There’s an expression you hear a lot in law school: “bad facts make bad law”.
It’s starting to look like we’re drifting that way in the D-1 playoff debate.
… Swofford, who is the incoming BCS chair, said the nature of the 2007 season and its weekly upheaval has motivated his presidents and athletic directors to reconsider a plus-one model.
“A lot of people look at it and say … maybe it would be better if more than two teams had the opportunity to play for the national championship,” Swofford said.
Pointing to what happened this season as a justification for creating an expanded playoff is a knee-jerk response at best, cynical manipulation at worst. I’m not arguing pro or con about a playoff here, just that using what any rational observer of the sport would acknowledge has been a highly unusual season as a basis for radically transforming the game strikes me as reckless.
Or maybe Swofford and Slive simply intend to use this as some sort of half-assed bargaining chip to play with the Rose Bowl, which is going to have a huge problem with a seeded “plus-one” playoff format. Either way, it’s bad.