Shut Down Penn State Football

The unparalleled atrocities uncovered at Penn State this week require unprecedented reaction. It is disgusting to even fathom that a football team and football coach’s reputation can be thought of as more important than the safety, health and well-being of innocent children. Everyone within the program and university who has lost their job over this has, hopefully, only begun to face the consequences that they have certainly earned. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, no matter their status in State College. The roster of knowledgeable parties includes the President of the university, the Athletic Director, one of the most revered Head Coaches in the sport’s history, who knows how many assistant coaches, and who knows how many other people within the community.  Considering the fact that all of those people did not act appropriately in the defense of innocent children in order to protect a football program, the football program needs to be shut down completely.

The BCS is not causing conference realignment

The landscape of college football is continuing to morph right before our eyes. Right before this season we learned of Texas A&M's desire for SEC football and West Virginia and TCU have recently joined the Big 12. Just today we learn of the Big East trying to stay intact by inviting 6 teams to play football in their conference. Typically, the media blames the BCS for this because they need someone to blame and many already dislike the BCS. However, the BCS has not caused conference realignment. Conferences have always been trying to expand, long before the BCS existed, and the primary reason is television money.

September Recap

September Recap

Three teams tower above the rest after an exciting first month of the 2011 college football season. LSU and Alabama are the clear-cut best teams, and Oklahoma comes in just behind those SEC teams. Many other teams have the potential for greatness but have lacked the schedule strength to accurately judge their quality. Schedule strength is a familiar demon for Boise State, but Wisconsin is about to begin their conference schedule after beating up on some lesser opponents to help new star Russell Wilson get used to his new team. Oklahoma State and Stanford have begun conference play with a bang and should be contenders but still have some questions to answer before they can be considered among the nation's elite. LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma have already answered the call and seem to be poised and ready to take on the brunt of their conference schedule.

Sic 'em Bears!

Riding the high off of an exciting victory against TCU, Baylor is proving to be the deafening voice of the little guy in the never-ending conference realignment saga. In an interesting turn of events, Baylor has threatened legal action against Texas A&M if the Aggies leave the Big 12 and has brought conference realignment to a halt, at least temporarily. Hats off to the Bears for resisting the seemingly inevitable flow of teams switching conferences. The band in Waco need to stand their ground because they have nothing to lose, and hopefully this will slow the potential march towards the much-ballyhooed “super-conferences.”

The Big 12 should add some little teams

The Big 12 needs someone, anyone. A conference that was on the verge of being dismantled just last summer is again on the brink of losing a key member, and doesn't appear to have any sort of plan about how to remain intact. Sure, they can hope that the SEC doesn't actually invite Texas A&M, but with the Aggie brass sending a formal letter to the Big 12 asking about how to properly leave their current conference, the writing is  all over the wall.  The Big 12 has logical options within Texas, but may look too hard for a big name program.

Miami vs SMU

With the litany of accusations hurled against “The U” by Yahoo! Sports and Nevin Shapiro, the drumbeat for the NCAA “Death Penalty” has already begun. The level of detail combined with the library of photographs are extremely damning, especially when one of the photos contains the convicted felon Shapiro alongside University President Donna Shalala and head basketball coach Frank Haith. Will Miami face the “Death Penalty” and be forced to shut down their football program for at least one season? It is obviously too early to say conclusively, but all signs point to a resounding YES.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 18

Chapter 18

They just don't get it. The final chapter is relegated to summarizing the points made throughout the book about why a 16 team playoff would work and how everyone's lives would improve because of it. Politicians say they want to change the BCS simply because they know it is unpopular. This isn't the first time that politicians have taken a stance against unpopular things to win public support. The authors ignore the fact that change happens in college football because the system obviously transformed radically to create the BCS. Just because change doesn't happen in their favor doesn't mean they should remove it from history. Also, while their proposed playoff system could potentially yield more dollars, money is not some elixir that is going to fix the world of college sports. A 16 team playoff system is bad for college football and they still have not made a good case for it.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 17

In a perfect world, we would like to believe that all football conferences played well together and wanted what was best for everyone. In reality, college football is a business, a lucrative one at that, and every conference, along with every individual team, must lookout for their own best interests. Conferences have expanded throughout history with the sole intention of making their union better and stronger. This is not new. So while the authors may imply that conference expansion is new, bad, and a fault of the BCS, history proves otherwise. The authors also hypothesize that if pushed to reform, the BCS couldn't go back to the old bowl system simply because it is worse than the BCS and because times have changed. At its most ruthless, the BCS is a power grab by the major schools and conferences, and those big schools in conferences will continue to wield the most power with the old bowl system and not a playoff. In order to get a playoff in place, the NCAA membership would have to vote on it and approve it, and I would be willing to be that it would be quite some time before the major football schools and conferences are willing to approve a playoff and give up a lot of power.

Conference expansion and realignment is as old as the conferences themselves. The Pac-10 (soon to be Pac-12) was originally made up of 4 teams in 1915. The SEC started with 13 members, then went down to 10, then expanded to 12 in 1991. The BCS did not start the realignment process in the least. More importantly, the conferences are now establishing extremely lucrative TV deals for the broadcast rights to their regular season games. The reason that these deals are so astronomical is obviously because of the ratings, and the high ratings are because of the value of the regular season that college football uniquely offers. The authors do bring up an interesting and accurate point that the Big Ten, among other conferences, are possibly willing to sacrifice the gobs of money a playoff could potentially offer to their own conference by keeping the BCS in tact, thereby keeping their level of power and influence very high by keeping the money centralized. Many of those in power readily admit that a playoff could provide more money overall, but what is not said by those in charge is that giving up the BCS would mean the 6 BCS conferences then give up a lot of power and influence. What this leads to is all conferences wanting to expand because the big conferences want to get bigger and more powerful, and the smaller conferences want to add teams so that they can increase their prestige and quality of play in hopes of being added to the BCS table. At the end of the day, it is the same conference realignment that has always happened, but now the goal is more clearly defined. Just don't think the BCS started it.

If the BCS is broken up, whether it by the President, Department of Justice, Congress, or internal fighting, the old bowl system will be in place, at least for some time. There really is no denying it. If the authors haven't noticed, the NCAA is no model of expediency. It seems to take them forever to get anything done. I fail to see how they think the NCAA could throw together a playoff system that everyone agrees upon in a reasonable amount of time, one that involves school presidents, conference commissioners, bowl games, head coaches, and television stations, is quite ambitious. The authors propose a very intriguing 16 team playoff throughout the book, but not everyone will think that it is best. Their assumption that college football couldn't survive simply because there is more money involved in the sport nowadays is simply misguided. A few bowls may go under, but with the TV revenue that all of the BCS conferences are going to be bringing in, they will be able to pay their head coaches and athletic directors. Obviously, some things will change, but BCS conferences won't be running towards a playoff because of lack of funds. Not to mention the fact that these schools and conferences have avoided a playoff for this long, and since they can't be forced to establish a playoff, you don't think they would “take their ball and go home” simply to avoid a playoff? The one thing we have learned about these conferences throughout the BCS is that they like showing off their power, and what better way to show it off than by standing in the way of a playoff. Maybe they would eventually come around, but we would be back to the old bowl system for at least a few years.

The system in place is a very beneficial one for many parties. While not perfect (what system is?), there is little incentive for many to change. The authors are correct in assuming that the Big East would suffer a lot with the demise of the BCS, as well as many of the lower quality teams in the BCS conferences. While the BCS conferences may always be looking to add the big name teams, it is the lesser teams that help the conferences adhere together. They would suffer the most if the BCS ended, because they don't spend as much money on their programs, yet they still receive a big chunk of the TV and BCS bowl money. They truly have no incentive to change the status quo. The big football schools will always get theirs, no matter the system. The smaller schools in the BCS conferences are the ones who are quite content with the way things are, and since the NCAA makes changes based on the votes of their member schools, those votes from the BCS conferences' smaller schools are not likely to rock the boat anytime soon.

Death to a Playoff: Chapters 15 and 16

The attempt to indicate that the blue bloods of college football are actively trying to keep smaller programs out, or that there is going to be a collapse from within by the BCS, is not quite as dramatic as the authors imply. As everyone knows, the BCS has modified the number of games it holds and the qualifications for the sole reason of making sure quality teams from outside the 6 AQ conferences are included. And just because the conference commissioners have different ideas about the college football postseason doesn't mean that they are about to have a knock-down drag-out fight in the middle of the BCS meetings. Changes have been made, and will continue to be made, in order to improve the system that is in place. Creating a 16 team playoff does not improve the overall system in place, and thinking that a few teams with small stadiums or BCS internal strife will change the overall system is useless and completely misguided.

