One of the staples in our spirited BCS/playoffs debate here at GTP is the frequent counter I get to my argument that college basketball is illustrative of how an oversized postseason tends to have a diminishing effect on a sport’s regular season that it isn’t a relevant comparison to D-1 college football because… well, because basketball is different.
Yet that never seems to slow down some of the very same folks from making the every-other-sport-has-playoffs-why-not-college football pitch. Like this one:
… It’s clear that the claim that college football has the “most compelling regular season” is simply a sleight of hand to cover up that college football’s post-season is not only problematic and controversial, it’s not even that compelling. That is, unless virtually every other sports league (and the NCAA itself with its Football Championship Subdivision) has it wrong.
Sadly, that’s only the fourth or fifth dumbest thing in that piece. The topper is this classic case of begging the question:
… even if we grant that the college football regular season is more compelling than other regular seasons, what if the cost of saving it is a less compelling post-season? Does the NCAA really think that one national championship game and a few marquis bowl games would get better ratings and be more compelling than a series of playoff games each one becoming increasingly more significant. A 16-team playoff would give college football fans a reason to watch at least 15 meaningful postseason games…
You know, it’s tough to argue with impeccable logic like that (although the NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS).
(h/t – who else? – PlayoffPAC)