Good night to the BCS; Jason Gay in the Wall Street Journal
Jason Gay, like pretty much all sportswriters, is no expert on college football. Unlike most sportswriters, Jason Gay seems to understand his limitations in that regard.
In today's Wall Street Journal, Gay begins what starts out as the standard kissoff to years of what pretty much every other sportswriter has been whining about for as long as most young readers of MGoBlog have been alive; we have things called a "Beef O'Brady's Bowl," and we have a thing called the BCS.
Jason Gay is a pretty clever writer, so he makes that part at least funny, even if it is more of the same banal sportswriter-speak that has done so little to improve college football.
But then Gay gets to the end, and makes some really wonderful points at the about what is a terribly buried lead. He addresses concerns about what is now coming to replace the BCS; our new College Football Playoffs:
Are there worries? Sure. Will fans of a team trudge to a semifinal and then a championship game? (Pricey!) There are also concerns that a playoff format (and especially an expanded playoff format) could diminish the thing that makes college football college football: the weight of the regular season. This season a playoff would have impacted what was inarguably the best game of the year, when Auburn ran back that missed Alabama kick in an Iron Bowl that will never be forgotten. That game had such weight because of the stakes: Alabama was out, Auburn was in (I know Auburn still had to win the SEC title and hope that Ohio State lost, but work with me here, people). In a playoff environment, the Tigers and Crimson Tide probably both would have remained in the mix. The Game would have just been a game. (Endless comparisons are made to college basketball's March Madness, which truly is a delicious television feast, but its expansion has made a lot of regular-season college basketball as interesting as washing the dog.)
Jason Gay, Wall Street Journal, January 6,2014, Good Night to the Beleaguered BCS; the BCS was a reactive half-measure defined by Frustration.
So that's the link; read it and see what you think. (It's not a subscriber-link; at least I don't think so.
I want to go on the record now, and say that the "worries" Jason Gay expresses are real, and that they will be real problems. I guarantee, that the new College Football Playoff will bring unintended (bad) consequences. Some will be immediate, like the controversy which I now promise will occur, as The Committee tries to select a final four teams. I guarantee that college football will begin to feel different, more like the NFL, and that it will not be for the better. I guarantee that there will be writers (there's always writers) who will re-think the College Football Playoff device and tell us that there must be a better way to go about it. And I guarantee that the Big Ten title, the Rose Bowl, The Game, and a lot of what we have loved about college football will begin to feel less valued.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^
January 6th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^
Higher seed hosts till the finals. Problem solved.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^
The powers that be really dropped the ball on that one. But don't they always?
January 6th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
Auburn isn't in the top 4 without that win, and doesn't need OSU to lose to be in the top 4 with it. So the play would in fact have been more momentous for Auburn if all that mattered was being in the top 4. As for Alabama, I don't know how anyone can say their regular season would be less important if it had earned them a spot in a playoff instead of their being relegated to a non-championship bowl because of one fluke play.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:38 PM ^
With a playoff, that game doesn't knock Bama out of the national title picture. It hurts their chances, but they likely just end up as a three or four see in a playoff with FSU, Auburn, and MSU (gulp). It's big for Auburn but not that big for Bama, thus the playoff devalues the game.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:00 PM ^
January 6th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^
They lost to Utah and USC. MSU just had it's close loss to ND on the road, and Bama just had it's crazy road loss to Auburn.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
1.) The playoff will inevitably devalue the regular season, and the importance of the regular season is a big part of what makes college football great. 2.) The playoff will cause trouble for fans of, say, Michigan, who don't want to or cannot afford to travel to Pasadena and then to Glendale. 3.) In the very near future, we will see major arguments about who the fourth team in should be, and the fifth team will argue that it ought to be settled on the field, and making the playoff will become an end unto itself rather than a necessary evil to decide a champion, so we'll have eight teams and then sixteen, etc.
I hate the playoff. I don't even like the BCS. I say go back to just having bowls and voting. The national championship was always partly mythical, and that's how a coach like Bo could never win one and still be considered great. That was part of the charm of college football. But no, we must have an undisputed national champion, because otherwise how can we know who the most dominant gorilla of them all is?! And this is all despite the fact that there is no best team - there is only the best team on a given day.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^
If anything, it's the opposite. We should be getting quality games during the regular season.
The selection committee is going to put more emphasis on non-conference scheduling. There is going to be less incentive for a team to schedule games against Buffalo and Eastern Michigan.
