“Deserve has nothing to do with it.”

David Hale had this to say at his blog yesterday:

The Senator has done a great job over the last two years of convincing me I should want to support the BCS, but it’s crap like this that makes it really tough. This stinks of the same B.S. that put Kansas in a BCS game over Missouri two years ago.

For starters, let me say that I’m flattered – somewhat surprised, even – that I’ve had any influence on someone’s thinking about the BCS.  And that I’m not surprised by David’s frustration over Penn State’s resurrection in the BCS.  (And if David thinks that’s bad, this is probably worse.)

But here’s the thing.  It’s not so much that I’m pro-BCS as it is that I truly believe that the people pushing hardest for a change to the D-1 football postseason aren’t being thoughtful or honest (hi, Senator Hatch!) about the impact that such a restructuring would have on the sport.  My personal feeling is that the end result would be less emotionally satisfying to follow.

You can argue all you want that it’s all about fairness.  The reality is that it’s at least as much about money and power as it is about competition.  And as much lip service as is directed towards what the fan wants, in the end, whatever comes about won’t be in response to our preferences as it will to the dictates of the conferences, the bowls and the networks.

But don’t take my word for it.  Go over to The National Championship Issue and read Ed Gunther’s post on the subject.  Here’s the money (pun intended) graf:

That’s been the big question for a while, and there’s two ways to look at it, both of them fair. There are those who want the bond between competition and money to be strong, the type of people who like to say that undefeated teams from the non-BCS conferences “deserve” to be in a BCS bowl game. But what exactly do they deserve? To play a better opponent, or to earn a bigger payday? There’s a biiiiiig difference between the two. Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but I’d guess that most of the people who take this view would much rather have the money than fair competition. If you offered them one or the other, either a shot at the national championship or the $18,000,000 that just playing in the game would bring, I’d bet most of them would go for the money. Is is fair that non-BCS teams don’t have a shot at the title? No, decidedly not – nobody is going to argue that. But the real question is if it’s fair that they don’t get a bigger share of the BCS money? That’s a trickier one, isn’t it? People are always going to justify why they should get more money, but the group of people on the other side who want the bond between competition and money to remain weak have a pretty good argument too: since the BCS teams are the ones who bring the majority of the money in, so what’s “fair” is that they keep the majority of it.

You can’t have it both ways, folks, no matter how well-intentioned you may be.  No doubt it’s an easy call if you’re a Boise State or a TCU fan.  Or Orrin Hatch.  But if, like me, you support a Big Six program, how much cash flow do you want to see your school/conference sacrifice on the altar of fair competition?  Because as much as the mid-majors complain about wanting their fair shot to play, they want their shot to be paid like the big boys just as much.  And keep in mind the risk over time is that the bleeding gets worse, as the tournament expands – they all do, don’t kid yourselves – and the regular season (particularly an SEC or a Big Ten one) becomes less valuable as a result.

I’m a firm believer that the best thing D-1 football could do would be to shrink itself down to eight ten-team conferences and run a playoff comprised solely of conference champs; however, the odds on that happening are slim.  In the absence of that, I can live with what we’ve got.  It’s far from perfect, but I fear that it beats what’s at the end of the fairness road.

50 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, It's Not Easy Being A Mid-Major, It's Just Bidness

50 responses to ““Deserve has nothing to do with it.”

  1. ADawg

    ESPN pays the SEC 5 billion dollars, not because they are BCS school, but because we are the most competitive conference in the country and they would get really good ratings.

    Do you really think that if we went to a playoff of any kind that it would take the emotion out of wanting to beat Florida every year? or Tech? or Auburn? or TN? I would hope not.

    Like

    • You’re talking about the fan emotion at a basic level. I’m talking about what ESPN and CBS are willing to pay to broadcast regular season games. That’s a very different deal.

      Take a look at the breakdown of broadcast rights for college basketball to get an idea of what concerns me.

      Like

    • ArchDawg

      Yes, it could take emotion out of it. And quite frankly, it would. Because there can then be the opportunity of facing them in a rematch (look at the NFL), in any other playoff scenario besides the one the good Senator espoused above–which has, like he stated, very little chance of coming to fruition.

      Like

  2. Steven

    Why can’t there be both – competition and money? How do we know a playoff system wouldn’t generate more money than the bowl system? If the pay-out was tiered to how you finish in the tournament, what’s to say the SEC wouldn’t finish with the top four teams and really rake in the dough? Finally, wouldn’t a playoff systems allow conferences to schedule out of conference games in which even more money could be generated? How much would Fedex pay to sponsor the Big XII-SEC showdown the first weekend in September in which all 12 teams from each conference played each other?

