Br@ssknux
Pretty much a regular
First of all, I'm new here, but have been enjoying the site for the entire CFB season. Had a SPAM mail snafu that I was too dumb to figure out so I wasn't able to get myself able to post until just recently. I am in the minority in that I am afraid of what a playoff would do to college football as a whole. Despite the fact that I am against a playoff, I had never seen a logical argument for my position, so I decided about a month ago to write one. It was all stream of consciousness, but I think I covered what I wanted to cover. I've noticed that most people are on the other side, including a lot of smart people here. My humble request is that you read my argument, consider it, and then "talk me down" as to why college football will be better from September to January as a result of a playoff. To be honest, I want to have the opinion that I could go either way on the topic, but am afraid that a playoff will lessen the overall enjoyment of the CBF season. It's long so I appreciate any time spent reading it. Keep in mind that this was written in early December. Utah's subsequent win over Bama has me tiptoeing closer to the middle on this.
Here is my argument against a College football playoff.
First, let me first say that I am an absolute college football junkie. I love College football. It is by far my favorite sport. I live for college football Saturdays in the fall, and the holiday bowl season in December/January. I would surmise that those reading this would probably say the same thing about themselves. I don't think I need to go into my reasons for this. Those that don't count themselves in this group, I would hope would not try to push their half-hearted opinions on the sport and instead go get excited about the Pistons/Spurs tilt on TNT that means so much this early December.
A couple points that you will NOT see in this argument: 1. The inane and logically bankrupt argument that a playoff would make the season "too long" for the "student atheletes." Can we all agree that this view is an embarrassment to anyone who makes this argument? It angers me when I hear it, because it just discredits the entire anti-playoff agrument. This is not a reason to avoid a playoff. Let me make that clear. 2. Chaos is fun. Don't count me in with that nonsense either.
I realize that I am in the minority in this argument. Just about anyone who has any opinion about the BCS undoubtedly will throw up their hands at the "mess" or "disgrace" that we currently see and call for the need for a playoff to cure all that ails college football. And I guess we would need to establish that college football is indeed ailing, wouldn't we? College Football fans are routinely painted as the most passionate in all of sports, as they always have been. The games are exhilarating. Stadiums are packed, 80,000 or more at scores of campuses around the country, today and always. I dare say that there is very little that is "wrong" with college football at this point. It seems to be pretty healthy to me, and continues to grow in popularity.
My initial question is this: Why do we need a College football playoff system? The answer: Because over the years, the emphasis in college football has gone from the journey of the season to an absolute obsession with who is crowned the National Champion, or what used to be referred to as the "Mythical National Champion". It used to be referred to as that because over the years in college football, the national championship was not the end all be all. It wasn't the only conceivable thing that a team would strive to accomplish when it started fall practice. For example, if you were a team from the Big Ten, your goal was to win the league, go to the Rose Bowl and win it. If someone felt you deserved to be called the National Champion, great, but teams and fans didn't need some bullcrap institution to tell them that they had a championship year. Same for the Pac 10, same for the Big 8(Orange Bowl), the SWC(Cotton Bowl), SEC(Sugar Bowl) and so on. There wasn't even a trophy. Can you believe that? No Waterford crystal football sponsored by At&T or whoever? How can that be? However, the expansion of conferences helped to change things, and as a result, the national championship is now of the utmost importance to everyone, to the point that conference titles are merely secondary, and often forgotten. Here's a good example: Consider the Auburn team of 2004, the one that did not play for the National Championship in deference to unbeaten USC and Oklahoma and instead beat a very good Virginia Tech team in the Sugar Bowl. If you asked an Auburn fan to recall that season, would you get a positive or a negative reaction? Certainly, it would depend on the person, but undoubtedly, due to an insatiable desire to be validated by the establishment as NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, there would be some, maybe a sizable amount that would look back on that season negatively. To me, that is lunacy. You were the UNDEFEATED SEC and SUGAR BOWL CHAMPS! Hang a banner! Order the rings! Get the T-shirts!. Who cares that you didn't lead Sportscenter on January 6th? Look back at that season with pride. Historicaly, it will always be remembered. I'm a freakin' Illinois alum and fan, and I remember it and consider that team on the same level as USC that year, and so does everyone else that follows college football. Ask any CFB journalist about the '04 Auburn team, and you'll undoubtedly get glowing reviews and a healthy level of respect. Now conversely, how do people remember the OU squad from that year that USC blew the doors off of? Pretender. Poseur. Fraud. Certainly they're remembered less favorably than the Auburn squad is. And isn't that part of what this whole process is about? Being able to command respect, and get your props as a team and as a fan base? But what if there was a playoff that year, and Auburn got matched up with USC in a semi-final? Maybe they would have beaten them, and they'd be seen in the same light as they are today, and they'd have an entry in the CFB encyclopedia saying they were the official National Champs. But what if they took it on the chin just like OU did? Then what? If you asked that same Auburn fan to recall the '04 season, you'd probably get a negative response, much like Ohio St has experienced the last two years. He'd probably say something like, "Yeah, we were 11-0 but we got our asses kicked in the playoff and got exposed as a fraud." So maybe there's another side to this, and "getting screwed" out of a chance of having the establishment call you the national champs isn't such a bad thing. Just a thought.
So, why would a playoff be good for college football? Proponents would say that a playoff system would give all deserving teams a fair shot at earning a national championship on the field, much like "every other conceivable organization decides it's champion".
I look at this scenario in a macro view. Would the college football season as a whole be a more enjoyable experience with a playoff or without? Is this a fair question to ask, or is it only important that the end of the season is satisfying and fair to everyone? If you choose the latter, then friend, we will never agree, because the argument has a fundamental chasm right from the get go. So I will look at it by considering the effects a playoff would have on the entire season. I really feel that those wishing for a playoff have not fully considered the effects a playoff system would have. If we are going to screw with what is for me, by a mile, the most enjoyable sport in America, then we better damn well make sure that the changes we make don't result in more problems than we have currently, effectively making it a less enjoyable sport. Because, after all, we will be changing the entire landscape of the sport so that we feel a little better that we MIGHT not be treating some teams unfairly.
We also should consider if a change to a playoff would accomplish anything at all. For example, the most popular playoff proposal is for an 8 team playoff. If that were the case, how would we determine the 8 teams? 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams? In that case, how would you pick the at large teams? Someone would certainly be left out of the process as they are now. Suppose Oregon St had beaten Oregon, as they were favored to do last Saturday. Only 3 of Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, Texas Tech, USC and Utah would have been included in an 8 teamer.. To me, it would appear that in that scenario, Utah, Texas Tech and USC would probably be excluded. No USC in a playoff? That accomplishes nothing above what we have now, because half the country would be calling USC the "hottest" team in America, like they do almost every year. It also doesn't even address the cases of Utah and Boise St, who represent the loudest calls for some sort of playoff, and the most vitriolic anger against the BCS process. Perhaps, then, the top 8 in the BCS standings? What sense would that make? Take the process that everyone rails against, and make it the 100% basis for the structure? And risk killing the bowl structure as we know it in the process? (I'll get into that later). A 16 team playoff would be an even more severe and marginalizing concept. It would also completely reinvent college football as we know it, so I'll not even get into that concept, instead focusing on the less severe model we're discussing now.
Moreover, logistically, how would a playoff be staged? The popular models I've seen suggested call for the 4 BCS bowls to host a game apiece, 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. The winners would play the following week, presumably at neutral sites, and then a championship game with the survivors held thereafter. This model does not consider some major obstacles. First, as I think everyone knows, these bowls are huge events. After the 2-4 week layoff after the season ends, teams get to the destinations about a week prior, hold practices and attend community events all week leading up to the game. If there was a 3 week playoff, the winning teams would not have that luxury the following week. They need to prepare, practice, etc, so a week long sojourn the following week would not be feasible. In addition, consider the fans of say, Penn St. Suppose Penn St plays USC in the Rose Bowl and wins. Their fans have already traveled across country. Now are they expected to travel again, the following week to another city, make travel arrangements and accommodations at a moment's notice, then potentially do it again the following week? Football isn't like basketball, where the whole shooting match can be handled in a weekend. If you propose using home fields, then the bowl system as we know it is dead, and if I need to justify why there is a problem with that, then again, there's no sense continuing, because as I mentioned before, the chasm between the arguments is so wide, it would never be bridged. The great thing about college football is that tons of teams have something to play for every week as the season comes down to the wire: bowl eligibility, or an improvement in their bowl stature. Many times, it's in games against other teams in the same boat. It's a chance to put a positive mark on your season, and a chance for your athletic department to prosper so that your swimmers don't have to pay their own way to the national championships in California, or the women's field hockey team can have more than a $5 per Diem on the road. It makes for meaningful games all year long. Bowls are freakin' cool, not to mention a load of fun to handicap. I am NOT willing to sacrifice them for a playoff system that has the potential to present new problems for the sport that might be worse than the issues we have now. Additionally, I have a problem with taking away the neutrality of these games. If you are trying to determine who the best is, why play the game in a snowstorm, or give another team an advantage if their fans can't traavel as easily two weeks in a row? That's why they play the Super Bowl in a warm weather neutral site, to make it as much a "control" environment as possible. (This by the way will be the last time I point to the NFL as any positive example for college football. You can keep your 2 yard out routes on 4th and 12, 13-24 QB performances for 87 yards and countless commercial breaks. NOTE: In the Bucs/Saints game this weekend, we had this sequence: With under a minute left in the 1st quarter, Tampa drives into FG range. On 3rd down, Garcia throws an incompletion. Someone gets injured. Cut to commercial. Come back. FG attempt is good. Cut to another commercial. Come back. TB kicks off, NO returns it to the 20. Commercial. Come back. Running play. 1st quarter ends. Double block of commercials. Ballgame. I flipped on Stooges re-runs, never to return.)
