Feinstein, stepping back from the Brink

Funny thing – I’m reading John Feinstein’s latest anti-BCS screed and it doesn’t drive me nearly as crazy as he usually does.  It’s not because he doesn’t trot out some of his tried and true themes – “This isn’t about fairness or doing what’s right. It’s about money, ratings and taking care of the big boys and the BCS Presidents who the ESPN suits do business with nowadays.” – or that he indulges in some ESPN conspiracy theory talk (welcome to the party, John).

Then it suddenly hits me what’s not there.  He’s managed to write an attack on the BCS without advocating an extended playoff.  And that makes all the difference in the world.  In 2010, you’ve got a season in which four teams can make legitimate arguments that each deserves a clear shot at a national title.  You don’t need a sixteen-school playoff to settle that debate.  How hard is that to grasp?  For once, not too.

About these ads

13 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Media Punditry/Foibles

13 responses to “Feinstein, stepping back from the Brink

  1. King Jericho

    So, do you think some sort of flexible, “fits the circumstances,” type system could/would work? In this case, assuming all 4 unbeaten teams stay unbeaten, would we make some sort of 4 team playoff? I hate to use that word because I know the baggage that comes with it on here, but you get what I’m asking at least.

  2. Dave

    Ever notice arguments based on one year suck? I remember Herbstreit and the gang in 2005 — “say what you will about the BCS, but it did EXACTLY what it was meant to do: pair off the 2 best teams in the land.”

    • fuelk2

      And there will never be a system that produces the right result every single year. Your example is a good one. After the 2005 season, Texas and USC had gotten done on the field better than anyone else. If UGA/Ohio State/Notre Dame had gotten the opportunity and upset one of them in a plus one format, that would not have been fair to me. USC and Texas were the only two teams that deserved a shot to win the MNC that year.

      Obviously, many years are different in that regard, but there’s no perfect system.

  3. Bryant Denny

    If you are gonna do a playoff, then do a playoff.

    Take the top 24 teams, give a few of them a bye week, and then have at it.

    Sure it would nuke the bowls, but if you want a playoff, so what?

    The problem with any sort of “plus” type playoff, is that there is always a situation where the system can/will be gamed.

    If you are gonna have a playoff, then have a playoff.

    • fuelk2

      If you choose this format, then the healthiest and hottest team at the end of the year will win. That’s not what college football has been about, and I hope it never is about that.

      On the other hand, since UGA can’t get out of its own way at the beginning of recent years, I like it.

  4. It would take some major convincing that a 16-team playoff like this one isn’t the only way to go.

    • fuelk2

      So you would be okay with Virginia Tech, who lost to James Madison, winning the national championship? Can’t say that I would be excited about that.

      The big upside with the BCS (if there is one) is that the two teams that have the opportunity to play for the title can make a good case that they played the regular season as well as anyone.

      Can Florida and Penn State claim that? Remember, Penn State got rolled by a team coached by Ron Zook.

    • Troy playing for a national title = epic fail.

  5. Tom

    The plus-one would be just as bad after Auburn loses and Oregon, Boise St, and TCU are the three standing head & shoulders above the rest. Still four weeks to go, folks…

  6. Once again I must say that a 4 team play off (a plus 1) would have always worked for me & actually nothing else (the current Bull Crap System or a play off involving more than 4 teams) makes sense to me. Just my opinion.