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.
The authors are pretending that there are few people that make college football exist, who have all the power, and no one can take action to change anything. Quite a helpless argument, one that definitely does not inspire confidence or motivation to alter the landscape, but more importantly, one that is simply wrong. All of the schools have leaders and athletic directors, not to mention very educated people throughout their ranks. These schools make up the conferences which have conference commissioners, and they also make up the body of Division 1 schools in the NCAA. If the members of a university don't like the way things are, not only in athletics but in all walks of student life, they have the power to make changes. Keep in mind, these are the people who created and implemented the BCS! Furthermore, if the members of a conference or organization like the NCAA don't like the status quo, they have votes. These schools do not participate in the BCS kicking and screaming. However, if a university, group of universities, or a conference want to make a change in the system, then stop complaining and start doing. Conferences have meetings every year with their member schools and they have conversations about many things. Nothing is stopping them from talking about changing the system. Yet, since of the many changes and alterations to the BCS have not included expanding the championship playoff field to anything larger than 2 teams, maybe they don't want to change it. The authors can take all of these quotes from coaches, the media and other football personalities, but they include very little from the school decision makers, who hold the most power. The educational institutions are the ones that make up the NCAA and they have the power to make big changes.
It is refreshing to see a group make decisions for the betterment of themselves instead of simply chasing after the almighty dollar. Unfortunately, the authors seem to think that money is a main reason of why college football should expand their playoff. Throw around all the estimates you want, but more money will not solve college athletics' problems. There is so much more money now compared to 30 years ago, and there are still universities that are retracting their athletics teams. The estimates nor the authors obviously don't indicate how the money would be spent because it is all hypothetical, but they insinuate that the game and sports will be so much better simply because there is more money involved. Many times in history, more money creates new and unforeseen complications. All we have to do is look at the current situation, because there is more money in the sport now than ever, and there are plenty of problems with the game.
Finally, the authors pretend that their system is perfect when no system is. They seem to assume that their selection committee won't be scrutinized and controversial when the NCAA Basketball selection committee is raked across the coals every year about bubble teams that are left out. Their proposed committee would suffer the same fate, but much more would be at stake. They aren't choosing the final teams to round out a final tournament of 68 teams, they are only choosing 5 teams, so the outrage from teams left out will be much more dramatic. Using the example they provide about 9-3 LSU being selected over the 10-2 BYU, it is asinine to think that BYU fans wouldn't have a legitimate complaint. Just look at their records! It is interesting that the authors then cite the spine tingling upset of App State over Michigan because with their system, that game means nothing, which would be truly unfortunate. Michigan could simply go on to win the Big Ten or maybe get an at large seed and pretend that embarrassing loss at home didn't happen, but we all know it did, and because of the current BCS system it actually has some importance. In the authors' system, out of conference games mean almost nothing which would be very disappointing to those that look forward to the interconference match-ups each year. Having games in the regular season only determine seeding would be a tragic blow to the history of college football and to what has made it great. Losing should be viewed as unavoidable and season-changing, not just affecting who your playoff opponent is. They state that education can change everything, yet they are insulting some of the most educated people in the university system, and acting like they know what is best for all schools. Maybe the ego they need to reel in is their own, because college football grows in popularity every year, and has undoubtedly grown in popularity since the BCS commenced, without the input from the authors. The BCS is not an antiquated system, a bloated playoff involving too many teams has been around much longer than the BCS. The BCS is a step in the right direction, and is helping keep college football great.
No comments:
Post a Comment