playoff, barring government intervention which is unlikely.
There absolutely should be an 8-team playoff in college football. Think about when the championship game has ended in a blowout or a team that didn't deserve it made it (Miami-Nebraska and plenty of other games). Having a tournament does not guarantee that there won't be blowouts, but it is at least more exciting than watching Ohio State get dominated 2 years in a row.
As someone else mentioned, teams that never get a chance to win the title (like Utah and Boise State) actually have a chance just like they do in the NCAA tournament. Even Iowa of all teams would have had a chance to win the national title, but it wouldn't have happened.
I would be in favor of a 4-team playoff. It would not diminish the regular season as much because only four teams have a chance to win. This would mean that teams could not lose as many bad games. Also, teams that deserve a shot at the national title (like Auburn in 2003) would get their shot. Also, there would be less of a chance for a major upset since the best tema would only have to win 2 games.
March Madness works for College Basketball because of the amount of energy it takes to play a basketball game vs. a football game and the shorter total game time. I think that the BCS or at least the Bowl Games themselves are the best thing for college football. A national championship could never replace the atmosphere or the Rose Bowl. Also, Bowls make every game meaningful and are the "Championship" game for every teams season. I don't think you would have the fan migration or the general excitement surrounding a game for 14th place in the nation vs. something like the Capital One Bowl.
I don't want these mid-major schools to make it to the title game if they don't deserve it. The only mid-major that may have deserved a shot at the national title was Utah back in 2003. A case can be made for the Boise State team that beat Oklahoma, but Florida probably would have handled them.
This really does mean the regular season means more than it would in college basketball. It is important to be a high seed, but it's been shown that it's not impossible to make it to the final four.
If a mid-major wants to make it to the national title game, they better play the toughest non-conference schedule you've ever heard of.
The thing about a playoff is, either it's gotta be permanent or it's not gonna happen. I don't think we'll see it implemented as an experiment, although I think that'd be a good start.
The BCS, however, could possibly have a seriously huge poblem on their hands this year if certain things fall into line.
We could potentially be looking at another 2-loss team in the title game if certain things play out.
Not only that but there's a good chance that more deserving teams will get left out as usual, but what's worse is that some of those teams, particularly Texas, will have had better losses than teams like Florida and still miss out.
For example if Oklahoma beats T Tech they'll probably go to the Big 12 title game over Texas....and if OU wins (and they probably will), Oklahoma goes to the national title even though Texas beat them and finished with a 12-1 record (hypothetically speaking).
The BCS cannot solve that problem. Only a playoff could. Well at least in a better manner than just leaving the team left out to dry.
I want the BCS to work because I am a college football purist and love the bowl games and I try to watch as many as possible. But when things like these start to happen, especially in a day and age where teams make their schedules much softer and yet college parity is on the rise, a playoff is looking more and more likely.
Obviously there is going to be more drama with the BCS this year because there are so many 1 loss teams.
If Florida beats Alabama there will be 0 undefeated teams from major conferences and a bunch of 1 loss teams.
Of course a team like Utah or Boise wouldn't be able to play for the national title. This season is just another example of why an 8-team playoff has to happen in college football.
On top of that, now the BCS is used to determine the winner of divisions to see who plays in conference championship games? Uh oh, drama with the BCS before the national title game.
Where is the love for Penn State?? #8 in the BCS standings? Wow, the Lions are getting hammered for Ohio State's past failures and the perception of the Big Ten being down.
Everyone wants to see a SEC-Big 12 Title game and that's what is most likey going to happen so lets hope its worth all the hype.
I think there are way too many people in the media who have fallen in love with idea of a playoff. I think the system is flawed if a team like Oklahoma ends up rated ahead of Texas because Texas lost a little later in the year.
These mid-major teams need to show me something if they want to be included in the national championship discussion. I will give props to Boise State for winning at Oregon, but they would have to play 2 other major conference teams to be close enough to get in this BCS mess. Again, I give props to Utah for playing Michigan and Oregon State (but Michigan is horrible and they barely beat them). There is an argument to allowing these teams in the BCS (or tournament) if they can beat the big boys. Even if there was a 4 team playoff (and even eight teams) they probably wouldn't be in it.
now we got this controversy with Oklahoma over Texas going to the Big 12 Championship game.
Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field. Does head-to-head not matter anymore?
This is just another example of why the BCS doesn't work.
Post a Comment