 |
 |
|
|
WFAA Sports BLOG sponsored by: |
|
March 2009
Categories
More WFAA Blogs
|
Any conversation or debate about the BCS system needs to begin with a variation of this statement: The system sucks and needs to be changed. I really think it's important to remember this while talking about the BCS; the fact that we have to debate this is ridiculous. I imagine myself in 30 years explaining to my kids: "First, they used a system called the BCS, a combination of computer polls and human polls, to determine the best two teams in the country, and then those two teams played." "Dad, why didn't they just do a playoff?" "Well son, there were TV contracts to consider, and big conferences wanted to monopolize the big money bowl games ..." Just nonsense. Ok, with that disclaimer, I dive headfirst into the debate. I heard the morning guys on the Ticket bring up an interesting side to the Texas-OU argument, about which team should go to the Big 12 championship game. Texas fans are arguing that because they beat OU on the field, they should go ahead of the Sooners. But by using that reasoning, they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. Because if Texas were going to the Big 12 title game, then Texas Tech could use the same argument against the Longhorns. Unfortunately for Tech, they don't have much of a leg to stand on because they were so thoroughly thrashed in Norman. It's really hard to make any case for the Raiders after such a lopsided game. Also, it's useful to keep this in mind - just because one team beat another doesn't mean that team is entitled to be ranked higher. For example, Ole Miss beat Florida, but they are nowhere on the BCS radar, and nowhere near Florida's ranking, and rightly so (obviously). I think that's another reason why Tech has been summarily eliminated from the BCS conversation - they were so completely beaten in the Oklahoma game, that despite only one loss during the entire season, they don't look like a championship contender. The Ticket guys also brought up USC - why have the Trojans been so completely discarded in the title game argument? Their only loss was on the road to an Oregon State team that turned out to be a lot better than expected. Somehow, Florida is being forgiven for losing at home to Ole Miss. With that said, in my opinion the two teams playing the best right now are Florida and Oklahoma. Of course, even if that is the case - that those two teams are playing better than everyone else right now - that's flawed too because that is not how the current system is supposed to reward teams. It's the entire body of work, not a great stretch of games leading into December. But that's the game I want to see. In conclusion, the system sucks and needs to be changed. 2 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
|
|
|
If you are interested in change, I would suggest visiting ultimatetweaker.com (URL) - then having digested what is there, spread the word !
Here is my two cents on what I think in terms of the Bowl versus playoff for major college football.
First, and foremost no team should be invited to a bowl where if they lose it will result in them having a losing record for the season. No 6-6 bowl teams.
Second, if there aren't enough DI schools to make that happen invite DIIs. I guarantee you that they'll be glad to forsake being in the playoff to be in a featured bowl game.
I was on a team that went to a bowl game and I will carry that with me for the rest of my life. Being in a playoff doesn't do that. No to mention that it was one of the most memorable games ever.
Third, major college is not about a championship when it comes t football. You are champions when you are on the DI level. You are the best of the best in the country. Your institution is a champion in education and in the community. Bowls celebrate that. many schools can make the bowls. Few will make or succeed in the playoffs.
A coach can now win a bowl and be a success. If that same coach doesn't win the championship or make it to the finals they are out of a job. That is not the standard that we want. Where would Joe Paterno be today if DI was a playoff system. There is too much at stake.
Fourth, the constituency. They get nothing from a playoff unless they win it all. Bowls are more about schools, fundraising and community than they are about football. Schools and communities make money from bowls. What is going to replace that revenue. Fans can make a bowl, but to make a series of playoff games is quite different.
Let's not forget about attendance. Big gate equals big payday. Schools tht have a history of travelling well are more appealling. To be in the BCS games you should have to show both a home and an away attendance of +50K.
Sure this year Texas and USC want a playoff. But when they are playing in the big game mum is the word. Now I would demand that to play in the BCS, a team has to win a conference championship (that would include independents; ala Notre Dame). And no automatic bids like the ACC and the Big East. To make that happen the conferences should be allowed to select who plays in there championship game. For example this year a Texas vs. OU Big 12 Championship would have been more engaging than OU Missouri. Likewise the conference makes more money with a better draw and they shares in the revenue that their champion receives from the BCS.
The biggest proponent for a playoff that I see is the media. It is advertising for them. But it will cut their throat. The bowls are a multi-lanes highway for local and national media alike. A playoff will be a single lane dirt road that dead ends.
Bowls forever.