cotton
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 11,216
- Likes
- 9
I have issues with the BCS, namely its effort to create a tier of worthy participants in order to spread the mojo that goes with a top bowl to as many schools as possible, but for all of those clamoring for a playoff as in the best interest of the sport, I would like to humbly disagree.
I enjoy watching college football more than any other sport. The first, and most important reason, is that every regular season game is important, as the championship matchup is determined entirely by regular season play. Consider the most anticipated, appealing, and exciting matchups of the season--Alabama/Florida, Penn St./OSU, the round-robin in the big XII--with the understanding that with an 8 team playoff, every team (with the possible exception of the PSU/OSU loser) would be in.
The games necessarily would lose some of their import. USC's loss to Oregon St. would not matter at all, and PSU falling to Iowa would be irrelevant. Before anyone mentions Florida losing to Ole Miss as unimportant, I will suggest that, although it did not affect the standings at the end of the year, the game was hugely important at the time it was played. The NFL provides a great counter example, as the best teams regularly play games of no importance whatsoever after their entry into the playoffs has been secured. College football is great because September games against Florida and October games agaisnt Bama mean so much. With a guarantee of 8 teams having a shot at the title, it is impossible to avoid diminishing earlier games.
Secondly, the lesser bowl games are important, at least to the participants. Kentucky is thrilled to have won 3 straight postseason games, even if they were all in the state of Tennessee. Vanderbilt is celebrating their first bowl trip in a generation, even though it was only to the other end of West End. By creating a playoff, you draw an even greater distinction between the bowls as there are those that made it in to an important game and those that are relegated to somethig akin to the NIT. The non-BCS bowls would hate it, the 100 or so schools that have no shot at ever making the playoff would hate it, and I think the sport would suffer for it. Even at a school like UT, not making a bowl game for the second time in 4 years hurts. I think the disappointment would be similar for not making the playoffs, a situation which would happen far more regularly, as the field is so much smaller.
The cost of all of this is that the bowl system does not always provide for a clear champion. The lack of a tournament axiomatically injects a measure of subjectivity into the process of determining the best team in the land. Playing a tough schedule and winning every game helps, but even that is not a guarantee. I am OK with that. I'll debate the subjective measures as much as anyone, but the cost of removing them, of losing some of the best aspects of college football, are higher than the benefits to the sport of having them. The system works, even if it doesn't give us an undisputed #1 every year, by creating interest and excitement for 5 months and giving every program something meaningful to play for, even if it is only meaningful to them.
I enjoy watching college football more than any other sport. The first, and most important reason, is that every regular season game is important, as the championship matchup is determined entirely by regular season play. Consider the most anticipated, appealing, and exciting matchups of the season--Alabama/Florida, Penn St./OSU, the round-robin in the big XII--with the understanding that with an 8 team playoff, every team (with the possible exception of the PSU/OSU loser) would be in.
The games necessarily would lose some of their import. USC's loss to Oregon St. would not matter at all, and PSU falling to Iowa would be irrelevant. Before anyone mentions Florida losing to Ole Miss as unimportant, I will suggest that, although it did not affect the standings at the end of the year, the game was hugely important at the time it was played. The NFL provides a great counter example, as the best teams regularly play games of no importance whatsoever after their entry into the playoffs has been secured. College football is great because September games against Florida and October games agaisnt Bama mean so much. With a guarantee of 8 teams having a shot at the title, it is impossible to avoid diminishing earlier games.
Secondly, the lesser bowl games are important, at least to the participants. Kentucky is thrilled to have won 3 straight postseason games, even if they were all in the state of Tennessee. Vanderbilt is celebrating their first bowl trip in a generation, even though it was only to the other end of West End. By creating a playoff, you draw an even greater distinction between the bowls as there are those that made it in to an important game and those that are relegated to somethig akin to the NIT. The non-BCS bowls would hate it, the 100 or so schools that have no shot at ever making the playoff would hate it, and I think the sport would suffer for it. Even at a school like UT, not making a bowl game for the second time in 4 years hurts. I think the disappointment would be similar for not making the playoffs, a situation which would happen far more regularly, as the field is so much smaller.
The cost of all of this is that the bowl system does not always provide for a clear champion. The lack of a tournament axiomatically injects a measure of subjectivity into the process of determining the best team in the land. Playing a tough schedule and winning every game helps, but even that is not a guarantee. I am OK with that. I'll debate the subjective measures as much as anyone, but the cost of removing them, of losing some of the best aspects of college football, are higher than the benefits to the sport of having them. The system works, even if it doesn't give us an undisputed #1 every year, by creating interest and excitement for 5 months and giving every program something meaningful to play for, even if it is only meaningful to them.
