Good morning Drew,
Thank you very much for your response. We disagree on some points but we do agree on others. I will respond to your paragraphs as you do bring up veyr interesting and thought provoking points.
I appreciate your response and while I probably won't hit on all your points, I have no issue with you being a supporter of the BCS. I just have an issue with an organization claiming it can't do something it already does and always pointing to "protecting the student-athlete" as the reason. If all other Divisions can handle a playoff and if every other sport can handle a playoff, why can't college football in Division 1?
The “protecting the student-athlete” from a playoff during the Christmas holidays or exams or whatever it is has always been a PR move in my mind. The simple fact that the other divisions have playoffs proves that this is not a main issue, but maybe they say it because it sounds better to act as though they are sticking with the BCS to protect the students. I'm with you on this.
The regular season would have plenty of meaning with a playoff as you would have to win your conference to get in or be good enough to earn one of the five at-large bids. You shorten the regular season, get rid of ridiculous games like Florida vs. me and my co-workers, and get to real games from the start to the end. Does the NFL regular season mean nothing because it has a playoff?
In the NFL, the individual, week-to-week regular season games do not impact the overall season nearly enough. Its ok for the Colts to lose their last 2 (probably more than that) games of an undefeated season because they've locked up everything for the playoffs. Basically, its ok to lose games, and that is bad. I understand that each team goes into each game wanting to win, but the penalty for losing is not strong enough. You can lose almost half your games and still have a shot at the championship. Even if you have to win your conference to get included in the proposed playoff system, Florida and Alabama had their respective divisions clinched in early November this past year. If Florida had gone out and lost to the Citadel and Florida State, they still have a chance at the title. Something is wrong with that.
I am not arguing that the MAC has an open shot to get into the BCS by reaching one of the top 16, but if it is supposed to be an even playing field, why is there only 1-slot granted for non-qualifiers outside of the top six. Why should a 2-win Notre Dame team get in over a 1-loss MAC team or a unbeaten non-BCS team? That is because of money and fan base. You can't deny that.
I'm not sure where I implied that college football is an even playing field, but your point is noted. If anything, college football is more of a representation of living in the US than any other sport. For starters, it isn't fair, and you really have to work hard to earn your way to the top. If I graduate from NC State law school (if we had one) and am applying for a job against a Yale law school graduate, I may be every bit as good a lawyer as the Yale guy, but I'm not getting that job, because of what we understand the competition of Yale law school to be. Similarly, if Texas and Central Michigan both go undefeated, and there is only 1 BCS slot available, we both know who is getting in, and its largely due to the competition that Texas faced in going undefeated.
Getting invited to the BCS National Championship game is more fair than getting invited to a BCS Bowl game. The national championship game follows the formula and if you are ranked high enough, you are in. In contrast, the BCS Bowl games are controlled by people and are understood to be a business, and they make their decisions based on what is right for their business. A good friend of mine worked for the Alamo bowl and she made it very clear to me that they select their teams based on which teams bring in more money for their bowl. I agree with your point, and while I support the BCS, I mainly support it as an avenue of deciding the National Champion. The BCS doesn't control who the bowls invite and I'm not sure they can or will.
Also, if it is even, why is the money so lop-sided. Why not make the lesser bowls have more value so the smaller conferences can at least break even? Also, if it is an even playing field, why can certain teams have eight home games while MAC teams often play seven road games. Force a 6-6 rule that makes all teams play even home and away from home schedules. Why is that something that can't happen? Again, money.
I'm not exactly sure who would “make the lesser bowls have more value.” While I don't think its good that teams lose money going to bowl games, I'm not sure there is a right way to do this. The bowls value is what it is, and that is whatever the market pays for it. The bigger bowls typically draw bigger crowds and have better ratings because they include better teams. Again, if you want to be included as a BCS automatic qualifying school and goto the BCS bowls, play better football. I'm sorry that Akron doesn't make any money by playing in the New Orleans bowl, but should the other bowls, or anyone else have to suffer because of this?
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6-6 rule and I think it would be technically possible, but I don't see it happening. I imagine that it is something that the NCAA members could vote on, since, as I understand it but I may be incorrect, that is how rules like that become established. It may be a conference by conference thing, I am just not sure. But, to your point, the schools with big stadiums wouldn't like it because then they lose home dates where they can sell out their big stadiums. However, what is stopping the MAC schools from having more home games? Aren't they free to schedule whoever they wish? I assume the response is that no good team will play a MAC team in a MAC stadium like we've heard Boise State complain about before, but if you can get your program up to a respectable level, or get the MAC to BCS standards, then it becomes a real possibility.
