Since the first controversy involving the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)[1], University Presidents and Chancellors have continued to refute the viability of a playoff for Division I-A. Below, we examine most of the stances that have emanated from the Presidents and Chancellors, how they refute themselves, and why their argument has never resonated with many fans and athletic administrators who see the current system as inadequate for crowing an undisputed champion. Before addressing these issues let me first say that academics should always come first over athletics for institutions of higher learning. Academics is the cornerstone of our society. With that said, there is no evidence to suggest a playoff for Division I-A would be a detriment to student-athletes.
Impact on Academics
Issue: One of the first arguments Presidents toss around is the effect a playoff would have interfering with the academic calendar – particularly during the time when final exams take place at most Universities.
Observation: With any problem, there is a solution or work around that will accommodate most of the issues. Any number of scenarios could be examined to ensure games are not taking place during exams. But let’s be honest. Most programs that make a bowl game practice during this period anyway, so what’s the difference? NCAA basketball programs participate during this period as well, so why aren’t we concerned about their academic welfare? Even if the decision were to begin a three-round playoff after exams during the third week of December the national championship game would be played the same week it was played in January 2007. Furthermore, NCAA Division I-AA conducts a 16-team playoff that runs through most of December. According to a study conducted at UNC-Charlotte, graduation rates at I-AA schools indicate no correlation to its success on the field whereas I-A schools substitute academic success for athletic achievement.[2] What should we conclude? Authors of the study emphatically state the bowl system provides no academic benefit – and in fact – should be scrapped and modeled in favor of the I-AA playoff system. Although the study was conducted prior to the BCS, the issue at hand is debating a bowl system versus a playoff based on correlations to academic achievement.
Basically, if I-A football players aren’t graduating at a higher rate than their I-AA counterparts how can anyone argue academic benefits with the current bowl system? Ironically, their a plethora of reasons why academic achievements are lower at I-A schools that relate to the prestige, money, noteriety, NFL, and public exposure less common to the I-AA athletes yet Presidents and Chancellors ignore these pressures on the young men playing college football at the highest level and instead argue that a playoff would negatively effect them. Call me cynical, but something tells me they don't exactly have the best interest of the student-athlete in mind on this issue.
Length of Season
Issue: Usually, the next argument relates to having to expand the season into January and consequences of adding more games.
Observation: In a - sort of - up yours to alumni and fans – Presidents approved the recent expansion from an 11-game schedule to a 12-games and supported the addition of a fifth BCS bowl game that extends the season into the second week of January. Not much else you can say about that, but every fan and member of the media should reject this as an argument for not having a playoff when the Presidents supported these changes that are in direct opposition to what they said they believe. Unfortunately, the addition of an extra game for Division I football programs signifies that we’re moving further away from a playoff than closer to it.
Impact on Regular Season
Issue: Opponents of a playoff have argued to their blue in the face that a playoff would devalue the regular season. They say the regular season is a 12/13 game playoff that makes college football better.
Observation: The problem with this position is that it fails to look at the facts. If a postseason were done right it would actually complement the regular season. By done right, the Register believes the playoff should take the form of the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams. If anything a stronger argument could be made that the BCS has devalued every game except one - that being the #1 versus #2 matchup that the computers concoct. Unless you're an LSU fan raise your hand if you enjoyed this past season's BCS games. Probably aren't a lot of you out there.
So, why include every conference champion? First, it lends value to ensure that the regular season is not compromised by a playoff. Yes, that would mean teams from C-USA, the MAC, Sun Belt, etc., would get one automatic bid, but let's be honest. It's the prospect of one of the non-BCS schools knocking off a Goliath that makes the NCAA basketball tournament's first round so exciting. It's the Boise State beating Oklahoma that would lend credibility to both the regular season and the idea of representation from every conference. It's also why the regular season wouldn't be devalued, because Ohio State would much rather face a #15 or 16 seed Central Michigan in the first round than be faced with the prospect of playing a school like Boise State had in 2006 that; hypothetically, would have been seeded around #10/11 or even a team like Florida who might have been the last team to get an at large in 2007 and be saddled with a similar seed, for example. Ohio State definitely doesn't want to have to face an SEC school in the first round, so the value of being the higher seed would be enourmous. Speaking of your five at-large teams, they would almost always come from a pool from the top 10 teams in the country. Over the past five years only one team would have received an at-large bid in a 16-team playoff with more than two losses and that would have been either either Florida or Illinois this year (depending on which ranking methodology chosen to make the selection) and only a few have had more than one loss. That means two losses for almost every team is an elimination. And three losses would most likley guarantee exclusion from the 16-team playoff unless you can win your conference title. And how many of the BCS conferences produce a conference champion with three or more losses? It doesn't happen often although Florida State did win the ACC with three losses a few years ago. At any rate, the regular season would still be critical to ensure first; a spot in the playoff and then second; the highest seed possible. This means a regular season just as exciting as we have now that doesn't end with a thud like we get with our current postseason structure.
History and Tradition
Issue: During sworn testimony in front of Congress, NCAA President Miles Brand stated he believed academics was the primary issue for many but not for him. For Mr. Brand, it’s more about maintaining the history and tradition of the bowls.[3]
Observation: If there is any valid argument for keeping the bowl system as it is, it certainly is this one. College football has banked its entire existence on the history and tradition of its programs. We can’t lose sight of that fact. However, are we not an intellectual society that can find a combination of both values…an objectively/equitably-determined champion while also maintaining the preservation of the values and tradition of college football? The most puzzling thing to me about this argument is the resistance to admit there’s a way to create a playoff that includes the bowls. The argument that a playoff would devalue the remainder of the bowls is one that again falls short for fans and athletic administrators. Assuming that’s true hasn’t the one versus two BCS championship game already devalued every other bowl game? The logical response here is if you believe one you have to believe the other. Either bowl games are devalued by a championship game or they aren’t regardless of how you come to creating the championship game. Bowl games for teams not playing in a BCS bowl, the national title, or a playoff for that matter is and always has been a reward for those programs. That wouldn’t change if a playoff were implemented. As a matter of fact including the bowl games in the playoff would actually make those bowls more valuable rather than less important. As for the Rose Bowl, they allowed for the tradition to be changed when they agreed to be a part of the BCS structure. They have already prostituted themselves to be a part of the current system. They can't go back to being virgins now. The changes they’ve had to incur wouldn’t be any more vile under a playoff than they've already accepted. Case in point, how many Big Ten vs. Pac 10 matchups have they had since they signed on to the BCS?
[1] The NCAA maintains a running list of BCS controversies on their website. http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/story/8975902
[2] Bowls versus playoffs: The impact on football player graduation rates in the national collegiate athletic association
doi:10.1016/0272-7757(96)00002-7
[3] Congressional Testimony during BCS anti-trust hearings http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju89198.000/hju89198_0.HTM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment