A lot of casual college football fans want the college football postseason to look more like March Madness. I love March Madness, but football and basketball are completely different, and here are some reasons why that kind of playoff won't work:
1) Decreases importance of regular season.
College football prides itself in that every game is already like a playoff game. Every week counts, so you can't take any week off. A large playoff system easily destroys this notion. It's really not that hard to be ranked in the top 16 of the AP poll, and being in the top 8 isn't anything to brag about either. When you start having 3-loss teams (of a 12 game season!) creep into the conversation for being in top 8 teams of the country, which happens a lot, you know the regular season has lost some of its importance. The selectivity of the BCS system maintains the sacredness of the regular season, making the national championship more of a rarely-attainable dream rather than a party where all the cool kids are at.
While this in itself may not seem like a big deal, the importance of the regular season is one of the main driving forces behind huge rivalries. You can ruin a team's season by a win against them, which may not be possible under a large playoff system. Michigan did it to Penn State, Ohio State did it to Michigan. Hand a loss to any team and that team is almost certainly out of the national championship conversation. The importance of the regular season and the intensity of rivalries and big games go hand in hand, and a playoff system could destroy that.
2) Decreases importance of conference titles
Currently, being the conference winner of a BCS conference is a ticket to a BCS bowl. Under a playoff system with eight or more teams, there is a large chance for the runner-up in a conference to also make the playoffs, making the conference title meaningless. Sure, you get bragging rights for a year, but the title will no longer be as coveted as is today. Conference championship games are all of a sudden kind of silly, as you might end up playing each other again in the playoffs. The loser of the conference title game could even make it farther than the winner of the conference!
Conference identity and conference titles in college football are much more important than in college basketball, where it often is an afterthought because of March Madness, and a playoff system would destroy this conference identity.
3) A significantly longer season is not good for players.
An eight team playoff would increase the season for football programs that make it by two games. While this doesn't seem like a big deal, when the season is extended by that much, injuries are inevitable, and serious injuries in college are significantly more crippling to a career than in football. In my opinion, the NCAA should an is protecting players as best possible, because an injury in college could decrease or eliminate the chance of employment as a professional athlete for student athletes, who aren't paid.
4) Competition with NFL playoffs
While it may seem that a playoff system will bring in more viewers, a playoff system will push the college season into the heart of the NFL playoffs, and college football doesn't stand a chance against the NFL playoffs, especially when NFL playoff games are on both Sunday and Saturday. Don't mess with the NFL. They will eat you alive.
[Short paragraph, but competing against the NFL will cripple NCAA ratings]
5) Bowl Games become undesirable
This is probably the last thing on anyone's mind, but the bowl system will be destroyed under a playoff system. It cannot be underestimated how much bowl wins are important to college football, especially small programs that don't always have great recruiting classes. One of the great things about the bowl system is that half the teams end their seasons with wins, which creates excitement for the program and incentive in its recruiting. A playoff system will make bowl games like the NIT. Sure, you're happy if you win, but no one wants to be in it. The ratings for bowl games will plummet, as no one wants to watch them either, which decreases the much-needed payout of bowl games for smaller schools. The bowl system is good for college football, and a playoff system will benefit only the teams in the playoffs but will hurt other up-and-coming football programs.
A Four-Team Playoff System Will Only Create More Controversy
As many have said, if there is a playoff system in place, it should be only a four-team playoff system. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it's a complete myth that a four-team playoff system will decrease the selection drama and all worthy teams will have a chance at becoming the national champion. A four-team playoff system has the same shortcoming as the current BCS system: How will you decide what four teams get to play in the four-team playoff?
The answer to this question will be even more difficult to determine than the two teams for the BCS championship game for one main reason: that there are rarely four undefeated teams and there are usually a much larger amount of one-loss teams that would feel deserving of the final spots in the playoff. There are rarely more than three teams in the conversation for the national championship game, but with a four-team playoff, much more than one team will feel robbed if left out.