If the NCAA truly cared about the student-athlete it wouldn't allow mid-week night games and it wouldn't drag out the bowl games later and later each year. It wouldn't allow conference realignments that has two teams traveling halfway across the country to play in other sports like basketball and golf just so we can have intriguing football games.
Agreed on the first 2 points. I hate how the bowl season drags on, and while I enjoy watching the mid-week games, I doubt that it benefits the students. However, conferences like the MAC, WAC, and whoever else plays those midweek games agreed to do that, so apparently the conferences and schools themselves think its OK. The NCAA didn't come out and say “you guys have to play in the middle of the week.” And the NCAA has already lost in the Supreme Court when it tried to regulate teams' TV contracts and appearances, so I doubt they have the authority to control games during the week.
Again, conference realignment is done by the schools and conferences. They apparently see enough of a benefit to do it. This may also be something that the NCAA does not have authority to rule on because of the Supreme Court case.
I know there is more money that can be made, but the agreements between the bowl sponsers and the conferences as well as television rights are what is really keeping this all from happening. There are too many contracts tying things up. Are you telling me that you couldn't have the BCS sponsers handle each of the quarterfinal games and then hold a "Final Four" for football in one location? Depending on the surface of play you could have two games one night and then the championship a week later. That would sell beyond anyone's wildest dreams and could be as big as the Super Bowl. If the regular season had a 10-game schedule that could include an addition conference championship game for conference that can do it and then a maximum 4-game playoff, it is 15 games, 1 more than what most championship teams play now. Those that don't make the playoffs but have a 6-6 record or better can play in bowl games that remain.
There are a lot of current contracts in place, but I honestly think that if the schools/conferences could find a way to preserve the value of the regular season (which is what I think their main goal is) and create a playoff that would get them more money, they would do it in a heartbeat. It may take some time to get through the existing contracts, but some people today would still be excited to hear about a playoff, even if it was 10 years down the road. However, since I believe those 2 factors are contradictory, I don't see it happening anytime soon. There are a lot of factors involved. School presidents, athletic departments, the bowls themselves, the bowl sponsors, TV, the student-athletes, the conferences, and probably other entities, all have a stake in this. You can put 5 people in a room and they will come up with 5 different playoff systems, all of which seem reasonable. Getting all of those separate entities and 120 (and growing) universities to agree on 1 playoff system seems a little far fetched. Although, you probably only need 61 (the majority) to agree on the playoff system, but even that sounds daunting.
Would a playoff system be simpler? Yes. Would conferences with the same amount of teams playing the same amount of games, with the same amount home and away be easier to follow and easier to compare? Probably so. Would it put an end to a lot of arguing and theoretical discussions? Definitely. But then it wouldn't be college football, and I'm not convinced it would be a better product than what we have now. Sure, there are things I would love to change about the sport if I had my way. But college football has done pretty well over the years despite, or because of, all of the controversy. I think what the conferences don't come out and say is that the BCS causes more college football discussions than a playoff system would, and thus more interest. Also, and maybe more importantly, now we have fans in Texas keeping up with (read: watching on TV) teams like Alabama and Ohio State. Everyone saw the Oregon-Boise State game last year, and saw “the punch,” but how many teams outside of the pacific northwest would've seen that? And would it have even been televised nationally? Not without the stir that Boise State has created because of the BCS. Whatever bowl had the WAC conference champion before the BCS would get a healthy dose of Boise St and Hawaii and the hook and ladder/lateral, statue of liberty to marriage proposal memory never would have happened without the BCS. Are you telling me that the Boise St-Oklahoma game was not one of the most dramatic games ever?
As I've said, the BCS has its problems, but the good outweighs the bad. If MAC teams, or others, are unhappy with it, they have options. They can play in a playoff system in I-AA or not field a team. They have made the decision that the positives outweigh the negatives in fielding a football at the I-A level. My advice to you is to simply sit back and enjoy the season. There is quite a lot to enjoy.
Again, thank you very much for your response, and please respond again if you feel so inclined. I enjoy writing emails like this, especially as football season approaches. So much so that I created a blog simply of letters that I have written to people about the BCS. Check it out if you like (http://nocollegefootballplayoff.blogspot.com/). I would be happy to keep our current dialogue going. Have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Taylor
No comments:
Post a Comment