Book Review: Death to the BCS
Granted, it doesn't take much to convince me that a playoff is superior to the existing bowl system, but "Death To The BCS" by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports surprised me with their proposal for a 16 team playoff and shooting down almost every reason to retain the existing system. Their proposal makes perfect sense to me once they explain it: a 16 team playoff with all 11 conference champions and five at-large selections.
Almost immediately, people respond "What? The MAC champion? The Sun Belt Champion?"
And the answer is, of course, yes. One of the biggest reasons people reject a playoff system is that it makes the regular season meaningless. The thought is that in a playoff system, you merely have to get into the playoff system, and once you qualify for the playoffs, there is no reason to worry about the regular season anymore.
That argument gets skewered by pointing out that teams who make the playoffs get seeded based on how they finish the regular season, and there are two rewards for getting a higher seed. First of all, higher seeds host games all the way through the semi-finals. Second, the #1 seed gets rewarded with a home game against the #16 seed, who almost always will be the Sun Belt Champion. And when you win that game, you get another home game. Win that, and the #1 seed gets rewarded with a third home playoff game for the semi-finals, with a reward of a national championship berth.
Tell me again how a playoff system makes the regular season meaningless? If anything, the BCS has made the regular season less meaningful, as schools now avoid non-conference challenges to improve the odds of making the BCS game since you have to be one of the top two teams.
The other reason why people resist a playoff is that the bowls (and the tradition they represent) won't survive. But there's no reason why the bowls have to disappear; they have bowls in divisions 1-AA and 2. The bowl system will simply exclude the 16 teams that play in the playoffs. The Rose Bowl gets to return to a Big Ten/Pac 12 matchup, just now with the runners up in those conferences (who don't earn at large spots). All the tradition still exists, and it's still a big deal. The Big XII runner up gets a Fiesta Bowl berth...which means Nebraska would have ended up in Phoenix the last two seasons. The top bowls still exist, albeit with a smaller payout and reduced visibility. The bowls that disappear are the ones that nobody really gives a darn about: the bowl games in Washington and St. Petersburg, for example.
And why is anybody concerned about saving those bowl games anyway? Very few fans attend them, and schools spend far more money playing in them than the bowls pay out, thanks to the one-sided deals that bowls have with conferences. ESPN owns these lower tier bowls for a reason; they are very profitable to operate since the schools, not the bowls take all the risk. In fact,, the authors have determined that several bowl games actually pay schools less (after adjusting for inflation) than they did in 1998.
What the authors really can't explain is why the bowl system still exists, though they point the fingers at the conference commissioners. But really, the finger points toward Jim Delaney of the Big Ten. The best explanation is that while the existing bowl system leaves an incredible amount of money on the table, the revenues of the current system are distributed in a way that benefits the big conferences. Under the BCS system, the Big Ten gets many more times the revenue that the MAC or Sun Belt receives. In a playoff system, they might actually get the same amount...and that's a risk that a conference like the Big Ten is unwilling to make. Thus, Delaney and Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman are painted as the villains who use the BCS as a weapon to defend the preferential treatment the biggest conferences receive in the current system.
In the end, the authors hope that by shedding light on the deals and exposing the bowl system for what it is, that eventually the opposition to the playoff system will fold like a tent. I'm not sure if that's going to happen soon, as the presidents and conference commissioners are pretty entrenched. So while this makes for a great story, it's not going to change in the forseeable future...at least until the end of the current BCS television deal with ESPN.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
While I not a fan of the BCS anymore,
and support a plus one format, I question some of your points. You are going to have a hard time convincing me, given that the Packers, Giants, and Steelers were all 6th seeds who won SBs in the last 5 years, that seeding matters, or that teams care about seeding or home field in the playoffs. Hell, all the talk this year was how much better Green Bay would be playing away from home in a dome. While I can see some teams desiring the off week in the NFL playoffs, and playing out the season for that extra week, but to expect a CF team to care about being seeded #3 or #8 during the last week of the regular season just isn’t believable. Esp. if there are health concerns, etc., where mailing it in probably helps in the long run.
And compiled on top of that, I doubt that the intensity of the CF following would be maintained during the season if teams have leeway. Does it mean the regular season is meaningless, of course not, but its diminished. No way I care about LSU vs. Auburn this year as much w/o these teams NC lives at stake. And considering all I have to do is point to CBB, MLB, NBA regular season tv ratings, I’m pretty comfortable with my position.
Listen, if expansive playoff supporters want to argue from the standpoint that “yes the regular season will probably take a hit, but a 5 week string playoff games more than makes up for it in excitement” would be far more sensible.
Secondly, I also highly doubt that the BCS has anything to do with weak OOC schedules. It has to do with the extra $$$ generated by home game. Its naive to think that implementing a 16 team playoff would change that one way or the other.
What I don’t understand is why don’t more playoff supporters simply support a “plus one” format? So far, a plus-one would have allowed any undefeated teams a chance since the inception of the BCS. Instead a blowing up the world, why not make a small change and not destabilize CF, which given how CF has surpassed MLB for 2nd as America’s fav sport, is doing quite well.
Deadspin: by douche bags, for douche bags.
How?
How does a playoff system reduce the intensity of the regular season? They still have to win their division to make the conference championship game, and then still win the CCG. Maybe I’m missing something here, but it doesn’t look like the regular season would change at all.
by HuskerHammer on Feb 15, 2011 2:14 PM CST up reply actions
a Plus one is a playoff
which is why it was shot down
a couple of points….
The Green Bay Packers were one of the favorites this year to make the Super Bowl, if it weren’t for a multitude of injuries I think they would have had a higher seed. Yes, there will be the occasional Giants underdog team, or the Houston Rockets of the NBA years ago winning it as a #6 seed with Olajuwon. I don’t know how that’s a bad thing though, the sporting world was gripped by Butler’s run last year and George Mason’s run a few years ago.