2009
Undefeated teams: 5 (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 1 (Florida)
2008
Undefeated teams: 2 (Utah, Boise)
1-Loss Teams: 8 (Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Texas Tech, Penn State, Ball State)
2007
Undefeated teams: 1 (Hawaii)
1-Loss Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Kansas)
2-Loss Teams: 10 (LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC, West Virginia, Airzone State, BYU, Boise State)
2006
Undefeated Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 4 (Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin)
2005
Undefeated Teams: 2 (USC, Texas)
1-Loss Teams: 4 (Penn State, Oregon, West Virginia, TCU)
2004
Undefeated Teams: 5 (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (Cal, Texas, Louisville)
2003
Undefeated Teams: 1 (Oklahoma)
1-Loss Teams: 5 (USC, LSU, Boise State, TCU)
2002
Undefeated Teams: 2 (Miami, Ohio State)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (Iowa, Georgia, Boise State)
Average from 2002-2009
Undefeated Teams: 2.25 (18 teams in 8 seasons)
1-Loss Teams: 3.75 (30 teams in 8 seasons)
2-Loss teams ranked in top 5 of AP Poll: 1.25 (10 teams in 8 seasons)
Michigan 2003, Georgia 2003, Ohio State 2005, Notre Dame 2005, LSU 2006, LSU 2007, Virginia Tech 2007, Oklahoma 2007, Georgia 2007
From these numbers we see that if we assume that undefeated teams will be in the playoffs, there will be (on average) two 1-loss teams left out and some worthy 2-loss teams. Simple exercise: given the teams named each year above, choose two teams for the national championship. It won't be very difficult for most years, as the top two teams are often significantly ahead of the rest. Now go choose 4 teams to be considered for the playoffs. It's really not that easy, as you probably consider many more teams for that last spot in comparison with a national championship game.
It's also important to note that many of the 1-Loss Teams (and even undefeated teams) are ranked significantly lower than other two-loss teams, as two-loss teams in power conferences with more difficult schedules are widely considered better teams than one-loss teams (especially apparent in 2007 when LSU became the first two-loss team to win the BCS championship). This was especially true further in the past, when the BCS voters didn't respect non-BCS wins as much. I didn't post these teams because of space issues, but you can find the AP Poll final rankings of each season. Though there was a surprising 5 teams were undefeated in 2004 and 2009, even a four-team playoff system would leave one undefeated team out.
Is the four-team playoff much worse than the current system? No. But people have to realize that there a four team playoff system will leave more teams feeling out. It might be more fun to watch for a while, but don't be surprised when it's your turn to be left out and when people start crying for the clarity of the previous system. The current system has its issues, but a four team playoff will just create more drama.
I wouldn't be against a four-team playoff, as long as its proponents don't start crying and complaining once they're left out.
I agree with some of your points, having a playoff will have some of those effects but it will let us have a true champion instead of the farce of BCS that we have right now. I would much rather have teams actually play one another to decide the championship than rely on computers and voters. Also, here is some of my thoughts.
ReplyDelete1) Decreases the importance of regular season: It does to a point, but in some ways the current BCS system diminishes the regular season as well. By shutting undefeated teams like Boise State, TCU, and the 2004 Auburn team for that matter, out of a chance to play for the national title, BCS is essentially saying "Congrats, but your 12-0, 13-0, 14-0 don't mean anything either. You're as good as the other teams with 1,2,3 losses." One of the things that gets a guy like me going is how the BCS places makes the preseason poll too important. A team has only a legitimate shot at a national championship if it's in the top 5 or 7 rankings by the last week of the season. How it gets there is dependent on the teams ahead of them throughout the season losing. If a good, but unheralded preseason, team is worthy, it can go undefeated and still not have a chance to prove itself if its preseason ranking (starting point) is too low. For that team, the BCS system basically makes its regular season even more unimportant than a playoff system will.
Decreases the importance of conference titles: Yeah maybe that's true but there is still glory and honor to it. Right now a team like Michigan will always choose a national championship over a Big Ten title. How is having a playoffs going to make a conference title loose its luster. Check out the college basketball season, every team fights for a national championship, but when the conference tournament rolls around, they're competing for it just as hard as before.
