The lines are being drawn.

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.



Filed under BCS/Playoffs

3 responses to “The lines are being drawn.

  1. Heh. You said bargaining chip.


  2. Xon

    I agree with you, SB, about the stupidity of reactionary changes. But this is standard BCS policy.

    And while I’m not a playoff advocate, per se, I wouldn’t be upset by a plus one. A ‘final four’ for college football would almost always be able to cover all the truly deserving teams (any higher number and you’re letting some clear non-contenders in just to have the fun of a tournament and the ‘ooh upsets are fun!’ mentality). Now that the BCS has already (stupidly) added the fifth BCS game to let non-BCS schools get in on the action more easily, though, this seems unlikely to me.


  3. kckd

    This season?? LMAO. How about 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001? That makes five of the last seven there has been some kind of question marks going into the bowl games.