Fans Need Better Scheduling, Not A College Football Playoff System
I was walking through the mall this past week, doing my Christmas shopping, when a young woman came up to me trying to give me a pamphlet supporting world peace. As I took it, I told her
"You know, it's always easy to advocate for something you know is never going to happen. Besides, I'm against world peace.", I said.
"Really?"
"No, not really..... But I am against a college football playoff."
With that, she punched me in the face.
Okay maybe it didn't really happen that way (I do my Christmas shopping online), but with the vast majority of college football fans screaming for a playoff, it's not so improbable to get socked in the nose for something so seemingly inconsequential.
World peace and a college football playoff have something in common - everyone is for them, but no one knows how to get there. The details are pretty difficult, but that doesn't stop people from coming up with unworkable solutions.
Playoff solutions abound. They're as cheap as t-shirts, but the problem is that most leave out the logistics. They concentrate on having four, eight or 16 teams and how those would fit into the existing schedule. Those that deal with logistics typically recognize the fact that the bowls have way too much clout to be thrown away, so they incorporate them into their playoff system.
That, as they say, is the crux of the problem. Including the bowls would require cold-weather teams to play consecutive weekends away from home, giving an inherent advantage to warm-weather teams. No cold-weather team would stand a shot at a national title. If you're a fan of a cold-weather team and you advocate this kind of system, I have to believe you're not considering the details.
A better system would be the same one used by the NFL and non-FBS colleges use based on home field advantage. That would mean teams like Texas, Alabama, Florida, and USC could come to Columbus, Ann Arbor, Happy Valley, or Lincoln and play in the snow at the end of the year.
You know this isn't going to happen. The current bowl system has too much power, and those warm-weather places have made too much money over the past 50-100 years to give it up easily. Keep in mind that university presidents love taking their families, their entourage, on paid vacations to places like San Diego, so there is little incentive to change the current system.
My other problem with the constant screaming about a playoff is that fan anger is being misplaced. The BCS has become too easy a target, the big boogeyman that symbolizes all that's wrong with college football.
Yet there is another issue that is much more sinister and much easier to fix.
Five teams ended up undefeated at the end of this season. Five. Those teams didn't end up undefeated because the BCS arranged their schedules. It's because teams like Texas didn't play anyone of substance during the non-conference. Texas played the school of the deaf, the blind, the Long John Silver Impersonators and a group of Asian girls that really wanted to play lacrosse, but were forced into football prostitution because they needed the money. Oklahoma played a tough non-conference schedule and it cost them dearly. Given the outcomes between those teams, what incentive is there for anyone to schedule tough games?
The BCS could demand that strength of schedule play a more meaningful role in determining who gets into the big games and who doesn't. Look back on this season and ask yourself how many weekends you wondered where the big games were. Now realize that this problem will only get worse as college football try to make up for recessionary budget shortfalls. Powerhouse teams will schedule more patsies in order to ensure home game receipts, while body bag teams look for big payouts to keep their programs solvent. The result is more lousy college football. A playoff won't change that.
What's unfortunate is scheduling wouldn't be too difficult to fix, yet no one is screaming for the change. It's more convenient for pundits and politicians to rail against the big, bad boogeyman BCS. Why would they advocate for an easy fix that would make college football better when they have the potential of losing their platform?
The BCS isn't going away any time soon unless the government legislates a college football playoff system. And even they won't do that. They'll do what everyone else does - leave out the details, the logistics, and we'll end up with a solution put together by bureaucrats who want to make everyone happy.
In the mean time, the BCS could tweak their system to make college football better, but they're too busy worrying about public relations. When next season rolls around and fans will get treated to more body bag games. With some pressure, that could be fixed, but not if everyone keeps focusing on a problem that can't be solved.
0 recs |
4 comments
|
Comments
Spot on
I have been saying this for some time. who really wants college football to become a mirror image of the NFL. Not me, personally I find the NFL’s regular season to be rather pedestrian compared to college football’s. Honestly why can’t we see Alabama play USC, Texas play LSU and Nebraska play Penn State all in the same weekend during week 3? That would be way more exciting than letting espn pundits argue over who are the top 2 of 5 undefeated teams at the end of the year. Hopefully T.O. and Bo start scheduling more than one good team a year I think that BSU would be a good fit for our gap in the 2011 schedule personally I think that the schedule for that year is relatively weak anyways.