Death to a Playoff: Chapters 13 and 14

Perhaps no American sport has benefited from the internet and cable television more than college football. The internet provides never before seen access to teams, coaches, players, recruits and fans and cable television gives viewers the ability to watch games from all across the country. Especially now with DVR technology, you could probably spend an entire week watching nothing except college football games. These are probably the 2 biggest factors in the sport's growth over the past 20 years, neither of which involve the BCS. Yet, in chapter 13 and 14, the authors try and claim that the BCS is either solely claiming credit for the sport's growth (which it hasn't) or is an extreme hindrance in the continued growth (which it isn't because much of this growth has happened with the BCS present). The chapters do provide nice histories to both phenomena, but that is the extent of the value.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 12

The authors do a good job of exposing the poorly run polling system in Chapter 12. While I don't think polls are a bad idea, I definitely agree that the current system could be vastly improved and probably needs to be completely reformed. If the BCS is going to include human polls in their system, they must do a better job of making the guidelines clear to each pollster and making sure the pollsters are actually closely following the season. Anything less is an insult to the sport, the universities and the fans.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 11

The BCS uses computer rankings as a way to objectively rank teams according to their performance, without factoring in bias that is inherent in human rankings. This chapter focuses on the computer rankings that the BCS uses, and the authors do a fair job of describing the roots of the computer system, but do miss some key points. The chapter also unfortunately harps on the fact that the BCS has changed its formula 3 times, which should be viewed positively because it shows that they aren't blindly sticking with a formula if it is making mistakes.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 10

We finally get to the main argument that proponents of the BCS cite the most often and that is the integrity of the regular season. Quite frankly, I expected more out of this chapter. The authors know that the sanctity of the regular season is the main point that the BCS folks turn to and they do a poor job of rebutting this argument. Probably because there is no sound argument for a playoff system that actually increases the importance and value of a regular season, but the authors try anyway. We are left with a comparison to the NFL that misses the point and we are presented with outdated problems that have already been corrected by the BCS.

Big playoffs aren't the answer

Unfortunately, College Football Cafeteria hasn't been able to comprehend that the BCS system of a 2 team playoff is better for college football. He's now claiming that Oregon is not a top-5 team, that it would be better if non-conference games didn't matter, and favors a playoff system similar to “everybody gets a trophy day” by rewarding teams with playoffs spots without having them earn it. I'm watching the VCU vs Butler NCAA basketball semifinal game, and while I like a good story and Cinderella as much as the next as the next guy, these 2 teams are not among the nation's best 4, or best 2, yet one of them will be playing in the finals and may win the championship, which would give them the championship for this NCAA basketball season. Why is it better to reward teams who get hot for 3 weeks as opposed to teams who play well all season long? This doesn't make any sense.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 9

The misleading information runs rampant in this chapter. Most of the data from this chapter are taken completely out of context and void of any relevant comparison. They go on to use this misinformation to make completely baseless arguments, mainly that all teams load their schedules up with the easiest teams possible so that they can all go undefeated, because the only thing that matters to the BCS is won-loss record. This poorly constructed chapter full of weak arguments starts off with a sob story about how Michigan had to open their season in their newly renovated stadium against the eventual Big East champion who had won at least 8 games in the 3 seasons leading up to 2010, but the only information we receive about the UConn Huskies is that they recently made the transition to Division I-A football and that they play in a small stadium. Both of these facts imply that the Huskies are much weaker than they actually are. It only gets worse from there.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 8

The authors provide a cute anecdote about the USC Trojans claiming they were going for a 3-peat in 2005 while LSU fans were wondering how they could make this claim when USC did not win the championship in 2003. They then weakly try to connect how USC not making it to the BCS Championship game merits expanding the college football postseason to a bloated 16 team playoff system. Unfortunate as it may be that USC was left out, this does not warrant a playoff system to include 8 times as many teams as the current system. Instead, an appropriate change was made by the BCS placing more emphasis on human voters, and the system remains better than any 16 team playoff could be.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is pretty impressive in the way that it takes quotes out of context and makes a big, and simple, math error. The entire chapter, like much of the book, is littered with quotes from conference commissioners or school presidents about how a playoff will destroy the bowl games and system. While I enjoy the bowl games myself, I will say that I think there are too many, but to think that the authors' playoff proposal will not eliminate ANY bowls as they repeatedly claim, is simply fiction.

