I cannot believe how many anti-playoff articles I have seen since the 4 team playoff system was announced. Though I prefer an 8 team system, I am perfectly fine with limiting it to 4 teams. The arguments I heard opposing the playoff system were ridiculous, so I have decided to refute them one-by-one.
New college football playoff will leave out Big Ten teams
Writer: Drew Sharp
Argument 1: "The most compelling BCS argument for the Big Ten and Notre Dame was storied tradition, which subsequently brought good television ratings and bowl ticket sales. But those factors don't matter in a four-team playoff."
Did ANYONE think it was fair that U-M and Virginia Tech were awarded BCS Bowl Games last season over more deserving teams? Furthermore, "storied tradition" only helps Notre Dame, U-M, and OSU - it doesn't benefit any of the other Big Ten team. As a fan of a team that was overlooked because of "storied tradition" I am extremely happy that we're going to decide the playoff teams by merit - not by the teams who would sell the most tickets.
Argument 2: Past rankings have favored the SEC and the Big 12 over the Big 10. "The Southeastern Conference has had at least one team in the final regular-season top four in 11 of the BCS's 14 years. The Big 12 is 10-for-14. The Big Ten has had a team in the final-four rankings only six times in 14 years."
So if they would have had a 4 team playoff system all along, the Big Ten would've participated 6 times. In BCS history, the Big Ten has participated in the National Championship game only 3 times (fuck you Ohio State). How is doubling our participation in the National Championship decision a negative? The teams that get to take the field in the National Championship game will be decided on the field. If the Big Ten wants more respect, we will have a chance to earn it.
Finally, Sharpe's argument assumes past Big 12 success will translate into future success. The Big 12 has had 19 BCS appearances. Four of them came from Colorado, Texas A&M, and Nebraska; all of them have jumped ship. They gain five appearances from their incoming teams (2 for TCU and 3 for WVU) but the lack of talent in the Big East makes you question how many they could have achieved in a conference with teams like Texas and Oklahoma.
Writers: Various
Argument 1: A four team playoff doesn't go far enough. Instead of the 3rd team being left out, there will be a 5th team that has an argument to be included.
The issue I have is when a team from a major conference goes undefeated and isn't given a chance to compete in the National Championship game. That happened in 2004 with Auburn and in 2009 with Cincinnati. Those two teams would have been included if we had a 4 team playoff. There will certainly be an annual debate over who should be included, but any team in a major conference who goes undefeated will likely be included in the playoffs. The teams who are left out could always have done more to be included. Now, if the Big 12, ACC, SEC, Big 10, and Pac 12 Conference Champions all go undefeated, then we have playoff-armageddon and I concede.
Argument 2: It still won't help the schools in non-BCS conferences have a shot at the National Championship.
Again, let's take a look at history. It's 2006. Two playoff spots belong to 11-1 Florida and 12-0 Ohio State. For the other two spots, you can choose from:
12-0 Boise State
11-1 Michigan or Louisville
10-2 LSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, or Wake Forest
You have to believe that they would eliminate any 10-2 team from consideration because it's too hard to say any one of them has more right to be included. Michigan is probably taking one of the spots (after losing to OSU in a very close game). So it's Boise St or Big East Champion Louisville, who lost on a last second field goal to Rutgers. Louisville may have received the nod, but I think it would have been a close decision.
Conference realignment also goes a long way with helping those teams who have been left out in the past. The non-major programs to go undefeated in the BCS era are TCU, Utah, Hawaii, and Boise State. TCU is going to the Big 12, Utah is in the Pac-12, and Boise State is headed to the Big East. They will all face tougher competition, and therefore have a better argument for making the playoffs.
3 comments:
Completely agree with you in arguing against Drew Sharp. Tradition is overrated in this day and age. Schools need to be progressive to be relevant, as do sports. Like you mentioned, it's only the schools that are getting the fat bowl paychecks, even though they aren't deserved (Michigan).
Let me go against you for a moment...In 2009 the following teams were undefeated prior to bowl games: Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State (throw in one-loss SEC power Florida, too). So in the not-too-recent past we have a prime example of where the controversay would unsue, even under the 4-team model. But even though Boise and TCU are moving to the "big stage", there will be another school in the smaller conferences to rise up and take their place. Only natural. So what then? There's NO WAY the little man gets a seat at the big boy table- even with four teams.
I'm for the four-team playoff because it makes college football more exciting, but in no way is it more fair than it was before. It's still all about money, and the power conferences will continue to rule the day. When they find a feasible way to make an 8-team playoff, they will, but only because more money can be had. This new playoff system was never about being fair (like they want you to think), it's about dollars and cents, as always.
I think that the Boise's and the TCUs of the world moving to power conferences is the only reason why it is fairer. I think their success (or lack thereof) in the major conferences will play some kind of role (subconsciously or more vocally) in terms of how future winning teams from power conferences are viewed. If Boise and TCU continue to do extremely well, people will think the next rising school from a non-BCS conference could be really good too. I'm not sure whether that's fair or not, but I anticipate that will happen.
I am not sure how you can say letting four teams play for the National Championship is in no way fairer than letting two.
I didn't take the time to do this, but if you look at the teams in the past who would've been left out of a 4 team playoff (so teams ranked 5-8 at the end of the season) I don't think that any of them would be convincingly better than teams 1-4. Sure, they may have pulled an upset, but I think that's much less likely in football than in NCAA tournament basketball.
I'm sure some people's opinions on smaller conference schools will be swayed by the success of Boise and TCU, but only initially. At the end of a season, however, if they see a 12 or 13-0 team (or teams), somebody is going to be able to make a case for them. I think of Colt Brennan and Hawaii. He was breaking all sorts of records, had an undefeated year, and people justified having them in the Sugar Bowl. People bought into their success. Seeing a 'zero' in the loss column will carry more weight in a person's mind than how Boise or TCU faired.
Looking at the 4-team model seems fair from a distance, but the underlying issues still remain, which are unfair at their core. Let me create a scenario. Let's pretend these are the final rankings after the last week of the season, before the selection of bowls/playoff spots:
1. Alabama (12-0)
2. USC (12-0)
3. LSU (11-1)
4. Hawaii (12-0)
5. Oklahoma (11-1)
6. Michigan State (11-1)
7. Boise State (11-1)
This is a completely realistic scenario where we are looking at leaders from the major conferences (I don't even have someone from the ACC...) with a smaller school mixed in. I'm giving extra love to the SEC, because that's what happens.
Who do you take?
Obviously Alabama and USC would be in the playoff. Do you put Hawaii in? Do you omit them for a conference champ? And if so, which conference champ? Do you only allow conference champions, and leave out LSU, who everyone thinks is better than the teams behind them in the ranking?
You have four spots at a table for six power conferences and one or two teams from minor conferences who rise up throughout a given season. Inherently that is unfair. Sure you'll have four teams battling it out, but do you have the right teams? There's still no way of knowing. We're back where we were with two teams and the same old arguments. We may even have more schools and conferences feeling left out and criticizing the system as unfair! At least in my scenario most people would have no problem with an Alabama-USC national championship. More doesn't mean better, and more doesn't mean more fair.
I'm really really really curious how much power the SEC will have in all of this. Like in my scenario, I will be PISSED if they get Alabama and LSU in over conference champions.
Post a Comment