Let's also consider the effects on the regular season. Teams like USC want a playoff so that they can have the luxury of "having an off week" and not having their MNC(whoops, I mean NC) dreams dashed as a result. Do we want this? Don't we love the madcap comebacks teams embark on out of fear their season might be lost, like USC's effort to get back into the game at Oregon St this year after falling behind 21-0 at the half? Would they have exerted such effort if a playoff existed? We don't know the answer to that. Do we want a college football version of week 16 and 17 in the NFL, where teams are mailing in games because their playoff lot has already been cast? Would Alabama give a rat's ass about the SEC championship game this weekend? Maybe they would, and it would be a credit to their competitive fire if they did, but we almost certainly would be subject to Sportscenter and talk radio discussions on whether or not they should risk injury to their top players since they would have a playoff spot basically locked up. And if you say they would run the risk of falling out of favor with voters if they lost for not showing up, then we are still not immune to the concept of "style points" that is so loathed by the talking heads currently. As it stands right now, we have a perfect "semifinal" type scenario in the SEC title game, about as meaningful and big as a game can be, where one of these teams will earn a trip to the NC game. That would not be the case if a playoff was employed...we would be making a very clean and simple scenario much more complicated. Take it a step further. If a "Top 8 in the BCS" model was used, would there even be a need for conference championship games at all?
Let's also disspel the all the criticisms of ADs and college presidents, and the self righteous ramblings that "it's all about the money". You're damn right it's about the money. As I mentioned, football is the vehicle by which 95% of D-1 schools fund their athletic departments. Where do you think all the money made via the bowls goes? To some AD's trust fund? In the Presidents' pockets? No, they go to fund the athletic departments of the schools, so they can pay for the women's and men's non-revenue sports to make road trips on something other than rickety school buses. So they can eat dinner at places other than McDonald's. So schools can fund athletic facilities and locker rooms for these sports without cutting in other areas. So there's a scholarship available for your daughter who's really good at soccer. Schools striving to collect as much money as possible to help ALL of their student atheletes, or to position themselves to be more equipped to do so is not a bad thing, ok?
Lastly, let me say that, yes, every other sport has some sort of playoff system to determine it's champion. I get that. Can I be more clear that I do NOT want college football to be just like the NBA, or NFL, or even NCAA basketball? The NBA is fine. Playoffs are pretty cool. I get into it somewhere around May 1st. The NCAA tourney is pretty damn sweet. 8 days of games plus the final Monday nighter over a 2 week period. It's great. But most sports fans would tell you that they don't even pay attention to college hoops until after the Super Bowl is over. That's 3 months into the season. I'm not interested in any pining for a parallel to that in college football. I for one, enjoy bowl season just as much, if not more than I do the Tourney, and I still get to have a regular season in college football that is 20 times superior to that of college hoops. It's kind of like an analogy: I'm a big fan of two kinds of candy: Chocolate covered pretzels and Smarties. Love 'em both. If you would ask me if I'd rather have two of the same as an after dinner treat or one of both, I'd take one of both. Variety is the spice of life. I don't want a tourney style playoff in college football just like I wouldn't want a bunch of satellite games that might be cool matchups at the end of the college basketball season. Again, variety!
Is the BCS system perfect? Of course not. Especially when the Big 12 uses it to determine their division winners. But I hope I have illustrated that any playoff system would absolutely radically change college football, from the beginning of the season to the end, and very likely for the worse. It would certainly bring new problems and issues into the game that we currently don't have, which ultimately, could render college football a less enjoyable product as a whole. As I stated at the beginning of this diatribe, I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Why sacrifice something we love, just so we can feel a little bit better about how we decide the champion in a process that might not work anyway?
Here is my argument against a College football playoff.
First, let me first say that I am an absolute college football junkie. I love College football. It is by far my favorite sport. I live for college football Saturdays in the fall, and the holiday bowl season in December/January. I would surmise that those reading this would probably say the same thing about themselves. I don't think I need to go into my reasons for this. Those that don't count themselves in this group, I would hope would not try to push their half-hearted opinions on the sport and instead go get excited about the Pistons/Spurs tilt on TNT that means so much this early December.
A couple points that you will NOT see in this argument: 1. The inane and logically bankrupt argument that a playoff would make the season "too long" for the "student atheletes." Can we all agree that this view is an embarrassment to anyone who makes this argument? It angers me when I hear it, because it just discredits the entire anti-playoff agrument. This is not a reason to avoid a playoff. Let me make that clear. 2. Chaos is fun. Don't count me in with that nonsense either.
I realize that I am in the minority in this argument. Just about anyone who has any opinion about the BCS undoubtedly will throw up their hands at the "mess" or "disgrace" that we currently see and call for the need for a playoff to cure all that ails college football. And I guess we would need to establish that college football is indeed ailing, wouldn't we? College Football fans are routinely painted as the most passionate in all of sports, as they always have been. The games are exhilarating. Stadiums are packed, 80,000 or more at scores of campuses around the country, today and always. I dare say that there is very little that is "wrong" with college football at this point. It seems to be pretty healthy to me, and continues to grow in popularity.
My initial question is this: Why do we need a College football playoff system? The answer: Because over the years, the emphasis in college football has gone from the journey of the season to an absolute obsession with who is crowned the National Champion, or what used to be referred to as the "Mythical National Champion". It used to be referred to as that because over the years in college football, the national championship was not the end all be all. It wasn't the only conceivable thing that a team would strive to accomplish when it started fall practice. For example, if you were a team from the Big Ten, your goal was to win the league, go to the Rose Bowl and win it. If someone felt you deserved to be called the National Champion, great, but teams and fans didn't need some bullcrap institution to tell them that they had a championship year. Same for the Pac 10, same for the Big 8(Orange Bowl), the SWC(Cotton Bowl), SEC(Sugar Bowl) and so on. There wasn't even a trophy. Can you believe that? No Waterford crystal football sponsored by At&T or whoever? How can that be? However, the expansion of conferences helped to change things, and as a result, the national championship is now of the utmost importance to everyone, to the point that conference titles are merely secondary, and often forgotten. Here's a good example: Consider the Auburn team of 2004, the one that did not play for the National Championship in deference to unbeaten USC and Oklahoma and instead beat a very good Virginia Tech team in the Sugar Bowl. If you asked an Auburn fan to recall that season, would you get a positive or a negative reaction? Certainly, it would depend on the person, but undoubtedly, due to an insatiable desire to be validated by the establishment as NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, there would be some, maybe a sizable amount that would look back on that season negatively. To me, that is lunacy. You were the UNDEFEATED SEC and SUGAR BOWL CHAMPS! Hang a banner! Order the rings! Get the T-shirts!. Who cares that you didn't lead Sportscenter on January 6th? Look back at that season with pride. Historicaly, it will always be remembered. I'm a freakin' Illinois alum and fan, and I remember it and consider that team on the same level as USC that year, and so does everyone else that follows college football. Ask any CFB journalist about the '04 Auburn team, and you'll undoubtedly get glowing reviews and a healthy level of respect. Now conversely, how do people remember the OU squad from that year that USC blew the doors off of? Pretender. Poseur. Fraud. Certainly they're remembered less favorably than the Auburn squad is. And isn't that part of what this whole process is about? Being able to command respect, and get your props as a team and as a fan base? But what if there was a playoff that year, and Auburn got matched up with USC in a semi-final? Maybe they would have beaten them, and they'd be seen in the same light as they are today, and they'd have an entry in the CFB encyclopedia saying they were the official National Champs. But what if they took it on the chin just like OU did? Then what? If you asked that same Auburn fan to recall the '04 season, you'd probably get a negative response, much like Ohio St has experienced the last two years. He'd probably say something like, "Yeah, we were 11-0 but we got our asses kicked in the playoff and got exposed as a fraud." So maybe there's another side to this, and "getting screwed" out of a chance of having the establishment call you the national champs isn't such a bad thing. Just a thought.