Longer season not good for players: This is definitely an issue but why can't we fix it. An 8-team playoffs increases the season by 2 games, 2 extra games that affects classes, finals, and can cause injury. I totally get that. But why can't we scratch 2 of the early season games against the patsies of college football away so that we can tack on the more important games at the end? Does Florida really have to play Charleston Southern? Does Michigan really have to prove its worth against Appalachian State? (oops wrong example!) Sure, those games are a huge source of revenue for the smaller schools, but why can't we schedule them sort of like the NFL pre-season games, play them in August the weeks leading up to the season and play the starters for a quarter or two? It's the same thing essentially.
Competition with the NFL playoffs: Not if you do what I proposed in the previous point. The college football season will be just as long as it is now and won't interfere with the NFL postseason any more than it does now.
Bowl Games become less desirable: Bowl games and a playoff is not mutually exclusive. We can still have the minor bowl games (ex: the Humanitarian Bowl, the Meineke Car Care Bowl) and save them for the 6-6, 8-5 teams that it is reserved to now. As for the top teams in the playoffs, why can't the 4 1st round games be the Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, Orange, Cotton, and other traditional bowls? Why can't we name the semifinal games after them? The tradition and the name still preserves.
4 team playoff will still produce controversy Of course it will! That's sports and that's what makes ESPN and games and arguments so fun. But I will much rather argue about who's the best 9th team that got left out or who's the worst 8th team that doesn't deserve to be in than having to argue who should have gotten a chance to play for the championship and who never had a shot to begin with.
Note: I'm going to be writing a post on the values of the bowl system soon.
ReplyDelete1) Your points are valid. Many people feel the way you do, but for me, it's not as big of an issue. The reality is that someone will always be jipped. Most of the time, there really too much of an argument for the top two teams by the rest of the nation, even if one fan base is upset.
2) This is the key difference between college basketball and college football. If you want a shot at the national championship in college football, you have to be the conference champion. There is no way you can make the title match without having the conference title. In the Big Ten this season, three teams shared the conference title. For conference championships, the best team doesn't always come out on top in a tournament. College basketball and football are significantly different, and it's just a huge culture difference. Conference titles don't mean as much in college basketball as it does in college football (it is probably different for UNC/Duke), and this is a shift that I would not like to see. The success of a college basketball team is determined by its success in the NCAA tournament. In college football, it's all about big games and conference play. They are very different.
Long season:
Cutting the first two games is absolutely not possible for a few reasons:
1) It cuts the regular season down to 10 games. This will result in: a) smaller sample size for decisions and b) many more undefeated/1-loss teams. A ten game series is really too short.
2) Non-conference rivalries. Michigan-Notre Dame. OSU-USC. USC-Notre Dame. Actually, all Notre Dame games.
3) It's true that big programs don't need to play scrubs, but thinking about it from the other point of view, it's very important for them. Schools with weak programs have a chance to make a big name for themselves (and also make a lot of money), like Toledo and App State.
I know a playoff system and bowl games are not mutually exclusive, but I'm just saying that the rest of the bowls will be significantly negatively affect the other bowl games, which affects other programs.
In the end, the playoff system only benefits the teams on top which are the most visible, but we shouldn't forget the other programs that desperately need money and recognition.
The main point is that a 15-game season that extends into mid-january is unacceptable, and it doesn't seem like there are other immediately possible alternatives.
Again, I am not against a 4-team playoff, but it will only create more controversy and it really doesn't solve any of the problems that many people have with the BCS system. I just don't want to hear people complaining when they aren't chosen. What happens when USC has 1 loss and is conference champ but loses the last spot to Boise or TCU? They better not complain...but I know I would.
Also, I am against the notion that a team's record is the only important thing. It rewards weaker schedules and weaker conferences. In 2007, Hawaii went undefeated (12-0) but was ranked 10th in the AP poll. They played #4 Georgia (10-2) in the Sugar Bowl and got spanked 41-10.
ReplyDeleteBoise State has been playing better teams and is much more worthy of a BCS bowl than they used to be.
If a playoff system is in effect, a team's record should absolutely not be the only thing that is considered. We still need some sort of BCS-style rankings...and I won't be surprised if there will be an undefeated team left out (in a 4-team playoff).
Again, the issue with teh 8-game playoff is teh schedule.