Since its inception, I've always made it a point to call Caught Looking a blog about the sports fan experience, not a blog about sports. I've gone out of my way to avoid covering the topics that are constantly beat to death by traditional sports media: game recaps, scenario analysis, second guessing, etc. At the same time, I try to write about topics that actually matter to true sports fans: what it's like to attend live games, tools that improve the fan experience, etc. So, where does the BCS debate fit in? While I've avoided writing anything BCS-related to date because it's so overly-covered by ESPN and Sports Illustrated, few things matter more to sports fans right now than how college football's national champion is decided. So I've decided to cave and put down a few personal thoughts on college football's championship process.
First, let's get some things out of the way. I'm not going to leave you on any cliffhangers here; I'm definitely a fan of a playoff system. I'm also not going to pretend that I'm not biased. As the 2010 season nears its conclusion and it appears increasingly likely that Stanford, despite a possible 11-1 record and a top-six BCS ranking, won't go to a BCS bowl game, I'm growing increasingly bitter. But anger over the BCS isn't very productive unless you can identify what aspect of the current system annoys you. Today, while watching Auburn pull off an impressive comeback at Alabama, I think I figured out precisely why I despise the BCS.
As the Auburn-Alabama game was in its final minutes, the announcers proclaimed that the close games played by SEC teams were the reason a team like Auburn should play for the national championship and a team like Boise State or TCU shouldn't. The ESPN crew insisted that because Boise State (now irrelevant because of their loss to Nevada last night) and TCU don't have to go play at Alabama as part of their conference schedules, Auburn must be a better team. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this logic makes absolutely no sense. Assuming the goal of any college post-season system is to find the best team in the country, it shouldn't matter how many games you've played against teams that are close to your ability. Instead, all that should matter is which teams are better than others on an absolute basis. While it's true that TCU plays weaker conference opponents than Auburn, we have no idea how well the Horned Frogs would do on the road at Alabama. Many assume that because TCU hasn't had the opportunity to play a team like Alabama on the road, that must mean that they couldn't win in Tuscaloosa.
This reasoning just isn't sound. The reason this argument doesn't make sense, however, is because it's not really the argument that these announcers were trying to make. Their real point was that, when two teams are close in ability, the team with a tougher schedule should get priority when it comes to the national championship. And you know what? That probably makes sense. I have no idea how Auburn would do against TCU (only a playoff could tell us that), but if I had to pick one I guess I'd pick Auburn as the best of the lot. Nevermind the fact that we shouldn't have to choose. If we're stuck with the BCS, we'll have to resolve discrepancies by giving preferential treatment to teams from better conferences. Fine.
So if "better conference equals better team" is the BCS's mantra, then tell me this: why will Stanford be sent to the Alamo Bowl when inferior teams from the Big East and ACC play in BCS bowl games? If tougher schedules count more, then shouldn't #6 Stanford, who has only lost one game (on the road to the number-one ranked team in the country) in a competitive Pac-10 conference, play in a BCS bowl before an unranked Big East team like UConn or West Virginia? Why isn't the same logic that's keeping TCU out of the national championship picture keeping UConn and West Virginia out of the BCS bowl picture?
Like many others, I think a playoff system would resolve 99% of the BCS's issues, but I realize that it's not likely to happen any time soon. So if we're stuck with the BCS bowls, shouldn't the NCAA at least be able to implement its policies consistently? In my opinion, the NCAA and BCS need to state their stance on these issues clearly, once and for all. If conference strength is king, then explain to me why UConn and Virginia Tech can go BCS bowling and Stanford can't? And if conference strength isn't the determining factor, then the NCAA needs to come up with a new rationale for keeping TCU out of the national championship game. Either way, the NCAA has some explaining to do to its fans.
7 comments:
The Big East always does very well in bowl and BCS games! The previous years bowl record should come into play somewhere. Maybe the Big East from top to bottom is very even, but just because no 1 team stands out doesn't mean maybe not all the bowl eligible schools from the Big East are very good. The real reason that no team from the Big East is ranked also is because of perception, which is also what is keeping the TCUs and Boise States out.
I disagree on multiple points. First, the Big East is a joke. Their bowl record reflects the lack of quality bowl games more than it does the strength of the Big East. Last year for example besides the BCS game, the Big East didn't face one opponent in the top 16. The Big Ten on the other side, of the possible 12 out of the top 16 teams available, beat 4 of those 12 teams. So it is much more about the Big East facing sub-par teams in bowl games than it is about them being a balanced conference.