No more running the table with a weak schedule and getting in.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^
I'll believe it when I believe it...The current system already punishes you for having too weak a record (at times). Undefeated teams have, of course, failed to make the championship game. What we have before us right now is the prospect of a system that, as Gay points out, would make a game like Bama v. Auburn 2013 or Michigan v. OSU 2006 less meaningful, because the loser would still make the playoff.
I understand what you're saying, though, and I will like the playoff more if it leads to elite teams scheduling significantly harder non-conference games.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
And games like Oklahoma-Oklahoma State, Auburn-Missouri, Stanford-Arizona State, Stanford-Notre Dame, South Carolina-Clemson, Missouri-Texas A&M, Arizona-Oregon, and more would have had playoff/national title implications down the stretch.
January 7th, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^
January 6th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
And if we aren't going to have super-conferences, byes, and home field advantage is it really that good of a system for determining a champion? College football is great because of the rivalries and Michigan wouldn't have any sort of postseason history if it weren't for the contrived bowl system - there are too many teams for rivalries to develop organically in a playoff system.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^
I think the sport was better with smaller conferences, without the "championship" games, with fewer bowl games, and without the BCS. You could argue all you wanted about who was best; some years it seemed clear, and some not so much. That was part of the charm of the sport. Rivalries mattered more. You played Wisconsin pretty much every year. I get why people like to have an ultimate winner, but more people had a chance to be happy the other way. Not to mention it was easier on the student athletes. Just imagine playing Ohio in the Game, then playing Nebraska or Wisconsin for the Big Ten Championship, then playing two games to win the title. That's a tough thing to ask of any kid.
January 6th, 2014 at 10:18 PM ^
football so why would it be tough for kids at the highest level? Lower levels have their rivalries as well. People who defend the old way ignore the fact that playoffs have been part of the larger college football landscape for decades.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
Edit: Make it 4 I'm with you EiD and I think I've in fact agreed with you in the past about going back to the pre-BCS days (Bowl Coalition?). I always liked those days, their flaws were no worse than what we've endured or will likely endure in the future. Charm is a good word to describe the yester-years of college football. Cashcow is a good one to describe it now.
January 6th, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
I never thought I'd someday be #5 in the "get off my lawn" parade, especilaly here at Mgoblog. But I desperately miss the old system of bowls + voting. A national championship was a reward for a stellar season, but rivalries and conference titles and bowl wins all had so much more significance.
January 6th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^
Regarding the second point you raise here regarding affordability, the committee and Mr. Hancock of the BCS supposedly had extensive discussions about this. The solution, for what it is worth (probably not much), was to reduce the ticket allotment for schools and they turned around and said that their feeling was that fans would "find a way to get there", whatever this means to the committee. It certainly didn't resolve my concerns about affordability when I heard him say this.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
I guess I'm one of the few who misses the bowl & poll days. There will always be controversy no matter the format. Gone are the days where bowls were a reward for the players.
In regards to attendance, they'll need to have the semi finals in markets away from the finals, IMO, in order to have the different alumni bases attend each game. That, or eventually go to a campus based model like the lower divisions.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
A lot of people prefer the old system in which bowl berths were determined exclusively by conference tie-ins. The problem with the BCS (and the Bowl Alliance that preceded it, and the Bowl Coalition that preceded the Alliance) is that it tried to achieve the results of a playoff without actually instituting a playoff. If you're going to retain the 'mythical' aspects of the system (e.g., polling), then don't pretend that the national championship is anything but mythical.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
"If you're going to retain the 'mythical' aspects of the system (e.g., polling), then don't pretend that the national championship is anything but mythical"
Very subjective view coming from me right now but off the top of my head, can you go back to the 80s and 90s and really say that the NC was crowned to the wrong team? I mean, even though Nebraska didn't deserve it as much as we did I've never really had that big of an issue with both of us being termed "National Champion". And, again, before that, were they really ever wrong about who was named NC?!
January 6th, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^
BYU in '84 was wrong, that's for sure.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
I wouldn't exactly disagree, but who else from that year? A bunch of 2 loss teams with a few 1 "lossers"? Florida's chheatin asses? It sucks BYU beat Michigan in the Bowl game but...
