Defending the BCS

by amorphous on Feb 4, 2008 10:12 AM CST Comment 2 comments

In light of the Giants defeating the Patriots in the Super Bowl, the BCS haters/playoff defenders need to reconsider their stance. Playoffs are the wrong "solution" to a non-existent problem. The bowl system as it is now is the best way for college football to proceed.

Has the BCS gotten it right every year? Hardly. Last year's craptacular slate was uninspiring, unentertaining, and no one watched. (Homerism: Mizzou got... what's worse than robbed? Burgled? Yes, Mizzou was burgled). We could argue the merits of LSU and Ohio State versus Georgia (didn't win their division), Mizzou (didn't win their conference), Oklahoma (lost to Colorado) and USC (they LOST TO STANFORD!!!!), but the goal of the BCS is to have the top 2 teams play each other for the MNC. I believe they actually got it right last year. No one would attempt to argue that either LSU or OSU was outside of the top 5.

But what about a playoff system? Wouldn't that be best? The Super Bowl tells us emphatically "No." The Giants won last night. They were the 5th best team in their conference. That means they were about the 9th or 10th best team throughout the season. The Steelers won two years ago as the last man in. Were those the best teams in the NFL? Some would say they were the best when it counted. I ask, would you want regular season games in college to be less important than they are now? For a lot of us, that is part of the appeal of college. The do or die of every weekend. Michigan understands. USC understands (even though they acted like they didn't). For comparison, the pre-bowl game AP had the following 9-12:

Florida

Hawai'i

West Virginia

Arizona State

Would you be OK with "Your BCS Champion Arizona State Sun Devils" after a playoff this year? I doubt it. Do or die. Enjoy your bowls boys, but don't fool yourselves.

And consider if Virginia Tech defeated LSU in the championship of a playoff. They would each have defeated the other last year, but Virginia Tech would be champions based on when their win occurred. Certainly this could happen with the BCS, but I think that will be avoided at any cost under the current system (see: Michigan and Ohio State, 2006). The Patriots already beat the Giants this year (in New... Jersey). The Giants are better because they won in February?

Outcomes like this under a playoff system are far from rare. The last Cardinals World Series, the Marlins ever, the Mavericks first round flop last year, the Blues (annual) collapse, etc. If you want a champion the BCS is the best method.

And come on, these are college kids. Mostly just playing for the love of the game. For every Reggie Bush, a superstar at a glam program waiting for his NFL millions and getting paid while waiting, there are 1000 Kevin O'Connells (a QB for San Diego State who I am supposing is not being courted by agents). For them, playing in a bowl can be the highlight of a career (see: Mizzou, late 90's, before we got spoiled this year). All the sportscasters and media folk should realize we don't need a champion, but if we insist, make sure it is a true champion. Otherwise, let the boys play and enjoy it for what it's worth.

FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.

0 recs | Comment 2 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

nice post...

...I agree in part. I have no problem with a 4-team playoff, and I'd get over my qualms with an 8-team playoff. Neither of those would in any way impact the bowl system (if done right, anyway).

However, any more than that and it completely changes the landscape of college football. Beating KU at Arrowhead over Thanksgiving weekend was the biggest highlight of the last 45+ years for Mizzou. It put us at #1, and we were one game away from the national title game. The presence of a Plus One game wouldn't have changed that moment at all, as we still needed to beat OU to get our names in the hat. Same with the presence of an 8-team playoff with places for conf champions and maybe a couple at-larges. But with a 12- or 16-team playoff, that moment would have been completely worthless. Lose to KU, and we still get a Top 8 seed in the "playoffs". Beat KU, and we still get a Top 8 seed in the "playoffs". It's a huge rivalry game, so it would have still had some meaning, but not nearly as much.

We talk a lot about how "every game matters" in college football, and that's almost true. It's really "every game basically matters, only you might get a mulligan". I love that it's (almost) impossible for a 2-loss (i.e. 2-mulligan) team to win the title--LSU did it this year, but it took an unprecedented number of upsets for that to happen. But with a 12- or 16-team playoff, you could actually end up with teams resting their starters in the final regular season game like the Colts did this year, and that introduces an unwelcome variable to the season.

I do like this post, even though I don't completely agree. People always bring up the NFL playoffs or March Madness in reference to why college football should have a playoff, but they rarely point out just how often the playoff screws the teams that were best in the regular season (as in the examples you mentioned). Even in baseball, the introduction of the wildcard meant that mediocre teams who caught fire at the perfect time could win the World Series over teams who were great for five months and lost their rhythm in early-October. There's a balance between being fair to the teams who were great for the longest period of time, and adding rounds of playoffs for more excitement. This college football season was wonderful, and I don't think a 4- or 8-team playoff would have done anything but add to that. But any more than that, and we'd have started having negative returns in regard to excitement throughout the regular season. Michigan losing to App St wouldn't have mattered, MU beating KU RELALY wouldn't have mattered, etc. Where's the fun in that?

by The Boy on Feb 4, 2008 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have more issues with a 4 team playoff..

than an 8 teamer (assuming an 8 team would be 6 conf champs, plus two lower conf champs depending on which of the two is best, be it MWC, WAC, MAC, ACC [har har])

The methodology to choose those 4 teams is still the problematic poll/computer bastardization, and I think with a 4 team playoff pollsters would choose their top 4 in this manner:

Team I think is best

Team I think is second best

Hottest team outside of #1 and #2

Hottest team not #3

Obviously Mizzou would have still gotten left out in this scenario, but Georgia and USC would have gotten in (or maybe Oklahoma). Then if USC wins we are told "they are the best." NO! THEY LOST TO STANFORD! AT HOME!

Or we'd hear the non-stop whining about how great the SEC is and how they should always get a team, if not 2. I can't stand the SEC fans, but that's another post.

I wouldn't have traded Mizzou's season, BCS snub and all, for maybe a first round exit in some playoff system. No way, no how. And I don't think anyone else here would, either.

...Um... how long til football season? I've got the shakes.

by amorphous on Feb 4, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs