Point, Rebuttal, Counterpoint

No College Football Playoff has responded to my somewhat incendiary remarks against the BCS, and his rebuttal is admirable. You can see the post between his anti-playoff remarks and his response to me is about Death To The BCS, and he definitely gives a fair assessment of the chapters he reviews. He is definitely fair-minded, which is refreshing to see from a pro-BCS guy. But let’s get to the rebuttal and present some counterpoints.

…if options are between option 1) excluding 1 or 2 good teams and option 2) including 10 unworthy teams, I will pick option 1 every day.

This is simply a difference of opinion. I would much rather see a tournament with all of college football’s best teams than just watch a bunch of exhibition games. Would some teams get in that are worse than others left out? Yes. But that’s how you allow for equal access. Maybe Florida International gets in as a 16 seed and gets destroyed on the road at No. 1 Auburn. At least they got their chance.

The NFL playoffs reward teams that do just enough to make the playoffs and then get hot at the end of the year…

And here I thought the Packers winning 3 straight road playoff games meant they were pretty good. You would attribute their postseason success to being hot, or in other words, just getting lucky? I would say beating three top teams on the road in the playoffs shows a bit more than a lucky hot streak. That takes a good team not some lucky breaks.

College football has done a better job of getting the 2 best teams into the championship game than any other sport, and that is the crux of the anti-playoff argument.

Not true. College football has done a very poor job in making a season that makes a clear No. 1 and No. 2 out of 120 teams. You think that in 12 games you honestly know which teams are the two best? That’s impossible. All you really know are the best teams in each conference. So we find out Wisconsin is the best Big Ten team. Does that mean they are better than TCU, Stanford, Virginia Tech, or anyone else? We really don’t know. None of them play each other and rarely have common opponents. The regular season in college football is normally 66% – 75% conference games. They simply don’t play enough teams to know who the best two teams are year in and year out. If you make a playoff that admits all the top teams and gives the teams with the best regular seasons certain advantages, then yes, you have a mechanism to find the top 2 teams in the country.

If Auburn had lost to Alabama this season, TCU is in the BCS Championship game. Nice try

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? The BCS formula is 2/3 human voters. No way someone either poll puts undefeated TCU ahead of a 1 loss SEC champion, especially after what Auburn did to South Carolina in the SEC Championship. The computers may have ranked TCU higher, but we all know the outrage if a “little guy” with an “easy schedule” had gotten into the BCS championship. Never would have happened.

Before each season, every team must go into every single game with the expectation to win if they want to have a chance at the title.

I think you missed what I am trying to say here. The BCS makes the regular season meaningless for all but a few teams. Based on your statement above, what happens when about half the teams lose their first game in the opening week? Their regular seasons now mean nothing. What happens to every 2 loss team? Meaningless season. By November you only have 5 teams that have a realistic chance of playing for the championship. That makes the regular season of the other 115 teams meaningless. Yes, the BCS adds a lot of value to the regular season of the No. 1 and No. 2 guys, but all it does is put pressure on them to not lose. Those other 118 teams have their regular season rendered meaningless.

But I was making the point that in the playoff system proposed in Death to the BCS, Florida WOULD have made the playoffs.

Yes, I am sure a team that has a shot at a No. 1 seed and a first round home game against Troy would have thrown it all away in their final three games to trade it for a No. 11 seed and a first round game on the road at 2 loss Oregon. A playoff adds importance to the whole regular season because dropping even one game can alter your seeding and chance of winning it all. You would still try to win all of your games so you get the easy first round home games instead of tough road games.

And again, no non-BCS team would ever play for the BCS championship. If Auburn loses to Alabama, they go to No. 2 instead of No. 1. If Texas had lost, Cincy goes in and not TCU or Boise State. The voters would see to this.

Again, more meaningful games ALL season, or a few games at the end of the season among lower quality teams.

You are again missing the point of the BCS and the regular season. The BCS does not make meaningful games ALL season. It creates very, very few meaningful games. Under a playoff, the Auburn and Alabama game would still have been important. But so would a lot of others. So you have admitted inadvertently that the Southern Miss and Tulsa game meant nothing to you, nor did it mean anything to anyone else. However, under a playoff, it does. So a playoff does make a more important regular season than the BCS gave us.

If you would rather watch a two horse race instead of the Kentucky Derby, all the power to you. And again you admit in this paragraph, you are a supporter of the BCS because it puts all the importance on two teams. A playoff puts importance on 16 potential teams. That mathematically makes a playoff 8 times more exciting than the BCS, according to my calculations.

I should also say that the NFL Super Bowl is not intended to match up the two best teams in the NFL. It is intended to match up the two teams who can win their conferences (AFC and NFC). With the rules they use to admit teams to the postseason and the postseason format, I’m sure the NFL expects that the two teams playing in the Super Bowl will be very good teams that earned a spot there by beating other top teams from their conference. Would anyone suggest the Steelers or Packers are the two best teams in the NFL? Maybe, maybe not. But you simply cannot dispute they earned a spot to get there.

What do the BCS championship participants have to do to earn their spot? Have a flawless or near flawless season. That is really quite pathetic. That’s no criteria at all. Why you ask? Because ANYONE can have a flawless or near flawless season! The requirements to play in the big game are so vague that you can literally have 5 teams qualify. That’s why I hate the BCS. In a playoff, you get two teams who qualify to meet in the big game, and only two. With the BCS, it is too subjective. I think sports should be as objective as possible. A playoff would be much, much more objective than the current BCS system.

Comments