This is well said, but I do have a quesiton
I would like to get some clarification on…
“Including the bowls would require cold-weather teams to play consecutive weekends away from home, giving an inherent advantage to warm-weather teams. No cold-weather team would stand a shot at a national title. If you’re a fan of a cold-weather team and you advocate this kind of system, I have to believe you’re not considering the details.”
If it is mandated that the cold-weather & warm weather teams do not get to play w/in X number of miles from a home stadium or even just in the home stadium – making every game an away game, I believe the advantage is fairly small to the warm weather team. What am I missing here?
The hell with it!
The only fair and equitable way to have a playoff is to do it just like D-II, D-III, and what ever they call D-1AA these days. Start D-I a week later than I-AA and run it the same way. Get them over with this weekend or next. If the bowl folks want to stay in the bowl business let them wait until after the playoffs are over for those teams. Let them be the exhibition games they are and a vacation reward for those teams. None of them mean anything right now except for the BCS game, which is a bogus attempt to crown a national champion.
by jon's only friend on Dec 16, 2009 8:31 PM CST reply actions
Yes
Jon, this is something that you didn’t really go into, beyond the mention of its bearing of “home field advantage”. Jon’s only friend is right…the template already exists for a division one NCAA playoff. Moreover, it exists at every level of every sport governed by the NCAA. But aside from the obvious, self-referential way in which the NCAA should likely institute a D-1 football playoff…why on earth the NCAA is beholden to the supposed “power” of the current system is beyond me. Would not the money flow in similarly, regardless of where and when they decided to schedule games? How is it exactly that the current bowl sites maintain their power? I don’t get it…but it sounds like the tail wagging the dog if you ask me. How is the fact that these bowl sites make money an impediment to the NCAA initiating a playoff? It’s not guaranteed where a given NCAA Hoops tourney first round/regional/national finals site will be in any given year, yet they still have plenty of cities lining up to offer these services. I’m not trying to be a smart ass here…I just legitimately don’t understand the oft-repeated premise that suggests that the “power” of the bowls is keeping the system in place. Is it truly because the already well-to-do university presidents and officials are really clinging that hard to a free trip with some banquets and cocktail receptions?! You’ve got to be kidding me! I’m not saying you yourself…I just must ask “how come?” whenever faced with this this longstanding theory as to why the current system is so entrenched.
BCS/Playoff/whatever…the other aspect of this whole mess that needs corrected is how only half of the participating BCS conference teams have to face an additional upper-echelon opponent at the end of the season in a CCG. This is something about the current system that strikes me as inherently unfair, but never manages to get much play in discussions of such matters. My typical, hypothetical preference in “stop making sense” land is a version of the “plus one” format…with the twists being it’s actually a “plus two” (or “plus three” if you’re a chump big 11/pac 10 team) for example: play the CCG’s and you have 6 winners. Add the two highest ranked at-large teams beyond Conference champs to create an 8-team field, which play their quarterfinal games on Christmas week at the BCS sites…play the two semifinals on January 1 (in similar neutral sites) and the NCG the week after that. All of the rest of the exhibition bowl season remains intact for those not selected to the BCS field, the season’s length remains unchanged, the current power structure remains satisfied. (Although I’d personally greatly prefer the D1-A version…how great was it to watch Montana on their home field in the snow last week. It’d be awesome to draw the Canes in a home game in the dead of the Lincoln winter—it can be done, who’d have thunk it? Well, the NCAA of course…in every level of football other than our own!) It’s all so simple, it makes me sick—I’ll tell you what, when the powers that be start lurking around blog comments sections to solve their problems…I’m gonna be the man. And yes, I did just drop in a Talking Heads reference back there…
In considering HuskerPhil’s comments, re: TO & Bo’s scheduling practices…nothing in TO’s history suggests that he will ever schedule more than one tough OOC opponent in any given year. Check the recordbook and correct me if wrong…but my guess would be that in 25 years, the times TO played more than one ranked OOC team could be counted on one hand (and among those few instances, one team was ranked substantially higher than the other.) Especially given the previous point (concerning Big 12 CCG involvement) I’d be SHOCKED if we diverted from the time-honored tradition of “one mid-ranked tough game and a bunch of cupcakes” OOC scheduling that NU has made a staple for, what, the last 40-50 years or so…

by 



