Second, while I don't particularly like the BCS system, I have yet to hear a single playoff system proposal that would make any sense. The first struggle is how many teams? If you say 4, what happens the year you have 5 teams? If it is 8, how do you qualify the top 8 and leave an Ohio State out, which it would be this year. The second point is finances, currently, outside of the BCS, teams make no profit from bowl games. If you add in multiple trips through the playoff system it begins to make terrible dollar sense. So until there is a play-off system that actually makes sense, the most logical change would be to eliminate preseason polls so that a team isn't punished for overperforming. Currently if a team doesn't start near the top it has no chance at jumping other teams, by eliminating preseason and up to week 5 or 6 polls, we would at least be able to base the rankings off of something instead of speculation. While it isn't perfect, there hasn't been a playoff system proposed that any school or conference would accept, let alone 99%. All the coaches spout off regarding they want playoffs, but they simply aren't the ones who have to accept the bill at the end of the day, which nets a big loss to schools who already cannot maintain budgets.
-Bowlsby
I'm not really sure how turning the BCS bowls into an 8-team playoff would create any less money for college football. If anything, it should create incremental revenue for the participating teams, and the lower-level schools could still have their irrelevant bowl games as they do now.
I do agree, though, that a) the Big East is a joke and their previous bowl record doesn't prove anything (both because they've played inferior teams, and because past years are just that - the past), and that eliminating preseason polls would alleviate SOME of the issues we currently have. That being said, even without a preseasn poll the first poll of the year would ALWAYS put Auburn ahead of TCU . . .
I agree that an 8 team playoff would create issues for the 9th-best team, but isn't that better than leaving an undefeated team out of the picutre? Also, saying Ohio State would be left out again assumes that a Big East team would have to be included in the playoff, which I'm not advocating.
It's true that the BCS makes a lt of money for some people, but the participating schools lose out. There was a great Sports Illustrated article outlining how only the schools from BCS conferences who DON'T go to BCS bowl games make money off of those bowls, while the teams that actually have to go play in them lose money because of their expenses. I acknowledge that a lot of people love the BCS because it makes money for their schools - no one loves it more than Iowa State or Northwestern, who cash a big check every year for sitting at home. If it's all about money, then Stanford should be happy not to g to a BCS bowl, cash a check that Oregon earned, and call it a season. That's not right.
I agree with MLBwhiz on all points, but would just like to add one more philosophical thing.
In all major sports, across all categories, you are given a deal: if you win every single game, you will win the championship. If an MLB team goes undefeated, they will win the world Series. If a women's college volleyball team wins all their games, they will win the national championship. In essence, at the beginning of the season, you are told that you control your own destiny.
College Football doesn't give you that deal. And that's a shame. I agree that a playoff system could be impractical. I agree that the BCS is flawed. However, as long as you have undefeated teams that do not get a shot at the national championship game, in my mind, you are discriminating against certain schools.
My proposal? A flex schedule. There should be a playoff for all undefeated teams at the end of the year. If the number of undefeated teams is not a power of 2 (3 or 5, etc.) then you round out the rest with the next highest BCS scoring teams.
If you only have 1 undefeated team, then the #2 team has to beat them twice.
It's not perfect, but I like it. Carry on.
I like it, too. You're right about your undefeated point, too. If you end a season on a win, that means you either a) won the championship or b) missed the playoffs. What happens if TCU wins the Rose Bowl, finishes undefeated and doesn't win the national championship? Then we (again) have a team that finished on top, didn't lose all year and still didn't win anything except a bowl game which can't be compared to any other bowl game. Truly absurd.
I don't think the system we have now is the best possible system, but I don't really think an 8 team playoff really solves the problem. I think maybe some adjustment to the BCS to create a win a BCS you advance to the playoffs might work, but as mentioned it actually doesn't create incremental revenue unfortunately due to the size and scale of football. While women's vball or basketball travels with parties of 20 or so people, football travels with around 150 people and so having the playoffs creates a big financial hole for teams. Even under the current system football teams don't really make any money from bowl games so to extend that just magnifies that problem.
Lots of hoopla in the 'Cuse today with TCU's announcement they are joining the Big East, mostly so they can automatically qualify for the BCS slot allocated to the conference. I'm guessing the addition will have no impact on the number of Big East basketball teams playing into late March.
Post a Comment