    A system in which a team feels the need to hire a PR firm to help them get a spot in the BCS Championship Game is a poor system.

    Like

    • The issue isn’t just whether a playoff would generate more money than the BCS. It’s whether it would generate enough more to compensate for a greater distribution to more schools and conferences than is currently the case. That’s a lot more money than you think.

      By the way, your last comment is exactly the kind of emotional appeal I refer to in my post. By that reasoning, how great an idea is a playoff if wankers like Joe Barton want to have Congress interfere in college football?

      Like

      • rbubp

        But you’re missing that Congress interfering is only because the NCAA has already been pushed to the sidelines. The only other constituent group with the power to change anything might be the coaches–and I’m not even sure THEY could, as they would still have to convince their conf commissioners (who ARE the very entity that would be changed). The university presidents would have to take a stand through their conferences (threatening to leave/forcing their ADs), and I doubt they do that because this whole thing is a dirty non-academic business to start with and no one wants to look like Orrin Hatch, given what the sports media says about him.

        If not the coaches or presidents or NCAA, who’s left to break up the monopoly?

        It’s not a lot different than MLB’s mistake of having an owner, Selig, be commissioner. One of the chickens is running the henhouse, not the farmer. What a stupid concept. Same thing here, except a few chickens are running the oligarchy.

        Like

        • I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but the idea of the NCAA as monopoly-buster is hilarious. That’s the entity that bought the NIT to shut off the only competition to its own postseason basketball tourney. It’s also the entity that was sued by Georgia and Oklahoma to end monopoly control over TV broadcasts of college football. So pardon me if I don’t think it has my best interests at heart here.

          This isn’t an antitrust problem, as much as some would like to make it one. There’s absolutely nothing stopping the mid-majors from starting their own postseason bash, as long as it complied with NCAA rules. They’re not interested, of course, because it’s not where the money is.

          And again, from a purely competitive perspective, there’s nothing prohibiting a mid-major from playing in the BCS title game. Or even two mid-majors facing off against each other.

          Like

          • rbubp

            “It’s also the entity that was sued by Georgia and Oklahoma to end monopoly control over TV broadcasts of college football.”

            Right. That slope has led to a lot more football on TV (which likely would have happened anyway)…and to the conferences suing the NCAA so they can hace their own little club.

            But you’re right, TCU should have to admit its own inability to compete with the Big 10 and make its own post-season bash! Because we all know that the MWC is inferior to the Big 10.

            I’m not trying to suggest that NCAA is perfect–far from it–but it is as close to an objective mediator as exists.

            Like

            • But you’re right, TCU should have to admit its own inability to compete with the Big 10 and make its own post-season bash! Because we all know that the MWC is inferior to the Big 10.

              It is, in terms of putting asses in the seats and eyes on the tube. That’s a form of competition, too, and like it or not, it matters at least as much.

              Like

              • rbubp

                I submit that it doesn’t and shouldn’t. Otherwise you are saying that championships are determined by how many tickets you sell.

                It is not both ways.

                Like

                • Ah, but “doesn’t” & “shouldn’t” are two very different things. If you think that money should be directly tied to victories, that’s your opinion and that’s fine. But there’s overwhelming evidence that money matters a whole lot more to bowls than rewarding the best teams.

                  Ironically, the only bowl where money doesn’t matter at all is the national championship game. Those participants are decided by the BCS rankings, obviously – how many tickets a team would sell has zero to do with it. It’s not even a “decision” that the bowl executives make, unlike all the other bowls.

                  Like

                • rbubp

                  “Doesn’t” & “shouldn’t” also are not equal to “can’t” and “won’t,” meaning, money doesn’t have to determine a champion. It does so because it is allowed to by the BCS.

                  Money is a factor in determining who gets to the championship game in more incidental ways. For example, GTP posted a link to an article disclosing that Boise State can’t get a game with a BCS team, either home or away. Well, that’s because the no-playoff, polls-based, I-get points-for-my-in-BCS-conference-scheduled-games-so-why-would-I- play-anyone-other-than-a- cupcake-out-of-conference FBS system does not create incentive to play a non-BCS team that might actually be better than most BCS teams.