So, why would a playoff be good for college football? Proponents would say that a playoff system would give all deserving teams a fair shot at earning a national championship on the field, much like "every other conceivable organization decides it's champion".
I look at this scenario in a macro view. Would the college football season as a whole be a more enjoyable experience with a playoff or without? Is this a fair question to ask, or is it only important that the end of the season is satisfying and fair to everyone? If you choose the latter, then friend, we will never agree, because the argument has a fundamental chasm right from the get go. So I will look at it by considering the effects a playoff would have on the entire season. I really feel that those wishing for a playoff have not fully considered the effects a playoff system would have. If we are going to screw with what is for me, by a mile, the most enjoyable sport in America, then we better damn well make sure that the changes we make don't result in more problems than we have currently, effectively making it a less enjoyable sport. Because, after all, we will be changing the entire landscape of the sport so that we feel a little better that we MIGHT not be treating some teams unfairly.
We also should consider if a change to a playoff would accomplish anything at all. For example, the most popular playoff proposal is for an 8 team playoff. If that were the case, how would we determine the 8 teams? 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams? In that case, how would you pick the at large teams? Someone would certainly be left out of the process as they are now. Suppose Oregon St had beaten Oregon, as they were favored to do last Saturday. Only 3 of Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, Texas Tech, USC and Utah would have been included in an 8 teamer.. To me, it would appear that in that scenario, Utah, Texas Tech and USC would probably be excluded. No USC in a playoff? That accomplishes nothing above what we have now, because half the country would be calling USC the "hottest" team in America, like they do almost every year. It also doesn't even address the cases of Utah and Boise St, who represent the loudest calls for some sort of playoff, and the most vitriolic anger against the BCS process. Perhaps, then, the top 8 in the BCS standings? What sense would that make? Take the process that everyone rails against, and make it the 100% basis for the structure? And risk killing the bowl structure as we know it in the process? (I'll get into that later). A 16 team playoff would be an even more severe and marginalizing concept. It would also completely reinvent college football as we know it, so I'll not even get into that concept, instead focusing on the less severe model we're discussing now.
Moreover, logistically, how would a playoff be staged? The popular models I've seen suggested call for the 4 BCS bowls to host a game apiece, 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. The winners would play the following week, presumably at neutral sites, and then a championship game with the survivors held thereafter. This model does not consider some major obstacles. First, as I think everyone knows, these bowls are huge events. After the 2-4 week layoff after the season ends, teams get to the destinations about a week prior, hold practices and attend community events all week leading up to the game. If there was a 3 week playoff, the winning teams would not have that luxury the following week. They need to prepare, practice, etc, so a week long sojourn the following week would not be feasible. In addition, consider the fans of say, Penn St. Suppose Penn St plays USC in the Rose Bowl and wins. Their fans have already traveled across country. Now are they expected to travel again, the following week to another city, make travel arrangements and accommodations at a moment's notice, then potentially do it again the following week? Football isn't like basketball, where the whole shooting match can be handled in a weekend. If you propose using home fields, then the bowl system as we know it is dead, and if I need to justify why there is a problem with that, then again, there's no sense continuing, because as I mentioned before, the chasm between the arguments is so wide, it would never be bridged. The great thing about college football is that tons of teams have something to play for every week as the season comes down to the wire: bowl eligibility, or an improvement in their bowl stature. Many times, it's in games against other teams in the same boat. It's a chance to put a positive mark on your season, and a chance for your athletic department to prosper so that your swimmers don't have to pay their own way to the national championships in California, or the women's field hockey team can have more than a $5 per Diem on the road. It makes for meaningful games all year long. Bowls are freakin' cool, not to mention a load of fun to handicap. I am NOT willing to sacrifice them for a playoff system that has the potential to present new problems for the sport that might be worse than the issues we have now. Additionally, I have a problem with taking away the neutrality of these games. If you are trying to determine who the best is, why play the game in a snowstorm, or give another team an advantage if their fans can't traavel as easily two weeks in a row? That's why they play the Super Bowl in a warm weather neutral site, to make it as much a "control" environment as possible. (This by the way will be the last time I point to the NFL as any positive example for college football. You can keep your 2 yard out routes on 4th and 12, 13-24 QB performances for 87 yards and countless commercial breaks. NOTE: In the Bucs/Saints game this weekend, we had this sequence: With under a minute left in the 1st quarter, Tampa drives into FG range. On 3rd down, Garcia throws an incompletion. Someone gets injured. Cut to commercial. Come back. FG attempt is good. Cut to another commercial. Come back. TB kicks off, NO returns it to the 20. Commercial. Come back. Running play. 1st quarter ends. Double block of commercials. Ballgame. I flipped on Stooges re-runs, never to return.)
