This is an offshoot from my posts in the NCAA predictions thread, but I think the subject is important enough to get its own topic.
As we all know, the nation is divided over how college football determines its champion...There are those who believe that the current bowl system is the best option, because it maintains traditions, and there are those who despise the BCS (like me) who think that the BCS is a complete joke. I am going to look at some of the arguments BCS proponents use to defend the BCS, then explain why they are wrong.
1. The BCS is traditional, how can you mess with tradition?
Easily. Nobody ever thought that the Big Ten Champion and Pac 10 Champion would ever not play in the Rose Bowl either. And yet, they do.
2. The current system works!
Yeah, no, it doesn't. Skipping all of the obvious mid majors going undefeated argument, all you have to do is look at the 2004 Auburn Tigers. The SEC is supposedly the best football conference in America. That is what all the sportscasters keep telling us. Yet, in 2004, the Auburn Tigers not only won the SEC, but they went undefeated. A lock to play in the national title game, right? Wrong. The BCS locked out an undefeated SEC team from having any chance to win a national championship. Any system that can shut out an undefeated team from the strongest football conference in America must be deeply flawed. Auburn did everything it possibly could, yet, had zero chance at a national title.
3. It would diminish the regular season.
Really? The NFL only has 32 teams compared to the 120 in Division 1 FBS football. 12 NFL teams make the playoffs. That is almost 40% of the entire league qualifying for the post season. Yet, the Super Bowl is by far, the most watched television event in America. Nothing ever comes close in terms of American ratings. (yes, the World Cup gets better global ratings, we know, shut up about it). Are you suggesting that the NFL, the most popular sport in America, is weakened by its playoff format, where 40% of the league makes it? For a college football playoff to be comparable, they would need to have it include 45 teams. To get the same percentage of the NCAA to participate in the playoffs as the NFL does, you would need to have 45 teams play in it. If that happens, I would completely agree that it diminishes the regular season. But, most playoff proposals I have seen range from a simple "plus 1" model (making two BCS games defacto semi-finals, making it an unofficial 4 team playoff) to 16. For the sake of argument, I am going to use an 8 team playoff, right in the middle. 8 NCAA teams in a playoff represents about 6.6% of all NCAA FBS division teams. 6.6%, compared to the NFL's near 40%. How much does that weaken the regular season, if less than 7% of all teams earn the chance to win the national title? Now, when a team loses a tough game, they are out. Their season is a bust. With a playoff, a single loss doesn't necessarily eliminate you, so you still have something to play for beyond your conference title and pride. You are still in it.
4. Someone is still going to get left out!
As if they don't get excluded now. This is one of the weakest of all the pro-BCS arguments out there. You can't bitch about how the 9th team would get excluded while trying to defend why the 3rd team can be. Further, with an 8 team playoff, the winner would have to beat a top 8 team in 3 consecutive weeks to earn their title. I don't think anyone can argue that beating 3 top 8 teams in 3 straight weeks doesn't earn it. Who is a more credible champion, the one who beats 1 team, or the one who beats 3? It eliminates the controversy. Its hard to claim a team that won didn't deserve it, after beating 3 great teams in 3 weeks.
5. You can't get rid of the bowls, its a reward for all those teams!
Again, a ridiculous argument. Nobody is saying that the Poulon-Weedeater bowl or Papa Johns bowl are going away. All of those non-BCS bowls would remain completely intact. Nobody wants to completely end all bowls. Any playoff proposal relates to those teams in contention for a national championship, teams that would already qualify for a BCS bowl, not the 6-6 to 9-3 type teams.
6. Makes the season too long!
Bullshit. Most colleges use a semester/interim/semester type schedule. First semester ends in December, second semester doesn't start until the end of January/beginning of February. An NCAA playoff would take place in January, which a lot of the players would have off anyway. Much less time missed from school than the NCAA March Madness tournament. Especially since we are talking about 8 teams, only 4 of which would advance past the first bowl game. All but 4 NCAA teams' seasons would still end no later than bowl week. The academic argument is complete rubbish.
7. But the BCS makes so much money!
Yeah. It does. But, can ANYONE honestly tell me that the ratings for a college football playoff, featuring a total of 7 games (4 quarter final games, 2 semi-final games, 1 championship game) wouldn't blow those ratings out of the water? Furthermore, can anyone really claim that the network execs wouldn't ****e out their wives and daughters for a chance to broadcast an NCAA playoff? The BCS makes a lot of money. A playoff would make a lot more. In fact, I would dare say that an NCAA title game, after a 3 week playoff, would draw better ratings than any non-Super Bowl show, that it would crush the basketball tournament's ratings.
I am not going to go into what a playoff would exactly look like in this thread, that wasn't the goal. The goal was simply to present the pro-BCS argument, and then debunk it.
