The BCS - It Works

So, I wanted to go ahead and get this out of the way right now, before the college football season starts, so that we can all finish this discussion now and move on: I think the BCS works. Or, to put it more accurately, I think that a playoff system isn't a better solution.

In practice, the playoff system is glorious - it puts the outcome solely on the results of direct competition. I am not against this system, per se, but it seems to me like the implementation of a legit playoff system is virtually impossible.

Some people argue that it extends the season too long, etc. I don't buy that excuse in any way, because I think anyone who still believes in the misguided pretense that college football players at big-time universities are "student athletes" is simply being naive. Now, if you are adding 4 or 5 games, I can see it as a problem. But 1 or 2 is not a big deal.

I think there are simply TWO prohibitive problems with the playoff system.

1) The current system already puts teams in a "win or go home" mentality. For this upcoming season, the Ohio State v. USC game is already being hailed as the game that will decide 1 of the 2 teams that will play for the national championship. The fact that there was a 2-loss national champion last year was an aberration - and even then, their destiny was out of their hands.

The only reason LSU made the title game was that other teams choked. So, while having one loss will not completely ruin your chances, it will make the outcome dependent on other teams. If you go through your regular season undefeated, you will get to play for the national title. If you lose even a single game, you may lose your shot. The exceptions are teams like undefeated Utah/Hawaii/Boise State, who played nobody, and undefeated Auburn, who lost their shot to 2 other undefeated teams. But in reality, that is not the normal case - there are very rarely 3 worthy teams that have all run the table until the last game of the season. (More on the small-time undefeateds in another post).

If you move to a playoff, it immediately removes the imperative nature of winning EVERY game. I'm not suggesting that teams will thus not try to win every game, but it will take the pressure off. This coming season, with a playoff, it wouldn't matter who won the USC-Ohio State game because in the end, both schools will make the playoff. So, right away, what could potentially be the best and most important game of the season has lost 90% of its importance.

As it stands right now, every week matters. A playoff system would create a ton of excitement at the end of the season, but do we want to trade a full season of nail-biting excitement for 2 or 3 weeks of it? I certainly don't.

2) There is simply no good way to lay out the playoff system that will not, in some way, snub somebody somewhere. It is as simple at that. The logical numbers for a playoff are 4 or 8 teams (potentially 6 - the top 2 get byes, or 16). With the 4 team playoffs, teams 5-8 will complain of snubs. With the 8 team playoff, teams 9-12 will complain of snubs. And with a 16 team playoff, not only will it KILL The regular season, but it will place potential 3 or even 4 loss teams with a shot at the title against un-and-one-defeateds.

Last season, the 4 team playoff would have been: Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma - or maybe swap VT for Georgia, depending on what poll you use. Which leads us back to polls. The polls can't agree on the Top 4, so which poll do you use?

Also notice this would have excluded: Georgia, USC, Missouri and Kansas (again VT-GA swap). That's right, Georgia, who many claimed was the best team in the country at the end of the season, would not be there. And USC, who most others claimed was the best team in the country at the end of the season, would not be there.

Even with a 6-team playoff, giving OSU and LSU byes, we're still missing USC or Mizzou (depending on polls, AGAIN).

However, if we decide to up it again to 16 teams, not only do we add 4 games, we include 3 and 4 loss teams. So, if Tennessee wins the title, they're a FOUR loss national champion. In the end, where is the motivation to be anywhere but 16th or better in this system? Why wouldn't Ohio State mail it in against Penn State in the last game of the season? Where does this leave 3 loss Texas (or Wisconsin), who is actually ranked below 4 loss Tennessee?

If you take fewer teams, you snub too many. If you take more teams, you give some a shot that don't deserve it. People will say, "Pick a number and stick with it. Tell the other teams to deal with it." A grand solution - and EXACTLY what we do now!

The whole reason people want to get rid of the BCS is because they will argue that it doesn't match up the best teams, but neither does a playoff. The best solution we have is to create the problem another way?

In the end, I simply don't see any logical way to put together a playoff that actually satisfies the dependency on polls without just giving everyone a shot that can still provide the week-in week-out urgency of college football. It's not a perfect system, but it works better than anything else I have seen anyone suggest.