A Geography-based, NFL style playoff is wrong

College Football Cafeteria continues to stoke the fire and promote an inferior NFL-type playoff system where teams make the playoffs based on the city in which they play and where regular season results mean very little. Geography is a key factor in determining who makes the playoffs in the NFL, and on field performance is secondary. How else do you explain situations like this year where a 7-9 team makes the playoffs while two 10-6 teams don't (nor does an 8-8 team) or 2008 where an 8-8 team gets in and an 11-5 team stays home. The reason is geography, and in the current system that college football uses, geography is not a factor. Results are, and those results, by the way, happened on the field. There is no question that the BCS is demanding system, but because of that, it is just. Because the BCS is strict with invites to its championship game, I can say without a doubt that the 2 team playoff currently employed by the BCS gives a more accurate reflection of the season's best team than the NFL's playoff system and Super Bowl Champion.

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 6

The chapter titled “Presidential Powers” touches on 2 objections to most playoff scenarios: academic impact for the student-athletes and economic impact of bowl game host cities. The academic impact argument is a very common one while the economic impact argument is not made quite as often. The authors admittedly do a good job of addressing these hollow arguments, but the impact of this chapter is not as strong as others because the arguments themselves are pretty weak. Punching holes through a weak argument is not difficult, nor does it do a lot to advance your cause, but they do address anti-playoff arguments that are commonly made, so I understand the reason for their inclusion.

Death to a Playoff: Chapters 4 and 5

Chapters 4 and 5 are the meat of the book. These chapters about bowl games are worth the cover price by themselves. The authors dig up so much valuable information about bowl games, payouts, and the bowl game leaders and present it so effectively that it really got my blood boiling. Simply astonishing. They make loose connections to how these things are related to the BCS and how the BCS is the cause of such malfeasance, but they are indirect at best and have been happening since before the BCS existed. If you read only 2 chapters in Death to the BCS, read these!

Further deconstruction of the NFL-style playoff

College Football Cafeteria has continued to spirited dialogue we have created and it is becoming clear that, to probably no one's surprise, we simply have a difference of opinion in several aspects about what is good for the sport of college football. There is nothing wrong with that. However, while I understand that points he is making, I'm not sure he is grasping the points I am making. Missing this perspective is not surprising and certainly understandable considering my viewpoint is probably in the minority and most other sports have playoffs. Getting people that have followed a playoff system all of their lives in multiple sports to comprehend a new and revolutionary way of determining a champion takes time and education. That is what I am trying to accomplish.

Silly pro-playoff arguments

Thanks to College Football Cafeteria for taking a look at and analyzing my blog. Unfortunately, his responses to some of the points I’ve brought up still do not justify a playoff. Some of the things he comments on were points that were not made by me, but other authors, and while I certainly will not put words in their mouth, I will counter with what I think is appropriate. His post is lengthy, but I will try to target his specific arguments and counter them.

Death to a Playoff: Chapters 2 and 3

Chapter 2 provides a brief account of the creation of the BCS, in part through the eyes of legendary Vince Dooley. While most fans know that the Bowl Alliance was created and eventually transformed into the BCS, many are probably unaware of Dooley’s presentation to Roy Kramer, SEC Commissioner at the time, and his subsequent rejection of said presentation. The authors don’t go into detail about Dooley’s plan and how it would work, only that it involves 4 teams selected after January 1^st bowl games. While this chapter provides little in the way of factually discrediting the BCS/non-playoff idea, it is a nice history lesson.

Great anti-playoff points from the boys at CollegeFootballNews.com

To divert from the Death to the BCS posts just a bit, I couldn't help but include these tidbits from CollegeFootballNews.com to further deconstruct the playoff argument. Reading the Cavalcade of Whimsy today brought the main point of the anti-playoff argument to the forefront...you have to be really good and play really well all season to win the BCS Championship:

Death to a Playoff: Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1: The Plan

The first chapter broadly covers many topics, most of which are explored by later chapters, so I won't get into too much detail in this writing. The most significant part of the plan is indeed the most flawed. While I understand that inviting all the conference champions may be the “fair” thing to do, it is wrong for college football's postseason, and it is one piece of what is wrong with many current playoff systems. 

Death to a Playoff

I have recently finished reading the famed Death to the BCS and I am very impressed. The authors put together some good arguments, did a tremendous amount of research, and all readers will come away better informed and more knowledgeable about the sport of college football. However, when you look past the exaggerations and distortions, the case for a playoff is still unsuccessful. By cutting through the fluff and hyperbole and looking at the facts and history, it is evident that the current college football postseason model of a 2 team playoff is clearly a superior method in determining the champion of any season. While there may be room for improvements in the way the current BCS system selects its teams, the championship game that the BCS system produces is consistently a more accurate reflection of the season's 2 best teams than any other playoff system currently applied to other major sports in the US.