Debunking the BCS Mess, Part 2: 'A Playoff Would Destroy Tradition'

As mentioned in my last post, I will be going through different arguments in favor of the current BCS system and debunking them based on logic and reason. My hope (futile though it may be) is that someone with power will read this and stop the insanity. But if life has taught me anything, it's that reality and insanity are synonymous. Without further ado, here's point number 2.




BCS Argument #2: A playoff system would destroy the current bowl system, which would destroy traditional college football as we know it

This argument, like the first, is based on a valid point but takes things too far. It is true that bowl games are an important part of college football and have been since before most of us were born. BCS proponents argue that a playoff would either destroy bowl games entirely (by making them extinct) or would render them meaningless. This argument stems from the "traditionalist" segment of college football. These people feel that college football tradition is sacrosanct, and that to even consider challenging the status quo is blasphemy. They feel that changing the current bowl system would create another sport entirely.

Like the prior argument, this line of thinking also runs askew of both common sense and reality. For starters, there are many who justifiably believe that the current bowl structure is bloated. Because so many bad teams can play in bowl games, college football legacy is being tarnished. Currently, there are 34 bowl games played each year, with 68 teams participating in the festivities. Considering there are only a total of 119 FBS schools, this means that over 50% of the teams play in the postseason each year. This postseason recipe guarantees a plethora of bad football games between worse football teams each year. For example, 9 of the 68 bowl-bound teams (or 13%) this season do not even have a winning record (finishing 6-6). Another 18 teams (or 26%) finished with only 7 wins and at least 5 losses. Unfortunately, such a bowl structure does not legitimize college football's postseason as anything but lavish presentations of mediocre football teams. Instead of endangering college football's roots, retooling the current bowl system would actually serve to protect college football's legacy.

Furthermore, the current postseason structure shows that bowl games and a playoff between the top teams in the league are not mutually exclusive or even diametrically opposed. The NCAA, if it so desired, could continue to promote bowl games as well as invite the top teams to a playoff system. In reality, the current BCS system has already eliminated the importance of every other bowl game. Because the winner of the BCS championship game is guaranteed the BCS title, every other bowl game - BCS or otherwise - is simply a meaningless exhibition (except for those rare instances where there are split champions - another problem that a playoff would eliminate). The fact that these other bowl games are still attended and watched by millions strongly suggests that fans will attend bowl games between "lesser" teams even if a more developed playoff system was added to the mix. Indeed, there is no reason that the EagleBank Bowl (between 7-5 Wake Forest and 8-4 Navy), the New Mexico Bowl (between 6-6 Colorado State and 7-5 Fresno State), the Gator Bowl (between 7-5 South Carolina and 8-4 Iowa) or a number of other bowls couldn't be played synonymously with an 8- or 16-team playoff. Shockingly, such a dual system already exists. In college basketball, the NCAA Tournament and he NIT successfully operate concurrently as complimentary postseason systems. Therefore, any complaint that a playoff would ruin the current bowl structure is nothing but hot air.

Moreover, the current bowl games could gain additional meaning, lustre, and prestige by being incorporated into a playoff structure. Currently, the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls are nothing but fun exhibitions between some of the top teams in the land. If these bowls became the quarterfinals of the playoffs, they would still feature top teams but would actually mean something. The bowl games could then rotate the semifinal and final rounds just as they currently rotate the location of the BCS Championship game. This would keep the current "bowl feel" while giving the college football postseason much needed legitimacy.

Common sense thus shows that this argument in favor of the BCS is unfounded. Updating the college football postseason would enhance and not endanger the sport's legacy and tradition of entertainment and excellence. Any discussion--particularly by conference and school leaders--of preserving college football by keeping the current BCS structure is both unproductive and hypocritical. College football has not remain unchanged through the ages. The sport as it currently stands is far different than it was even twenty years ago. Important and significant changes and enhancements to the game (such as time-clock changes, instant replay, and even the BCS system itself) show that those in charge truly understand that the sport is still evolving. Instant replay and the BCS system particularly show that there has been a willingness to significantly update the sport to add virtues such as fairness and equality. Adding a legitimate playoff would only serve to complete these attempts at true fairness. The current refusal to further improve the system makes liars out of those in charge of the sport while simultaneously shortchanging those individuals (coaches, players, boosters, sponsors and fans alike) who invest their time, talents, money, and energy into the sport they love.

Next Post: BCS Argument - The additional demands of a playoff would harm the student athlete