Also, holy cow all these teams were independant back then!
| #5 Boston College | – | – | 10 | – | 2 | – | 0 | |||||
| #11 South Carolina | – | – | 10 | – | 2 | – | 0 | |||||
| Army | – | – | 8 | – | 3 | – | 1 | |||||
| Rutgers | – | – | 7 | – | 3 | – | 0 | |||||
| #17 Florida State | – | – | 7 | – | 3 | – | 2 | |||||
| Virginia Tech | – | – | 8 | – | 4 | – | 0 | |||||
| West Virginia | – | – | 8 | – | 4 | – | 0 | |||||
| #18 Miami (FL) | – | – | 8 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Notre Dame | – | – | 7 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Southwestern Louisiana | – | – | 6 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Penn State | – | – | 6 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Syracuse | – | – | 6 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Temple | – | – | 6 | – | 5 | – | 0 | |||||
| Memphis | – | – | 5 | – | 5 | – | 1 | |||||
| Navy | – | – | 4 | – | 6 | – | 1 | |||||
| Southern Miss | – | – | 4 | – | 7 | – | 0 | |||||
| Pittsburgh | – | – | 3 | – | 7 | – | 1 | |||||
| Tulane | – | – | 3 | – | 8 | – | 0 | |||||
| Cincinnati | – | – | 2 | – | 9 | – | 0 | |||||
| East Carolina | – | – | 2 | – | 9 | – | 0 | |||||
| Louisville |
January 6th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
how about playing the semi-final game at the #1 and #2 home site. that would guarantee sell out and then most fans only have to worry about 1 travel day. and it rewards the teams with the better season.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
a playoff making the regular season less meaningful: Stipulate that only conference champions can make the playoff.
Would this mean that every once in a while a 12-0 team loses its conference championship to a 9-3 team and therefore gets bounced from the playoff?
Yep, and my response would be "if you can't win your damn conference, you don't deserve to be playing for the NC."
January 6th, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^
That's been a point of contention with me since the BCS began.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
I reject the idea that teams would coast during a conference championship game. That said, your solution is still a good one.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^
I think that's the right balance to strike. No one called for a drastic overhaul of the NFL in 2008 when 8-8 San Diego got into the playoffs over 11-5 New England.
January 6th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
January 6th, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^
I say this every time that somebody brings this up: For every game you show me whose importance would have been diminshed by the existence of a playoff, I can show you multiple games that same week whose importance would have been increased. This applies week in and week out, year in and year out.
You can make all of the guarantees you want. I guarantee that you're wrong. The four-team playoff will be so wildly popular and successful that I guarantee we will have an eight-team playoff within five years.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
...doesn't mean it's good. Look at Top 40 radio for an example of things that are both popular and utter crap.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^
It won't be good. It will be TREMENDOUS.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
Was about to say the same thing. Teams that lose a game early in the year will now still have a much stronger chance of making it to the playoff. More teams playing for spots means more games with more significance.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^
You're saying that Georgia's 11th game is more important now because its 3rd game is less important now. That's a wash in favor of the playoff at best, and it's not even a wash in reality, because both games are important under the BCS system.
January 6th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^
In a playoff, you're still just as pumped for the earlier games because you don't want to run the risk of losing, since you're not sure how the rest of season will play out and how many wins you'll need to make it in.
The real argument is in week 12, I don't think the Iron Bowl would have been devalued, and other games would have had greater importance.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:06 PM ^
Georgia's loss in the third game admittedly makes it less likely that the results of the eleventh game will affect its ability to play in the national championship (it doesn't preclude that possiblity, but I realize we're making a comparison here). With the playoff, though, you have to at least admit that the loss in the third game is now less important. Sure, you want to win, but a fan of a team like LSU or Alabama know(s) that there's a good chance they can work their way into the playoff despite the loss - and the team(s) who LSU or Alabama beats at the end of the year who did win early know(s) that the LSU/Bama loss(es) isn't/aren't critical either. The game only matters for both teams if both already lost, but then we're devaluing two early regular season games.
The race for the championship is supposed to be about deciding the best team, not the four teams most deserving of making a playoff. The question of who's No. 4 is a different issue.
As for week 12, of course the Iron Bowl would be less important. Under the BCS, Bama is out of the running if they lose. That's not true under the playoff system. What you get is this:
Auburn under BCS: Win or go home (both in Bama game and SEC title game)
Auburn under playoff: Same as under BCS
Bama under BCS: Win or go home
Bama under playoff: Lose and still make the playoff
MSU under BCS: No realistic chance at title game.
MSU under playoff: Win against Minnesota (last game) and Big Ten title game and go to playoff. But what, then, was the point of the ND game for MSU?
FSU under BCS: Probably win or go home against Florida (last game) and ACC title game
FSU under playoff: Probably the same as BCS, but in many years they would afford a loss to Florida or in the ACC championship game (though not both)
So, MSU's last games are more important, in a sense, but Bama's are less so, Auburn's are the same, and FSU's are often less so. We're even at best but titling more toward worse...There are of course other "important games" involving Stanford, Baylor, and whomever playing to be No. 4, but my point about that can probably be made most quickly by asking what fanbase has ever wanted to shout "We're No. 4!" from the rooftops.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:28 PM ^
Everyone will want to shout, "We're No. 4!" prior to a playoff. There are a whole bunch of teams who would have loved to have been shouting that a month ago.
