Playoff Denied

The BCS has decided that they like the current system, and they are not going to move to a playoff.

I could not be happier.

The idea of a playoff is a bad idea for college football. For a lot of reasons. But I want to first write about why people want a playoff.

First of all, they think it is more fair - things are settled on the field. That could not be more wrong. What is settled on the field? The only thing that is settled is that one team beat another. It does not follow that the team that lost could not have beaten on a more regular basis another team that beats the team that beat them, if you follow me. In other words, if Cal can never get by USC, and USC always loses to the Furd, and Cal always beats the Furd, then who is the better team? A playoff does not give you the ability to analyze that process. A true round robin schedule does give you the ability to analyze that more effectively. But because a playoff is a one and done, it is a poor way of selecting a champion.

I think that is important to remember. Many sports recognize this, and, like baseball, basketball, and the NHL, they have multiple games to try to fix the issue, so that a team on a hot streak or a lucky break does not get an advantage.

Frankly, this is why the NCAA basketball tournament is such a joke. Great teams, championship quality teams get knocked out each year before the finals. It is hard to say that since you lost one or two games in March that you are a worse team that the team that lost 10 through the year but got lucky that one day.

Playoff are not fair. So that is a crappy reason for having one.

The second reason people want a playoff is that it would be more exciting that the crappy third tier bowl games.

If that is the case, why are there going to be three more bowl games certified, so that every team who has a winning record, or who is qualified, will be going to a bowl game?

The reason is, of course, money. But it is also because colleges want their teams to end on success. Cal fans have been talking all since January about how great that Air Force game was -what a comeback. And it was. And we would have had a crappy end of the season (losing 6 of 7) without that bowl game giving us hope for the next year.

A good 25% of college football teams end their season with a victory in a bowl game, and alumni are happy, give a bit more to the school, and life goes on.

For the betting class, however, it does not have the parlay appeal that so excites everyone in March. There are no tournaments, no playoff fever. Thank god. College football is about your college team doing it's best, and winning what it can. This is a regional issue, not a national issue. Notre Dame thinks it is a national team, but it clearly is not in their best interest to play in a playoff format. They would be relegated each year to losing in the first round, if they ever made it. Their whole image would be in tatters - worse than it is now.

For most college football fans, the playoffs would occur without them. They would be in pre-set venues, with corporate sponsors taking all the tickets. You would not be able to see your Bears, if they ever got in. Just like in Hoops.

It was exciting to see Cal play Air Force in a crappy third tier bowl. We certainly would not have been invited to a playoff, and we certainly needed that win. And there are 25 other teams in the same boat. In a playoff, only one team end the season happy.

The final reason is that people want to see a champion crowned.

Why?

In a system that is patently not fair (there are only 12 gmaes - you need to have at least 20 for a statistically sound sample, and with injuries and such probably more), what is the benefit to being crowned the National Champion?

I think the way it works now is fine. The whole thing is a sham, so why not just let well enough alone, and crown whoever wins the one game people think is the championship game?

I, for one, will never be denied in my belief that in 2004, we could have beaten anyone (if only our receivers were not hurt), and we rightly should be National Champs. Who cares if I am right or wrong - the point is that my opinion is just as valid as any other idiot out there who crowns these guys.

And what about last year? There was clearly no team that deserved a championship, in the true sense. There was a team that won the title game. But they had two loses. No team was a clear champion. So why do we insist on having one? In the case of last year, they should have just said, forget it - no one wins this year. It was all a bunch of slop.


Here is how a true playoff should look:

All teams play in a 12 team conference. They play a full round robin tournament (11 games). Then, the winners of that play in a champions conference, and play a full round robin tournament (10 games). Then, the top two teams of that play a 5 game series.

I could stand behind that as being a fair way to crown a champion. But it is clearly not in the cards, and I frankly do not care that much.

I am excited if we can win the Pac 10. In 2006, we tied for first. That was great. That is our championship. If we ever get to a BCS title game and win, we will have won a game against another team, and won that trophy. But the true championship would be the Pac 10 title.

That is why college football is so fun - each week you get to talk about why you are better. And you never have to back it up.

GO BEARS!!