As we all know, the nation is divided over how college football determines its champion...There are those who believe that the current bowl system is the best option, because it maintains traditions, and there are those who despise the BCS (like me) who think that the BCS is a complete joke. I am going to look at some of the arguments BCS proponents use to defend the BCS, then explain why they are wrong.
1. The BCS is traditional, how can you mess with tradition?
Easily. Nobody ever thought that the Big Ten Champion and Pac 10 Champion would ever not play in the Rose Bowl either. And yet, they do.
2. The current system works!
Yeah, no, it doesn't. Skipping all of the obvious mid majors going undefeated argument, all you have to do is look at the 2004 Auburn Tigers. The SEC is supposedly the best football conference in America. That is what all the sportscasters keep telling us. Yet, in 2004, the Auburn Tigers not only won the SEC, but they went undefeated. A lock to play in the national title game, right? Wrong. The BCS locked out an undefeated SEC team from having any chance to win a national championship. Any system that can shut out an undefeated team from the strongest football conference in America must be deeply flawed. Auburn did everything it possibly could, yet, had zero chance at a national title.
3. It would diminish the regular season.
Really? The NFL only has 32 teams compared to the 120 in Division 1 FBS football. 12 NFL teams make the playoffs. That is almost 40% of the entire league qualifying for the post season. Yet, the Super Bowl is by far, the most watched television event in America. Nothing ever comes close in terms of American ratings. (yes, the World Cup gets better global ratings, we know, shut up about it). Are you suggesting that the NFL, the most popular sport in America, is weakened by its playoff format, where 40% of the league makes it? For a college football playoff to be comparable, they would need to have it include 45 teams. To get the same percentage of the NCAA to participate in the playoffs as the NFL does, you would need to have 45 teams play in it. If that happens, I would completely agree that it diminishes the regular season. But, most playoff proposals I have seen range from a simple "plus 1" model (making two BCS games defacto semi-finals, making it an unofficial 4 team playoff) to 16. For the sake of argument, I am going to use an 8 team playoff, right in the middle. 8 NCAA teams in a playoff represents about 6.6% of all NCAA FBS division teams. 6.6%, compared to the NFL's near 40%. How much does that weaken the regular season, if less than 7% of all teams earn the chance to win the national title? Now, when a team loses a tough game, they are out. Their season is a bust. With a playoff, a single loss doesn't necessarily eliminate you, so you still have something to play for beyond your conference title and pride. You are still in it.
4. Someone is still going to get left out!
As if they don't get excluded now. This is one of the weakest of all the pro-BCS arguments out there. You can't bitch about how the 9th team would get excluded while trying to defend why the 3rd team can be. Further, with an 8 team playoff, the winner would have to beat a top 8 team in 3 consecutive weeks to earn their title. I don't think anyone can argue that beating 3 top 8 teams in 3 straight weeks doesn't earn it. Who is a more credible champion, the one who beats 1 team, or the one who beats 3? It eliminates the controversy. Its hard to claim a team that won didn't deserve it, after beating 3 great teams in 3 weeks.
5. You can't get rid of the bowls, its a reward for all those teams!
Again, a ridiculous argument. Nobody is saying that the Poulon-Weedeater bowl or Papa Johns bowl are going away. All of those non-BCS bowls would remain completely intact. Nobody wants to completely end all bowls. Any playoff proposal relates to those teams in contention for a national championship, teams that would already qualify for a BCS bowl, not the 6-6 to 9-3 type teams.
6. Makes the season too long!
Bullshit. Most colleges use a semester/interim/semester type schedule. First semester ends in December, second semester doesn't start until the end of January/beginning of February. An NCAA playoff would take place in January, which a lot of the players would have off anyway. Much less time missed from school than the NCAA March Madness tournament. Especially since we are talking about 8 teams, only 4 of which would advance past the first bowl game. All but 4 NCAA teams' seasons would still end no later than bowl week. The academic argument is complete rubbish.
7. But the BCS makes so much money!
Yeah. It does. But, can ANYONE honestly tell me that the ratings for a college football playoff, featuring a total of 7 games (4 quarter final games, 2 semi-final games, 1 championship game) wouldn't blow those ratings out of the water? Furthermore, can anyone really claim that the network execs wouldn't ****e out their wives and daughters for a chance to broadcast an NCAA playoff? The BCS makes a lot of money. A playoff would make a lot more. In fact, I would dare say that an NCAA title game, after a 3 week playoff, would draw better ratings than any non-Super Bowl show, that it would crush the basketball tournament's ratings.
I am not going to go into what a playoff would exactly look like in this thread, that wasn't the goal. The goal was simply to present the pro-BCS argument, and then debunk it.