                  So they can’t get a game, then can’t get into the NCS because their schedule is weak.

                  Again, not directly impacted by money…but still heavily impacted by money and conference tie-ins. And I’m not saying that money is never a factor, nor am I saying everyone should have the same AD budget. What I AM saying is that money should not be a direct influence in determining a champion.

                  Look at this way. If money wasn’t a big factor, no one would have a problem letting go of it, right? So the job of any sports league is inherently to ensure that money is not an undue influence on the competition. Not “not a factor at all”–it always will be–just not a factor on the field (gambling scandals) or in the system of competition (monitarily-based preferential treatment).

                  Like

                • For example, GTP posted a link to an article disclosing that Boise State can’t get a game with a BCS team, either home or away. Well, that’s because the no-playoff, polls-based, I-get points-for-my-in-BCS-conference-scheduled-games-so-why-would-I- play-anyone-other-than-a- cupcake-out-of-conference FBS system does not create incentive to play a non-BCS team that might actually be better than most BCS teams.

                  It’s also because Boise State’s AD is demanding a minimum $1 million appearance guarantee.

                  Like

                • Yeah, I’m seeing things from a different side. You mention “incidental” ways that money influences the title game, and I’d not only agree with that idea but add to it the fact that the teams that make the most money are able to spend more on their programs, creating a cycle of the rich getting richer. I’d even agree that money shouldn’t have a direct influence on the title game – but it doesn’t. I don’t see evidence of this direct influence that you do.

                  (Incidentally, the reason Boise State can’t get any respect in the rankings isn’t because it can’t schedule tougher out-of-conference competition – it’s because it plays 8 of its games in the WAC. They could play a slate of Florida, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma out-of-conference and ridiculous homers would still dock them points for playing in
                  the WAC. Not saying it’s right, just the way it is.)

                  Like

  3. Doug

    I like the Senator’s idea of 8 conferences, with ONLY the champs advancing to the playoffs, but I’d go one step further and expand them to 12 teams with a CC game.

    Like

  4. Thank you Senator. You stated the point that I’ve been arguing ad nauseum the last two years much more eloquently than I could have hoped. I do think it’s unfair to those teams that get shunned because they’re non-BCS, I really do. However, in the end, there’s a reason the SEC gets paid gazillions of dollars by CBS and ESPN for broadcast rights and the Mountain West does not. No matter where you fall on the spectrum of fairness versus money, in the end it’s not going to be the desires of the fans that influence any change in the current structure. It’s going to be when the networks and conferences can figure out a playoff system that guarantees more money than they make now. Good luck with that.

    Like

  5. rbubp

    “But if, like me, you support a Big Six program, how much cash flow do you want to see your school/conference sacrifice on the altar of fair competition?”

    See, it’s not about competition. It’s about MONEY.
    Anybody who really believes competition is the true point of having sports in the first place would not say this.

    Sorry, Senator. You can’t have it both ways, either. Take your pick, but don’t mistake the fact that you are choosing.

    Like

    • rbubp

      The chase for stacking piles of cash means that Boise State and TCU can’t get in. That’s not competition. That’s business. They are not the same.

      The selling point of any sport–the aim of it–is the competition. Denying the competition–either by rule or lack of it–for the pursuit of a select few ensuring themselves a better chance of winning is either called cheating or Major League Baseball. MLB has already shown everyone what a lack or revenue-sharing will do to a sport.

      Now, that won’t happen exactly the same way in college football, because there are too many teams and there will always many Pittsburgh Pirates-type schools that could never win. But that fact alone should not be a rationale for denying competition: “they can’t win anyway, so we’re going to take what is rightfully ours.” Sorry, no.

      That’s even more egregious than the MLB method of just not creating fair rules because, well, we all know that TV ratings are higher when the Yankees and Dodgers play in the World Series. And we pretend that that isn’t by design…the BCS is just a lot more obvious about it. At least MLB settles it on the field, keeping the competition front and center through appearances, anyway. The BCS can’t even do that.

      Like

      • Denying the competition–either by rule or lack of it–for the pursuit of a select few ensuring themselves a better chance of winning is either called cheating or Major League Baseball. MLB has already shown everyone what a lack or revenue-sharing will do to a sport.

        You’re re-engineering the sport – which was my point in the post. I do give you credit for being honest about it and respect your position. We just disagree here about whether that’s a good thing or not.

        Like

        • rbubp

          All sports are engineered. The question is in whether you let the units/teams engineer it or some other entity.