If you really want to go over the list of games which would have been more important vs. those those would have been less, actually do it. Be objective and thorough and go over the whole list of late-season games that would have had playoff implications. I assure you that it doesn't tilt toward anything. It's an absolute landslide in favor of games that would have gained importance.
January 6th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
You think games in which teams with one or more losses are fighting to be No. 4 are big games...A lot of people love McDonald's. That's fine, but it's not what I want for college football. The playoff leaves everyone fighting for a diminished prize.
January 6th, 2014 at 8:45 PM ^
Come back and tell me that when Michigan has had an early-season loss and is fighting for that #4 spot.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
You won't be satisfied with a four-team playoff. It will need to be a bigger playoff. Or, in your parlance, it will be so tremendous that we will all want a bigger playoff.
You can make all of the guarantees you want. I guarantee that you're wrong. The four-team playoff will be so wildly popular and successful that I guarantee we will have an eight-team playoff within five years.
And everybody outside of the chicken salad of the playoff system will just be chicken shit. Let that go on for a few years, and people will begin to wonder why have a MAC conference at all? The drive will be on, and harder than ever, to create 16-team superconferences (The NCAA North, NCAA Southeast, NCAA Midwest, and NCAA West) which we will be able to distinguish from the NFL only by the fact that they will be having playoffs on Saturdays in January instead of on Sundays. The rest of college football will be as interesting as a late December game between the Lions and the Vikings.
Maybe we won't need to be concerned about our football players taking final exams in December. We can talk to the Executive Committee of the new NCAA Players Union, to work a clause into the collective bargaining agreement, so that the players can hire agents to take their final exams for them.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:10 PM ^
All of those teams are chicken shit currently, anyway.
Also, I'll say it again when it comes to the "but what about the students" argument: we crossed that bridge decades ago.
January 6th, 2014 at 6:40 PM ^
When it inevitably goes to 8 teams. Make it so that there are 5-6 AQs plus the highest ranked non-AQ team has a spot. Then you're left with an at-large or two. Then you don't get a crappy Sunbelt champion playing every year but you do have the underdog who looks like they deserve a chance (e.g. NIU or Fresno St this year, even though I think neither won their conference)
- Big Ten
- Pac 12
- Big 12
- SEC
- ACC
- AAC
- Highest Ranked non-AQ team in the BCS
- At Large / 2nd Highest Ranked non-AQ
Done. Call it a day
January 6th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
Yep.
January 6th, 2014 at 6:50 PM ^
...on steroids.
January 6th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
The only thing that would remind me of the incessant debating and whining of the BCS is either who the non-AQs are or who the at-large is. And yes, there will be so much whining but every sport that doesn't give someone a sweet participation trophy at the end of the year has people whining.
When the AQs get their champion in automatically, there's no whining about the system.
"Why didn't I get in????"
"You didn't win your conference. Shut up. Go home. Try again next year"
January 6th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^
I think the slippery slope argument--while ridiculous in many instances--is perfectly legitimate when it comes to this new four-team playoff. How long will we wait until we claim it a travesty that, say, a "deserving" 10-2 or 11-1 team gets "screwed" out of the playoff spot they are just so entitled to? Will we expand to 8, or even 16 as a result? I am afraid, as Section 1 noted, that we are headed the way of the NFL. I'm afraid the end result will be a playoff full of 2 or 3 loss football teams, with the regular season being devoid of any meaning.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
Yes. We will expand, and it will be glorious.
We're not talking about an eight or sixteen team playoff for a 32-team league here. There are 120-some FBS teams. That changes everything. All of those two to three loss teams would still be fighting for a shot at a national championship eight, nine, ten games into the season rather than fighting for the third best bowl spot in their conference. Again, a playoff raises the importance of more regular season games than it diminishes.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^
I assume you're saying that more games will be important b/c more teams will be playing for a chance at the championship (via the playoff). But those teams are already playing for a chance to play for the champsionship every week now. The easier it is to get that chance at the end of the season (as it will be when you go from what is a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff), the less important any given regular season game becomes. You have more room for error.
January 6th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^
If we moved to a hypothetical 16-team playoff, the SEC championship game, the Big Ten chamionship game and the Pac-12 chamionship game all would have been meaningless. All 6 of those teams would be safely in the field, based on the BCS Standings. The day the Big Ten championship is meaningless is a sad day for college football. At least in my mind.