Playoff Money Should Go to the Student Body

Playoff expansion has now become a reality, with the NCAA football leaders finally agreeing to expand the current playoff system to include four teams.  The announcement has sparked speculation of the enormity of the TV dollars that will be associated with the playoff.  No one doubts that there will be a lot of money thrown at the playoff, but these figures have also reignited the conversation about paying football players and potentially other athletes competing in the “revenue generating” sports.  Paying only the players should not be the topic, but instead the focus should be on the bigger picture issue of using this money to make a college education more affordable for everyone.

NCAA enforcement needs to be feared

Another offseason, another college football scandal.  While it may be nice to always be able to read about college football, the negative headlines are becoming much too commonplace.  Player arrests and drunk driving incidents are bad enough, but child sex scandals and inappropriate hiring practices are clear indications that these football programs have far too much power and influence.  Top football programs already seem to be separate from the core of the university, with their athletes having access to the finest workout equipment, great tutors, and relaxed academic standards.  Yet, when there are clear instances of wrongdoing caused by the perceived invincibility of the football programs and its members, the NCAA does nothing.  These crimes must stop, and they will only stop when NCAA enforcement becomes feared, and real punishments are doled out.

Plus-1 must include non-conference champions

Most of the recent talk swirling around the potential changes to the BCS points to a ‘plus-1’ system.  In this format, it would essentially be a four team playoff, but since the powers that be in college football are allergic to the word ‘playoff,’ they call it a plus-1.  Whatever the name, the main discussion now revolves around how to determine which teams get into the plus-1.  The key decision will likely be around whether or not the playoff is exclusive to conference champions.  In order to keep the sanctity of the regular season, the most exciting regular season in American sports, the playoff must include non-conference champions to ensure the most accurate representation of the season’s best team.

A “Plus One,” Four-team playoff can work, only if they stick to that number.

With all the speculation that the recent and future discussion amongst the BCS power brokers will lead to major changes, it is probably safe to assume that the BCS is listening.  Previously staunch opponents to change seem open to options.  The backlash of the BCS title game “rematch” seems to have finally broken through.  The BCS has been the subject of media scrutiny since its inception, so this is hardly new territory.  However, despite the fact that many within the media felt that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams, the SEC monopoly on the BCS title game may prove to be the tipping point of major change.  The most logical next step is to increase the amount of teams in a playoff from two to four, a scenario in which the regular season is still extremely meaningful, and this can be a success if, and only if, four is the maximum number of teams allowed.

While the heart of this blog is largely around keeping the BCS intact, I will freely admit the BCS has its shortcomings.  The basic goal is to keep the playoff at two teams, by whatever means necessary.  The non-championship bowl games and BCS voting method are basically dysfunctional byproducts of the system matching the two best teams at the end of the season, and have received a lot of attention for being below average.  The thinking is that even if there are some crappy bowl games or a weird selection system, as long as we have the most deserving teams play for the title, the ends justify the means.  Nothing is more disappointing than seeing unqualified teams play for a championship, which often happens in other sports.

Over the past few years, it has become evident that, after most regular seasons, the two teams which most deserve to play for the title cannot be definitively stated.  One could argue that except for 1999, 2002, and 2005, it could not be clearly determined which two teams should play for the title.  Thus, seasons with controversy far outnumber seasons with clarity.  With that backdrop, it would be appropriate and advantageous for the BCS to create a four team playoff schedule.  The top four teams as determined by the BCS standings should play each other, with the top seed playing the #4 seed, the #2 and #3 seeds playing one another, and then the winners of those games playing each other for the title.  There should be no automatic qualifiers for any of these games and they should be completely independent of any conference affiliation.  The BCS standings are all that is necessary.

The fear is that the size of the playoff will expand as it has in all other playoffs.  This cannot happen, for the magic of the college football regular season would be lost.  There is a simple inverse relationship between the number of teams included in a sport’s postseason and the relevance of the regular season.  As the amount of teams eligible for the postseason increases, the importance of the regular season decreases.  This is an undeniable truth.  Therefore, since the college football regular season is what most people love about the sport and what makes it so special, it cannot be the subject of dilution by increasing the size of the playoff any further.  A two team playoff is best, but that has proven to be too controversial.  A four team playoff should be enough to silence the critics, accurately determine the season’s best team, and maintain the integrity of the regular season.

What is wrong with a rematch?

Can someone please explain what exactly the problem is with a rematch in the BCS title game?  Why should the two best teams be prohibited from playing in the title game simply because they played each other in the regular season?  The goal of any championship game is to have the two best teams play each other for the championship, yet many in the college football media are acting like this is a meaningless game simply because they played each other earlier this year.  While LSU won the previous matchup in Tuscaloosa, it wasn’t exactly a blowout and it could’ve easily gone either way.  We should cherish the opportunity to see two very elite teams play each other, no matter if they previously played in the regular season.

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.