As for OOC game scheduling, yes the BCS is a MAJOR FACTOR. They removed the strength of schedule component and margin of victory of the computer polls which is completely asinine. Not only do the computers now not have the tools necessary to be impartial and spit out the best team, but there is also much less incentive for teams to schedule any decent out-of-conference opponent. Lastly, while the computers can’t use strength of schedule or margin of victory, you know darn well human voters are influenced by it when voting. Absolutely ridiculous.
Lastly, what makes my blood boil, is these 3rd party businessmen, the bowl sponsors, making a boatload of money on a supposed amateur sport. Why do we need them taking a piece of the pie? If there is a playoff, all that money, which would be at least 3 times what they are making now, would go to the schools. Taxpayer savings, reduced tuition, more student athlete benefits, all possible. That lobbyist money, which has bought Caribbean cruises for AD’s and other people in school administration and election influence in Arizona by the scumbags running the Fiesta Bowl is heinous and deplorable. Get the worthless vulture businessmen out of the sport.
by Drinkin' Wit' Terrell Farley on Feb 15, 2011 5:10 PM CST up reply actions
In 2009, three teams had sewn up conference championship games early...
Neither Ohio State, Central Michigan, or Virginia Tech took a week off…
Unfortunately, this will never happen
Because the big schools and big conferences hog all of the revenue generated by the current system, there’s no way they will give that up. If I read your summary of the book correctly, it sounds like a playoff would not only be more equitable in crowning a true champion, it would also be more equitable in terms of revenue sharing, which means that the Boise States of the world would eventually be able to amass athletic resources that are on par with the likes of Ohio State. Again, the big dogs will never let that fly.
And it’s too bad. The only proof I need that the current system sucks is the anti-climatic disappointment I have after every bowl season. For the most part, the match ups are terrible (Oklahoma v. UConn?!?). Teams come out flat and play sloppy because they’ve been off for a month, and I usually feel like I saw half-a-dozen bowl teams that looked just as good or better than the teams that played for the BCS title. Did Oregon look so average in the BCS game because they had been off for over a month, or because they finally had to play someone who could play some defense?
I’m venting, I know, but I feel like this every year. It’s BS. The FCS actually has a good thing going with their playoff system. I definitely tune in for the last few rounds of that. They actually play the games in their own stadiums, often in snow, week in, week out…it’s great!
by huskerfanindc on Feb 16, 2011 9:25 PM CST up reply actions
How many butts does Ohio St put in seats for a bowl game?
How many does the MAC champion put in seats for a bowl game? The B10 gets the money they get because they provide a huge chunk of the people who spend the money that generates the revenue. If you were affiliated with a bowl (a city, an advertising sponsor, a broadcaster, etc) you would shoot yourself in the foot if Bowling Green made a major bowl instead of a team like Ohio St or Nebraska. You’d lose money and then a city, advertising sponsor, broadcaster, etc would be unwilling to take the risk going forward.
I’d love to see a plus 1 scenario, or MAYBE a 4 team playoff that incorporates the current bowls. I think they need to have the championship game the first week of January though. Now it stretches into the NFL playoffs and weakens the total college football post season presentation.
by HawkeyeRecon on Feb 17, 2011 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
The playoff system is needed, am I'm all for it!!!,,,
That’s the only way you will ever crown a true National Champion!! Let them play bowl games after the big game, and pair up the teams based on how they finished the year, and their bowl game.
Rock out with your Stalk out!!!
Smoke em' if you got em'!!!
Low and Slow!!!
I havent done much research...
Are people asking for less nonconference games in “preseason”? A playoff earned national champion would play 4 playofff games from 16 seeds right? Could that take the season to 17 games?
The Texas 5A high school football champions
Played 16 games this year. After all, everything’s bigger more psycho in Texas.
by Cheeseandcorn on Feb 15, 2011 10:19 PM CST up reply actions
THANK U JON
Finally a valid point for the playoffs!
Everyone,,,,,Please don’t confuse NFL with college football!
All I have to say is…. can you imagine college football PLAYOFFS
at home STADIUMS,,,,anywhere. They would be sold out EVERY GAME! Exclusive TV coverage.!
the BCS is valid to rank the non Conference Champions….to get those last 4-6 teams in.
Not sure how many conferences there are going to be in future……thats why the 4-6.
this would make EVERY conference/division game all the more important….for every TEAM.
However you have pointed out the major flaw……in the current system…conferences are getting big money NOW…..and it will be hard for them to give it up…..especially the BIG 10…..because they are not competing with the TEAMS that would make the playoffs and BIG 10 would potentially lose money. sadly money wins out. However(again) I think there is plenty of money to made with a playoff system. The Big 10 conference does not want to risk their GUARANTEED money…as it is now. Neither does any of the BIG BCS schools.
Bummer
Bowl games have a place….for EVERY playoff game = Bowl GAME!
….at each HOME STADIUM.
The Championship/ Quarter Finals can be played at a NEUTRAL site. (rotating thru Orange, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta?) hell I dont even know what they are anymore…..
Go Daddy.com….Mienke Bowl,,,,Hunger Bowl? geeZ,,,what a joke.
What happens when
Michigan goes to the MAC?
Florida State goes to CUSA.
This makes every school say.. WOW we’d CRUSH those guys. I think over time, there would be no conference powers. The MAC and Sun Belt would get teams joining simply for ease of making the playoffs against cupcake teams.
This is why im all for the 16 team major conferences and a 4 team (conference champs) playoff.
A
sixteen team playoff would be great. I really don’t care how they set it up just get it done.
Jim Delaney is an evil, money making genius
and now he’s your evil, money making genius now too.
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude
























