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.
To start, let’s be clear that, however you want to phrase it, there is no denying that college football currently has a 2-team playoff, and that is what I support. Saying that college football is absent of a playoff at all is simply incorrect. The BCS is the process used to select those 2 teams.
First argument: is every team that is really good and plays really well all season able to win the BCS championship? NO!!!!
Maybe not, but when you only have a 2 team format, some good teams may get left out. That may be unfortunate, but if options are between option 1) excluding 1 or 2 good teams and option 2) including 10 unworthy teams, I will pick option 1 every day. Just because 2 teams in 2004 and 3 teams in 2009 got left out doesn’t mean we need to change the entire system to then let in unqualified teams.
Second argument: Should we have just foregone the Super Bowl that year and crowned the Patriots champions because they earned it more?
Of course we shouldn’t do that, and the current system in college football wouldn’t do that either. It would take the 2 top teams that year and have them play each other. The NFL playoffs reward teams that do just enough to make the playoffs and then get hot at the end of the year instead of teams that have sustained success all season. College football rewards sustained and constant success relative to the other teams (LSU was the best of the 2 loss teams that year) and for the entire season. No situations where teams lose approximately half your games during the season, get lucky to play in a crappy division/conference where you make the playoffs anyway, and put it all together at the end of the season to “justify” a Super Bowl appearance.
Third argument: That every other playoff sucks?
I’m not trying to sneak around this one, but this was a quote I got from another article, and I thought this was a bit strong but wanted to include it anyway. There is certainly excitement during playoffs of other sports. No denying that. The problem is that there are too many teams included which means that undeserving teams are included, and it usually results in a championship game that does not include the best 2 teams. College football has done a better job of getting the 2 best teams into the championship game than any other sport, and that is the crux of the anti-playoff argument.
Fourth argument: The BCS locks out certain conferences on purpose.
If Auburn had lost to Alabama this season, TCU is in the BCS Championship game. Nice try.
Fifth argument: Nothing devalues the regular season more than the BCS system!
Oh boy. Really? Before each season, every team must go into every single game with the expectation to win if they want to have a chance at the title. If a team is lucky, they can risk losing 1, maybe 2 games, and still get in, but you typically cannot take that risk. You can’t take a game off. What other sport’s regular season demands that type of excellence? In other playoffs, you know that you can lose multiple games and still have an opportunity at the title. I’ve never understood why people get so torn up over an early season loss in the NFL, or claim that there are “big games” in week 2 or 3. The result of that game doesn’t matter. You want meaningful games early in the season? Watch college football. Meaningful games happen all season. Even at the end of the season, teams which are close to the top in the rankings must keep winning and hope that one of the top teams lose. Even if the top teams don’t lose, those lower ranked teams are still playing their hardest all season.
Sixth argument: If Florida had lost its final 3 games and finished 9-3, even if they had beaten Alabama in the SEC championship they would not have played for the BCS championship.
You are right; they certainly wouldn’t have made the BCS championship. But I was making the point that in the playoff system proposed in Death to the BCS, Florida WOULD have made the playoffs. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point.
Seventh argument: No team from a non-BCS conference will ever play for a BCS championship.
Again, if Auburn lost to Alabama in the Iron Bowl, TCU gets in. In 2009, if Texas missed the field goal against Nebraska in the Big 12 Championship game, TCU gets in (over BCS conference champion Cincinnati). To say that non-BCS conference teams don’t have a chance is simply not true.
Eighth argument: (During the last month of the season with a playoff) A lot more games would mean something so there would be a lot more excitement.
Maybe that is true, but it would be similar to the NFL now, where the most exciting game during the last week of the season was Seattle vs St. Louis. More conference games would have playoff implications, but that doesn’t make it better. If my choices of meaningful games are Auburn vs Alabama (which decided the #1 team) or Tulsa vs Southern Miss (which decided the Conference USA champ), I think the choice is fairly easy. I will take the game, which involves long time rivals, one of the most intense rivalries in football, to decide the top team in the nation. Again, more meaningful games ALL season, or a few games at the end of the season among lower quality teams. The decision is easy.
Ninth argument: The whole regular season serves one purpose- to find two teams to play for a championship. Is a two horse race that exciting?
Yes! How silly does this sound that you don’t support this! If the regular season of a sport doesn’t serve that purpose, what is the point??
Tenth argument: The two teams whom meet in the Super Bowl always earned their spot in that game.
Not more than the ones who make it through the college regular season. As I write, the Green Bay Packers are beating the Chicago Bears and heading to the Super Bowl. Green Bay started out the season 3-3 and didn’t win their division, which consisted of 4 teams. Put another way, Green Bay couldn’t prove on the field during the course of 16 games that they were the best team out of 4 in their region of the country, yet we are now supposed to believe they are one of the two best teams in the NFL this season. That seems silly to me.
You might think that allowing non division winners, AKA wild cards, in is a good thing. However, the advantage of the NFL format is that it's completely objective. All 32 teams and their fans know exactly how the 12 post season participants are selected. There's no politicking. No argument that the 7th best team in either conference is "more deserving" than number 6. No penalty for not winning by enough against a "lesser" opponent. All of these are common elements in every college football season that you conveniently omit in your attack on the NFL and defense of NCAA. Nice try.
ReplyDelete