          MLB chose that path. Obviously college football has as well. MLB also doesn’t let teams move around like the NFL or the NBA, so a team like Pittsburgh is absolutely crippled. College football also cannot let teams move around geographically–their only current ability to change their competitive status is to join the right conference.

          Both those factors are “engineering” decisions that limit competition.

          Like

    • Take my pick? How long have you been reading my blog?

      I thought my position on a playoff was clear. But I’ll say it again: an extended playoff will be DEATH for college football as we know and love it, in my very humble opinion. And I haven’t heard a single, real-world playoff proposal yet that leaves me feeling comfortable that over time it won’t grow. So I’ll take the devil I know for the moment, thank you very much.

      You know, I listen to all these guys like Barton and Hatch whine about the government taking away money from hard working businesses. How come that reasoning goes out the door for them when it comes to college football?

      As for competition being the “true point of having sports in the first place”, come on. Why do you think playoffs came into being in the first place? For the same reason they keep growing… the almighty dollar.

      Like

      • rbubp

        I have to admit that I haven’t read your blog for more than the last seven weeks or so.

        Nonetheless, I’m familiar with the “playoff will kill it” argument, and I have to say, Yes. Just like it killed college basketball. No drama there, it is all a huge bore.

        I hear you on the “it would keep getting bigger” argument. But if you look at the other sports that have gotten bigger in their playoff systems, you have to ask yourself if the loss of regular-season drama has really hurt the sport. Perhaps in MLB, but then, the World Series and playoff are still pretty compelling.

        Regarding taking away money from hard working businesses…the difference here is that the businesses have independent regulations they have to follow, such as tax laws, employment laws, etc., but businesses do not really care if they put another one out of business. That’s “winning” and “losing” the game in business. But the “competition” is in having enough businesses–“teams”–in the system. If there are not enough “teams” the market is compromised.

        In sports, the teams cannot appear and disappear like they do in business. You’ve got a set group. If you let one small group set up rules to secure that only it will appear in the winner’s circle, you have, as you said above, made a smaller group of teams.

        And if you want to keep making a smaller circle, in this case you’re denying competition, not enhancing it, through the claim to the piles of cash.

        Like

  6. Chuck

    Be careful what you ask for – you might get it.

    This pretty much sums up what my feelings have always been about college football playoffs. I get that much of the way we do things now sucks, but the alternatives that are often put forth seem to me to suck worse.

    First thing: because of the nature of football, where a three out of five or four out of seven series like the World Series in baseball or the NBA championship, any championship playoff is going to be questioned. The officials screw team A in an early game which gives team B an easy path to the end game and everyone questions whether the best team really won. I only use the official screwing a team example because it is topical this season, but there are a gazillion similar possibilities where a single elimination playoff leaves unsatisfying results. A playoff system coulddeclare a champion and you could argue that the rules made that team the champion, but you can make the same declaration now with the BCS. The only difference between the status quo and other proposals is how you get to that final game.

    Second: In the meantime, college players are already playing more games than they probably should (especially those who want to get an education in the process – remember that?) and any alteration to get a playoff is going to mean more games. And likely, more injuries. More time lost from school. And a host of other possibilities. And there will be more games for a bad call, a fluke injury to a key player, and other things to cause an upset that “wouldn’t happen if they played again”. Only they can’t play again.

    I am not someone who thinks the game should be played in leather helmets and only use the single wing/outlaw the forward pass throwback. I also hate the results that frequently occur in the current system, but every time I look at various proposals to solve the ills, I see a cure that is worse than the disease, and which really doesn’t even cure the disease.

    Like

    • rbubp

      There are other things I contend in your post, but on this:

      “More time lost from school. ”

      They finish their seasons at Thanksgiving or the first week of December (when classes end), then sit around for three or four weeks until the bowl game.

      Oh wait…they don’t sit around, they don’t go to class, they practice.

      Either way you cut it, there is a lot of wasted time in the system currently that, if done properly, would not affect classroom time one whit.

      Like

  7. Macallanlover

    We can solve this “is it the title they are after, or the money” issue brought up by Mr. Gunther. Any team accepting a BCS bid is playing in a “winner take all” tourney. Bet that would open up those 2nd spots in the BCS that the Big 11 covets so much they schedule cupcakes on top of their cupcake conference games.

    Like

  8. Brandon

    Great paraphrase of Clint Eastwood.