Let's also consider the effects on the regular season. Teams like USC want a playoff so that they can have the luxury of "having an off week" and not having their MNC(whoops, I mean NC) dreams dashed as a result. Do we want this? Don't we love the madcap comebacks teams embark on out of fear their season might be lost, like USC's effort to get back into the game at Oregon St this year after falling behind 21-0 at the half? Would they have exerted such effort if a playoff existed? We don't know the answer to that. Do we want a college football version of week 16 and 17 in the NFL, where teams are mailing in games because their playoff lot has already been cast? Would Alabama give a rat's ass about the SEC championship game this weekend? Maybe they would, and it would be a credit to their competitive fire if they did, but we almost certainly would be subject to Sportscenter and talk radio discussions on whether or not they should risk injury to their top players since they would have a playoff spot basically locked up. And if you say they would run the risk of falling out of favor with voters if they lost for not showing up, then we are still not immune to the concept of "style points" that is so loathed by the talking heads currently. As it stands right now, we have a perfect "semifinal" type scenario in the SEC title game, about as meaningful and big as a game can be, where one of these teams will earn a trip to the NC game. That would not be the case if a playoff was employed...we would be making a very clean and simple scenario much more complicated. Take it a step further. If a "Top 8 in the BCS" model was used, would there even be a need for conference championship games at all?
Let's also disspel the all the criticisms of ADs and college presidents, and the self righteous ramblings that "it's all about the money". You're damn right it's about the money. As I mentioned, football is the vehicle by which 95% of D-1 schools fund their athletic departments. Where do you think all the money made via the bowls goes? To some AD's trust fund? In the Presidents' pockets? No, they go to fund the athletic departments of the schools, so they can pay for the women's and men's non-revenue sports to make road trips on something other than rickety school buses. So they can eat dinner at places other than McDonald's. So schools can fund athletic facilities and locker rooms for these sports without cutting in other areas. So there's a scholarship available for your daughter who's really good at soccer. Schools striving to collect as much money as possible to help ALL of their student atheletes, or to position themselves to be more equipped to do so is not a bad thing, ok?
Lastly, let me say that, yes, every other sport has some sort of playoff system to determine it's champion. I get that. Can I be more clear that I do NOT want college football to be just like the NBA, or NFL, or even NCAA basketball? The NBA is fine. Playoffs are pretty cool. I get into it somewhere around May 1st. The NCAA tourney is pretty damn sweet. 8 days of games plus the final Monday nighter over a 2 week period. It's great. But most sports fans would tell you that they don't even pay attention to college hoops until after the Super Bowl is over. That's 3 months into the season. I'm not interested in any pining for a parallel to that in college football. I for one, enjoy bowl season just as much, if not more than I do the Tourney, and I still get to have a regular season in college football that is 20 times superior to that of college hoops. It's kind of like an analogy: I'm a big fan of two kinds of candy: Chocolate covered pretzels and Smarties. Love 'em both. If you would ask me if I'd rather have two of the same as an after dinner treat or one of both, I'd take one of both. Variety is the spice of life. I don't want a tourney style playoff in college football just like I wouldn't want a bunch of satellite games that might be cool matchups at the end of the college basketball season. Again, variety!
Is the BCS system perfect? Of course not. Especially when the Big 12 uses it to determine their division winners. But I hope I have illustrated that any playoff system would absolutely radically change college football, from the beginning of the season to the end, and very likely for the worse. It would certainly bring new problems and issues into the game that we currently don't have, which ultimately, could render college football a less enjoyable product as a whole. As I stated at the beginning of this diatribe, I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Why sacrifice something we love, just so we can feel a little bit better about how we decide the champion in a process that might not work anyway?
Last edited by a moderator:
