Another BCS rant

One little innocent e-mail comment – I see that Congress is going to look into the sham that is the BCS. Maybe now you and every other BCS apologist will see it for what it is: the rich getting richer. – and TSN’s Matt Hayes goes off on a tear.

Yeah, it’s patronizing, but he makes a couple of points worthy of comment:

… A playoff makes the regular season virtually meaningless, and frankly, isn’t going to help the little guy any more than you think. The little guy’s access to the big tournament would be limited.

There is no way — NO WAY — a champion from one of the Little Five conferences is going to be among the eight teams selected for a playoff. Believe me, if voting is ever part of a playoff formula, you’ll be “surprised” how votes change on a weekly basis…

… Here’s some more news: a majority of Division I coaches don’t want a playoff. That’s right, they want to keep the bowl system. Why, you ask? Because it’s the fabric of the game. It’s unique and it’s unlike any other sport. Why homogenize it and make it irrelevant?

I have no idea if the second point is valid, but in one sense, it’s probably irrelevant, as the coaches aren’t going to be involved in the ultimate decision making about a D-1 playoff. Still, if true, it’s just one more group of folks that will resist a big change.

However, Hayes’ first point is on the mark. Unless control of the postseason is wrestled away from the conference commissioners and presidents and given to the NCAA, what makes anybody think that a limited subjective playoff is going to be any more inclusive of the non-BCS conferences than the current setup? Face it – the BCS title game already is a limited subjective playoff. Going from two to four or even eight schools isn’t going to change the composition of the participants in any substantial way.


UPDATE: Tony Barnhart has a post up in response to Reps. Abercrombie, Simpson and Westmoreland that contains an historical reminder about how the BCS came to be.  Pertinent part here:

… In 1984 the United States Supreme Court (surely you’ve heard of them) ruled that individual schools, not the NCAA, owned the television rights to college football games. The schools delegate their rights to their respective conferences, who have the authority to negotiate TV contracts.

The BCS contract is between the six major conferences and two networks (FOX, ABC). Each of those six conference champs gets an automatic bid to a BCS bowl. Without that guarantee, there would have been no deal. There are access points to the BCS for the other five conferences that have been negotiated. Everybody involved has signed off on the agreement.

Good stuff, although I suspect Dawg fans will latch on to this assertion instead:  “And I believe Georgia wouldn’t have beaten LSU in the SEC championship game.”


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Media Punditry/Foibles

2 responses to “Another BCS rant

  1. Chuck

    Agree completely. All a playoff would do for the little schools is ensure that they always ended the season with a loss. There would be no Boise State over Oklahoma for everyone to savor in the off season because Boise State would have turned around and gotten annihilated by LSU the following week leaving a bitter taste.


  2. HamDawg11

    Gotta admit, my opinion on an all-out 16-team playoff has changed over the past few years. At first, I was all for it in order to get a “true champion”. But I think it would take a lot away from the regular season games and their importance. I do, however, think that we could use a +1 game (4 team playoff). Yeah, the #5 and #6 team will always whine that they shoulda been #4, but this is as far down as we need to go to keep from changing everything too drastically. Let’s do a +1: 4vs1, 2vs3, then let the winners duke it out a week later in the big game.