A Thesis on the Feasibilty of a B(C)S Playoff

In light of Penn State's recent loss and likely elimination from national championship contention, it is time to write the requisite post arguing for a BCS playoff.

It has become apparent that a playoff is what most fans want to see. The reasons are obvious, "why penalize a great team for one bad game", "let them play for the title", and so on the reasons are endless. The most obvious, and most oft unmentioned, reason why this hasn't happened is simple: money. Those in charge believe that the BCS as it stands is the most profitable. The more politically correct arguement is that it would take away from the tradition of the major bowls, but a Georgia-Hawaii Sugar Bowl, and Boise St.-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl immediately kill that arguement. I can't understand how a playoff would not be more profitable. Think about it: 8 teams play in four of the major "bowls" in round one (for the intents of this arguement, let's say these four are the Peach, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls). The semis could be the Rose and Cotton Bowls, and the final is already in place as National Championship. Those seven games would be far more meaningful, and thus more profitable, than the current set-up of four meaningless BCS games and a "title" game. Detractors argue that this would result in too many games for college teams. I dispute that arguement with the following: A) most of the teams who participate in the BCS hoopla barely stress academics. You cannot change my mind about the players from Florida, Oklahoma, USC and so on. These guys don't face a rigorous academic schedule as it is, therefore, if your arguement is that it will take away from schoolwork, I laugh in your face. B) The BCS bowls as they stand make a lot less than they would as part a coherent playoff. Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. CBS paid a billion dollars for the rights to broadcast these games through something like 2012. College football, considering its immense popularity in the South and overall competitivness, would likely pull in twice this number for a similar period of time. C) Explain to me the necessity of a championship game in the SEC and Big 12 and whatever other conferences hold one. If a playoff is in place, the crowning of a champion of a specific conference seems less important. Consider that conferences who lose out on the profits of a championship game gain from the profits of the proposed 8 team playoff and I think everyone is in an improved financial situation. D) Lastly, college football is the only association of any relevant sport that does not hold a playoff. This is ridiculous. Last year, for example, the best teams in the country, USC, Georgia, and Oklahoma, had no chance to play for the title. Why should this be acceptable? I know I don't have to sell a playoff too hard to convince any of my readers, but it needs to be said, often times the best teams don't get a chance to play for a title based upon one bad game. Some say that the current system maximizes the importance of each and every game. I'm not sure how it would be any different if an 8 team playoff were in place. Think about it. Sure, 1 loss teams have a more legitimate chance at playing for the title, but teams still can't take weeks off at a time and expect to have a chance at the title. It sickens me that people can argue that the current BCS system works. How can it work if Florida, Oklahoma, and USC dont have a chance at the title without help?? In my opinion, those are far and away the best teams in the nation and, without help, 2 of those 3 won't even sniff the title game. It's a travesty that there isn't a playoff in place. This isn't even sour grapes from '94 or the Iowa game, as I believe that were there a playoff in place, Penn State would finish no better than 4th. As a fan, I deserve to see a real national title game, and in my opinion, I won't until there is at least an 8 team playoff in place.

To put the ridiculousness of what the current system is in perspective, consider the Phillies. Had the BCS applied to Major League Baseball, which some can argue has too small a playoff as is, the Cubs would have played the Angels in the World Series. Both teams sucked in the first round of the playoffs. Apply the BCS to last years' NFL playoffs and the Patriots would have played the Cowboys for the title. A quick glance of championship matchups since 2005 in the three major sports shows that only the 2008 NBA Playoffs held true to being the matchup that the BCS would have set up, and even that was on the rocks at several points. To argue that a system of complicated rewards and points is even feasible to set up a championship just sounds retarded on every level. NO OTHER SPORT AT ANY LEVEL FOLLOWS A SIMILAR SYSTEM. That should be proof enough that the current system can't work.

Here is what needs to happen. The NCAA needs to consolidate its Division I-A football components. Bowls can't be governed by themselves and conferences can't be viewed as completely separate entitities. How can an association that has it so right in one sport (NCAA Basketball) have it so wrong in another (Football)? A single governing body needs to choose each bowl's participants. Tradition can be upheld very easily as said governing body should respect each bowl's history as long as it is not involved in the playoff. The playoff bowls should be viewed as a seeding process, with the top billling cycling between games, much like the hot Hollywood girl of the time cycles through men. It isn't complicated, and similar processes happen on a daily basis thoughout the country on college campuses in the form of beer-pong tournaments. That's what I don't get. How can drunk college kids create a more favorable tournament than powerful conference presidents and CEO's? These guys had to have been creating the beer-pong brackets at one point in their lives, right?

All in all, the national champion of college football will be forever viewed as being tainted until a playoff is in place. Auburn was undefeated a few years back, yet didn't get to play for the title. USC smoked Oklahoma that year, and was likely the best team in the country, however, there was another major college unbeaten. What if USC had to play Auburn?? What would have happened? We'll never know.

Being a PSU fan, I should never argue the following, but being a college football fan, I will. The following teams have one loss. Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Penn State, and USC. Each and every one of those teams could conceivably win a tournament, however, none will have a chance to prove it, and none will have a chance to win the national championship without some help. That, my friends, is a travesty.