First, let's acknowledge that the BCS is better than it's predecessors. If you don't know about them, do some research on the Bowl Alliance or Bowl Coalition. Plenty of Penn State fans still harp on the 1994 National Championship that was awarded to Nebraska because they didn't get a fair shot. The BCS would have pitted Nebraska and Penn State against each other for a National Title. Instead, the predecessors had conferences committed to bowls no matter what. Number 2 in the nation? It doesn't matter. You play where your conference tells you to play which is based purely on contracts and money.
Jump back ten years earlier when a team more recently thought of as a potential BCS-buster, BYU. This team opened it's season against a ranked Pitt that would finish 3-7-1, didn't beat/play another ranked team, conquered an easy WAC conference, and beat a Michigan team in a bowl game that finished with .500 record. For that, they were awarded the National Championship because no one else went undefeated. Never mind 11-1 Washington that won the Pac-10 with three teams ranked in the top ten or 10-2 Nebraska who won the Big Eight with three teams ranked in the final top seven. If this method was employed in 2007, Hawaii would have played in mediocre bowl and been the lone undefeated team to win the National Title instead of the LSU-Ohio State match up. In case you forgot, Hawaii got dismantled by Georgia 41-10 in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia didn't win the SEC East more or less the SEC.
So that brings us to the playoff argument. First, before I'm accused of being un-American or anything ridiculous for suggesting the BCS isn't all bad, let me say I would be in favor of a playoff first, but only a playoff that is constructed the right way. As I mentioned in my first full length post in regards to the NHL Playoffs, playoff systems are generally only created for entertainment value. I say that because most playoff systems reward teams who lost important games a second chance, and penalize teams who won important games with titles they shouldn't have to defend.
The current talk of a move to a playoff system is centered around the idea of four teams. For those complaining at that, let's first admit it is a step in the right direction whether you want 4 teams or all 123 teams. Second, the idea of 16 or 32 teams (yes I've heard various serious fans suggest that they should be 32 teams) is absolutely ridiculous. I know people love March Madness to the chance of winning money or following cinderella stories, but in all reality, March Madness is the most idiotic postseason system that I have stumbled across. Don't get me wrong, I fill out my bracket every year, and keep an eye on scores because it is entertaining, but that's all it is. I've mentioned I don't have a deep rooted interest in basketball, this is why I don't for college basketball. I'll be thrilled in my beloved Rutgers ever wins a Big East Conference title, but so long as it makes no difference in a National Tournament, I couldn't careless about them not making it year after year.
Personally, I like the idea of a four team playoff, and at the very most would want to see eight teams. In my opinion, I've never felt a season has come to an end where I felt more than four teams could be worthy of a National Title. I know in 2004 that five teams went undefeated, but still have my doubts about one. In any event, I would be willing to concede that eight is a good number if, and only if the at-large spots are eliminated. Given all the conference championships and longer schedules, everyone has a chance to play everyone in their conference. If you go 11-1, in your conference, but then lose a conference championship to a 6-6 team, tough luck, you're out. After all, a conference championship is already a one round playoff. Why should the team that lost get another shot in the very next round? No more than one team should represent a conference in a playoff system; otherwise, it eliminates the point of a regular season that is already much bigger than the playoff.
More importantly, it would ensure that all conferences who had even a semi-worthy representative (think 2007 Hawaii) would get a shot. An eight team playoff that has more than one team from the Big Ten, Big 12 or SEC? That is far worse than the current BCS. You're basically saying it's a playoff, but rewarding the seeds to teams in "name brand" conferences. Obviously, the same argument would be used for four team playoffs, but if they utilize the BCS rankings at all, the team fans will cry foul when Boise State is ranked 5th at the end of the regular season.
Had it been done this way for the past season, a four-team playoff would have been: #1 LSU vs. #4 TCU and #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Oregon.
Expand it to eight teams if you must: #1 LSU vs. #8 West Virginia; #2 Oklahoma State vs. #7 Southern Miss.; #3 Oregon vs. #6 Clemson; #4 TCU vs. #5 Wisconsin.
Tough break Alabama, Virginia Tech, Boise State, etc. All of them lost games when they should have counted in the season. Giving them at-large bids because they survived different out of conference schedules than anyone else in their conference makes no sense at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment