That's right,
Jim "Coors Light" Mora, we're talking about the playoffs, or the lack of them in college football. Aside from the lower three divisions, of course, where they've been running quite fine, thank you.
But anyway,
Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports offers the best argument I've seen yet for a playoff system for Division I-A (no, I'm not going to call I-A and I-AA whatever they call them now). Onto some high points.
A playoff would give teams from small conferences at least a shot to win a championship on the field. Unlikely? Yeah, but then I just watched Utah from the Mountain West beat SEC power Alabama — ranked #1 for several weeks — in the Sugar Bowl to cap off an undefeated season.
Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn’t supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There would’ve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.
Why wouldn’t college football want that?
The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasn’t any good in 1977 or 2) wasn’t geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, that’s the system.
And maybe a smaller conference team never does break through to win four of those games, but watching such an upset in the context of a playoff is a lot more fun than just seeing an isolated upset that ends up meaning nothing for either team, as is the case for Utah and Alabama.
Oh, but the bowls. How will America survive without them? Now, I'll usually watch the big bowl games, and mix in some random, smaller bowls pairing teams I could care less about because sometimes those are fun to watch (and on TV when nothing else is, but that's a good thing).
But are there any bowl games — meaning the bowl itself, regardless of who's playing in it — that means anything anymore? I'll give you the Rose Bowl. Any others? I don't think so. And as a graduate of a Big 10 school (albeit latecomer Penn State), I can say I'd have no qualms about the playoffs doing away with the Rose Bowl and all the rest.
Can they still have bowls and a playoff? Sure. But the bowls should not be any past of a playoff. And be assured, it's not the tradition of the bowl games that's holding up a playoff, unless that tradition is the stacks of cash at stake.
BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College football’s [continually willing] to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits ...
Just about every idea you’ll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.
The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.
The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.
The next bit in Wetzel's piece addresses higher seeds getting home games, which would be amazing. Of course, I'm picturing a raucous Beaver Stadium in December, the Nittany Lions running onto a snow-covered field, and the fans hurling snowballs at, well, whoever. Throwing snowballs is fun.
And yes, even if I'm still feeling the sting of Penn State's Rose Bowl loss to USC, I think many non-USC fans would like to see them repeat their usual Rose Bowl domination-fests on the road in December, outside the sunny confines of Southern California or the fluorescent confines of a domed stadium.
Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities — literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.
It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.
This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.
We’ve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fan's heart.
There are yet more excuses, and that's all they are.
Not enough time with classes, etc.? Too many games? Yeah, because in the month between their last game and their bowl those teams aren't practicing and scrimmaging every chance they get. At least they'd be playing for something now. And lose early, you get a nice holiday break with the family.
They'll miss exams, or their exam schedule will be interfered with? Pffft. Please, as if schools give a crap.
The best arguments, though, are the most sensible — you'd have a champion determined on the field, and it would be more fun for everyone involved. Except possibly those bowl organizers (I'm picturing the rich Texan on The Simpsons) who may be out a cash cow. But screw those jerks.
I should note that Wetzel's was the best argument for a playoff I've read or heard since I had to write an argument for my Speech Comm class in college. That class sucked, but I killed it on this assignment.
My roommate Orlando was such a fan (desperate for a topic), he later used my speech (parts or all, I'm not sure, but I suspect all) for his own Speech Comm class at a satellite campus. And if I recall correctly, the A-minuses abounded. A two-fold triumph!
