This season's "Kickoff Game" is on September 4 with LSU facing UNC. And at the conclusion of that game, one of those two teams will all but be eliminated from winning the national championship this season. Meanwhile fans at TCU and Boise State get to look ahead to a season where they may play perfectly and be eliminated as well. Get ready for another season of the BCS, sports fans!
In recent comments defending the Bowl Championship Series, BCS executive director Bill Hancock stated that college football has the "best, most compelling regular season of any sport." Hancock was concerned that if college football had a post-season playoff like college basketball, fans would only care about the post-season.
"March is so wonderful, but the regular season is losing its appeal," Hancock said. "It breaks my heart, but it's because everything is going into March. We can't take the risk of that happening in football because we have the best, most compelling regular season of any sport."
Hancock is a good man tasked with the unenviable task of defending a system that has lower public approval ratings than Congress. And one of his primary defenses is the "most compelling regular season" claim.
But there are several problems with that claim.
First, is Hancock really claiming that the NFL's regular season games aren't as compelling as college football regular season games? What about Monday night football? Speaking of Monday nights, does Hancock think that Monday night Big East and Big 12 conference basketball games in January aren't compelling enough?
Essentially, Hancock is arguing that every other sport that has a playoff is getting it wrong?
Second, under the BCS system, once a team falls out of contention for the national championship, don't their seasons become less compelling than if they were playing for a conference championship or an at-large playoff berth, not only for fans of those schools but for the rest of us?
Take the powerhouses where anything short of playing for a national championship is a wasted season. This year those schools included Florida, Oklahoma and Ohio State. If those schools lose one game -- and certainly two -- there is no way those schools are playing for a national championship under the current system. While this might make the games up until the losses more compelling, what happens after those teams lose one or two games?
How compelling was the 2009 season for Oklahoma Sooners fans after the team lost their opening game to BYU? A friend who is a Texas alum told me that if UT loses to Oklahoma in the Red River Shootout, he hardly pays attention to the rest of the season after that. Maybe those UT and OU fans still find their seasons compelling, but how about the rest of us? Why was there any reason to watch OU after losing that first game? On the other hand, if a team could still win the national championship in a playoff, the games after one or two losses would still be compelling.
A college football playoff would create a scenario in which a number of teams would still have a shot at winning their conference championship or an at-large berth and thus would still be in the hunt for the national championship.
Third, 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. (That's in addition to any bowl games they might be interested in.) How many bowl games did the average fan watch last year? A few?
Bowl games just aren't that meaningful to any college football fans without a rooting interest. Sure, they can be entertaining (sometimes) but there is no larger post-season narrative. Just a series of random bowl games punctuated by one often-controversial championship game.
Moreover, by sticking with the bowl and BCS system, the NCAA may actually be losing money - a lot of money. SI.com writer Andy Staples writes:
Even BCS leaders will admit that there's more money in a playoff. The NCAA basketball tournament brings in an estimated $545 million a year, and college football is exponentially more popular than college basketball. The BCS brings in only $150 million a year, but it funnels most of it to the most powerful conferences. Government intervention would strip those conferences of their power. After that, given a choice between less money and more money, here's betting college presidents forget about their arguments against a playoff and opt for more money.
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.
--
Brian Frederick is the Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication and lives in Washington, D.C. His favorite teams are the Kansas Jayhawks, North Carolina Tar Heels, and whichever team his brother is coaching for. And the underdog. Email him at sportsfanscoalition@gmail.com
Follow Brian Frederick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brifred
That's neither the claim nor the essence of the argument. Playoffs are great, but they do hurt the regular season. There's a reason we stay up late to watch Boisie State, even though we're not in their league... because their game impacts "our" team's chances. It gives us someone to pull for. The regular season in college football means more than the regular season in the pros or in basketball.
"First, is Hancock really claiming that the NFL's regular season games aren't as compelling as college football regular season games?"
Yeah, he is... and he's right. You proved yourself wrong in your opening paragraph, AND in your next two sentences...
"...at the conclusion of that game, one of those two teams will all but be eliminated from winning the national championship."
You know where else that happens? In one of those exciting playoff things. Nice job of proving Hancock right!
"What about Monday night football?"
Nice joke, Dennis Miller.
"...does Hancock think that [Big Mondays] in January aren't compelling enough?"
Allen Field House... Monday night... KU 124-ISU 56. Wow. That's excitement central for a non-Conference fan. Big Monday is only exciting to fans of the teams playing. In D1CFB, KU-ISU means something... even to a Boisie State fan... it's important enough to actually get into the game.
The recent conference chaos wouldn't happen if there were a 16 team playoff. Schools only worry about their football teams because politics weighs more heavily than athletics. In the other powerhouse sport, men's basketball, you can play in the Creampuff Conference and still win the championship, but in football, only about 10 teams are really in consideration by the voters to get in the BCS game.
The BCS is ruining college football. I find the regular season a lot less entertaining now than 10 years ago, and the post season bowls have become a joke. College football is the best sport on the field and the worst managed sport off the field.
Do you think our lives will go on and we might find anything else to enjoy in them if there's no college football national champion? Is it too painful to think about?
People keep stating that the regular season is the playoff but EVERY YEAR TEAMS WITH THE SAME RECORD get ranked ahead/behind others. So......where is the PLAYOFF? It doesn't exist so that argument is out the door
Unless you count the games that are played on September 2nd.
With 12 games, a conference championship game and the bowl game, many teams played 14 games last year. Only the two teams who make the final would play 15 games and I doubt either would complain.
Let the rest of the bowls invite non-playoff teams just like the NIT.
The BCS has ruined a lot of traditional college football values. And what they haven't ruined, UT has.
I played Division 1 football - a long time ago.
I enjoy the games for what they are - when the television coverage isn't just focused on the quarterback - there are 21 other student/athletes on the field.
And, the quarterback won't last very long without the left tackle and others that toil in obscurity.
It could be the top 8 BCS rankings overall, but due to scheduling you could end up with 3 teams from one conference from time to time. I like the 6 big conference winners; Pac-12, Big XII (Big X now?), Big 10/12, Big East, ACC and SEC. Then 2 small conference/independents as long as they are in the top 8, if not then the 2 highest ranked team not already selected.
The 4 major bowls would rotate the championship game, 2 semi-finals and 1 1st rounder, and 3 other bows could host opening round games. All other bowls would go on as planned (right now if you aren't in the BCS game you are only playing for pride, nothing changes there). Round of 8 could be during Chrismas week, semi-finals during New Years and the final about a week later.
The regular season would still mean something, yes this years Florida-Bama game during the regular season would mean less since the winner of the SEC championship would still make the tourney. But even if the loser of that game would win out (probably beating the other team in the SEC championship game) would have a great chance to play for a BCS champioship now.
Something needs to change.
1-Alabama vs 8-Ga. Tech
4-TCU vs 5-Boise St
3-Cincinnati vs 6-Oregon
2-Texas vs 7-Ohios St
I propose an 11 team playoff. The conference champions of every conference qualify for the playoffs...and no other team. Sorry independents, you have to get off the fence and join a conference if you want to win a national title in football.
The first round will feature 3 "pigtail" games...the lowest "ranked" 6 teams play into the next round, which will feature 8 teams total. My system has this virtue....the best team would be national champion every year. These playoff games will NOT be, in any way, connected to the bowl system.
The bowls don't have to go away....they can be "consolation" prizes for the teams that don't make the playoffs.