    Like

  9. Connor

    There is a playoff in college football. The top two teams at the end of the year play each other and the winner is the national champion. I’ve never understood how people who don’t like this system think it will be improved by expansion. Even though I was relatively young when it was happening, I remember the older football fans I knew bemoaning the obvious missed opportunity every year when the AP just named a national champ.
    Joe fan – 1989: “Why can’t we just have the top two teams play in a bowl?”
    Joe fan – 2009: “Why can’t we just have a four or six team playoff?”
    Joe fan – 2029: “Why can’t we have a double elimation first round for teams with fewer than 3 losses and no games against teams with losing records?”
    Some kind of playoff is almost inevitable at this point, but you won’t like it.

    Like

    • rbubp

      Oh, you mean the playoff determined by people’s opinions of who the best teams are—formulated by uneven schedules without common competition?

      How is that a playoff? “Why can’t we just have the top two teams play in a bowl” hasn’t been solved by any stretch. It’s closer than it was, I’ll give you that, by certainly not definitive. Auburn ’04; Georgia ’07; USC ’08; Texas ’08; Ohio State any year.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        +1 rhubp, I have never understood the “sheep” accepting this as a “national championship”. Is it better than the old bowl alliances which often prohibited matchups fans wanted to see? To a degree, absolutely, but it has also limited progress toward us ever having our first true national champion in D1. We have been sold a “pig in a poke”.

        I only have to think back to Auburn 2004 to show how absurd how unsatisfying the present concept is. An undefeated SEC champion getting no shot…….’nuff said. There are no examples where at least one team doesn’t have a legit argument once the BCS is all over. Settle it on the field, eight teams would reduce any argument to less than 1-2% of the CFB fans nationally. Big money, no significant timing issues, regular season intensity/integrity maintained, and virtual satisfaction. Why the heck not?

        Like

        • rbubp

          Yeah, it’s not a playoff by definition. It’s an opinionoff.

          Like

        • Tom

          Sure there’s examples – 2002 Ohio State, 2005 Texas, 1999 Florida State… all involved games between the only two undefeated teams. Nobody else could argue they deserved it.

          As far as Auburn goes, their nonconference schedule killed them. They shouldn’t have scheduled the Citadel, Louisiana Tech, and Louisiana Monroe. The SEC also didn’t have the clout it does today either.

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            Having the “clout” doesn’t mean they they weren’t as deserving as they are now. The SEC champ has NEVER lost one of these games, they simply haven’t been given their shot. Survivng an SEC schedule, plus the SECCG, makes them “best of the best” and doesn’t require the OOC schedule other conferences need.

            In 2002, UGA was a worthy contender and has a very legitimate case, and Auburn most certainly did in 2004. In 1999, Nebraska looked pretty formidable to me, and I wouldn’t have bet against a Bama team that destroyed a Florida team that pushed FSU. Sad thing, we will never know about any of these because of the system we have been dealt. And that is the point, why should we have to speculate about what can be determined on the field of play. Respect your opinion that you feel we know, but I don’t, and no one can be sure.

            Like

            • ArchDawg

              The SEC didn’t become the ESS-EEE–CEE until 2006, when Florida (to many’s surprise) beat Ohio State. Before then, this ‘my conference is better than your conference’ spiel/nonsense really didn’t exist, and thus the undefeated Auburn of ’04 did not have the clout that, say, LSU benefited from in ’07 or Florida did last year (and this year, too). Auburn unfortunately went undefeated the same year as two juggernauts (USC and Oklahoma) did–one team was the previous year’s AP Champ, the other played for the BCS Championship. So actually, those two teams were given the benefit, and that’s before you factor in that Auburn had an unbelievably high-calorie OOC schedule that season, even by SEC standards.

              Like

              • rbubp

                When the game’s best are determined in a speculative process, relative strength of conference is one of the best barometers (hypothetically) available to rate the better teams. There are few common opponents except for within conferences.

                I say hypothetically because it is still difficult to predict the relative strength of the conferences–an imperfect science a lot like using paper to determine the best teams.

                Like

                • Tom

                  Quite true. Rankings, SoS, conference strength – they’re all relative. You can find dozens of different rankings systems that say dozens of different things. The SEC is strong now because people THINK they are, not because there’s some 100% agreed upon objective formula that places them at the top. (Not saying they’re not strong – the point is that it’s all perception.)

                  Like

                • Macallanlover

                  Exactly, which is why there is dispute even for 1999, and 2004, which is contrary to what you said above. It is all speculative until it is decided on the field. Until that time, unless someone beats the SEC champ in a “meaningful” bowl, I will consider the SEC the best in the country (but not the national champ.) I don’t recognize any NC for D1 football for ANY year…just like the NCAA.

                  Like

  10. rbubp

    BTW, Ed, from 2:27–the way that money impacts the NC game is that the game itself is produced by needing to keep the bowls intact and not have a playoff.

    You might say that’s indirect, not direct, and I wouldn’t argue the point. It’s true. The participants are the product of a polling process, not head-to-head competition, because the money issue disallows the head-to-head. I’d just say that the money issue is a very, very strong influence on the ultimate outcome, and that my point earlier was not that money in reality directly impacts the NC game so much that it cannot be allowed to.

    When you consider how much moolah the BCS conferences stand to gain by having a team in…well, that’s where I get called a conspiracy nut. Maybe, maybe not. But it’s close to the bone, friends. It is close to the bone.

    Like

  11. Mayor of Dawgtown

    There are 34 bowl games. Why not start with 32 teams (that would be 16 games) then you go down to 16 teams (8 games), then 8 teams (4 games), then 4 teams (2 games) and finally 1 true championship game. That totals 31 games. Get rid of the 3 weakest bowls. Use the existing bowl structure for the playoff. Most teams will only play 1 or 2 more games and that can be during the down time after exams are over and before the existing bowls now start–a time when nothing is going on except for practice now. If too many games is a consideration, go back to an 11 game season ( we only went to 12 games a couple of tears ago anyhow). We already have a model to follow–D-1AA, D-2 and D-3 and it seems to work well for them. This would be bigger than March Madness. College football as a whole would make so much TV money that it boggles the mind. Right now the system is a zero sum game where the haves are trying to lock out the have-nots for financial reasons whereas if they would wake up and do things fairly, for truly competitive reasons, it would be better for everybody including the haves. This would not diminish the conference championships any more than the basketball playoffs do in that sport. Most of all, it would bring some integrity back into the process.

    Like

    • rbubp

      The only thing else to worry about is the travel for the teams. It would need to be a regional arrangement like the NCAA basketball tournament used to be.

      And the travel issue would be an excellent rationale for limiting the number of teams that get in, because then you’re not justifying including the third-place team in a power conference and then sending them across the country. In order to keep the revenues up, multiple playoff games could be hosted in the same venues or cities like the basketball regionals.

      This travel issue is a major impediment to the bowls, though. You can’t be having teams go from Phoenix to Nashville to Pasadena on consecutive weeks.

      Like

  12. Aligator

    fair is not equal, fair is what one needs. these mid majors play in crappy conferences and yeah they can play lights out, one or two games, but they could not play that way year after year after year …..

    Like

  13. Same flawed argument as always.

    The joke BCS system is what hurts the regular season. Fans have to basically pretend the season isn’t going to end with some retarded fiasco so they can bring themselves to enjoy the games. If you think to much about the atrocious way they pick a champ, the regular season is ruined before it is started.

    Real simple system, honestly. 6 BCS conference champs, 2 at-large picked by a NCAA basketball like committee. That’s it and that’s all. Real simple.

    Like

    • Fans have to basically pretend the season isn’t going to end with some retarded fiasco so they can bring themselves to enjoy the games. If you think to much about the atrocious way they pick a champ, the regular season is ruined before it is started.

      I take it that means you don’t enjoy college football.

      Like

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        I think Muckbeast’s point is the system is f#cked up because it produces, and everyone knows it will produce, a “champion” that is not deserving of that designation. Just because the WWE says so doesn’t make wrasslin’ real. And, in college football, the championship not being real takes away from the enjoyment of the other games because we all know they are not leading us to a true champion.

        Like

        • Tom

          So none of the “champions” of the past years were deserving? Hardly. I think what you mean to say is that it produces multiple teams that are deserving of the title “champion”.

          Like

  14. Raleigh

    Leaving the BCS for a playoff is like leaving your wife for Gisselle Bundchen (sp?). The playoff is really popular and sexy as hell but, at the end of the day, it’s just a fantasy. This wife has been really good to you (i.e., college football is IMMENSELY POPULAR as it currently exists). Why dump her for an unknown alternative that may, in reality, be an all-out b!+ch …. and a crappy lay?

    Like