Since the inception of the failed “Bowl Alliance” in 1996 and the subsequent “Bowl Championship Series (BCS)” which has had its share of problems, many sportswriters, commentators, and college football fans have argued that each season should end with an NFL-style playoff to determine a national champion. This debate revolves around the question of the role athletics play as divisions of universities.
Many argue that a playoff will benefit “mid major” and smaller schools who – because of weak schedules – never have the chance to play for the title, even when they are undefeated (BYU 2001, Utah 2004, Boise State 2006, Hawaii 2007?). Fair.
However, I believe these same "mid major" schools and conferences are actually the big losers in a playoff system. Currently, about 50 or so teams play a bowl game (and earn some money). If a playoff were instituted, the number of postseason teams would drop to 16 or possibly 8. Assuming that sponsors would still be interested in the college postseason, the payouts to these 16 teams would be even higher than in the current BCS system (whose main criticism is a lack of revenue sharing). Since the same 20-30 teams are always in the top 16, it's likely that the financial disparity the BCS has created would only continue.
But money is not the only factor. Isn’t the point of sports to win? And can American culture allow a system to thrive that doesn’t clearly crown one team as BEST AMONG ALL!? The answer to this question is uncertain. Yet the question remains: what is the purpose of a college football team?
If the purpose is to create school spirit, alumni pride, fun Saturday memories, and a chance to educate a few who may not otherwise choose to enroll in college, then why not have a series of 25 bowl games that contributes to all of this? These are universities, after all, NOT sports academies.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of the program is to develop athletes into NFL-caliber stars, prove that your school is better than your rival, and make a ton of cash then a playoff system (or BCS, or limited, meaningful postseason, or even a semi-pro developmental league) seems reasonable.
Personally, I am more inclined to support a broader, old-school bowl system that lets players spend a week in the sun, play a game on national TV, and feel like their winning record means something. In the end, most of them are going pro in something other than sports.
Comments
Yes, what is the point of college football? As a foreigner, its hard for me to understand. But, before we abandon the high-profile, pride-raising, money-making, star-launching play-off option, I will say, that as a foreigner, I have developed a very high identification with Berkeley very quickly. As an honest policy analyst, I can't say its actually caused by football, but it might be.
To an extent, the point is to get underprivileged kids an opportunity at an education. But it's also to spur alumni contributions, market the school to the masses, and develop talent for the NFL free-of-charge.
Personally, I think there should be an NCAA student-athlete's union. It's a business... and even if it wasn't, these decisions effect the athletes most directly.
Wouldn't you have to be getting paid to be part of a union? How else would you pay your union dues? I don't think anyone would support paying college athletes.
As a Texas alum who hasn't been back to Austin very often since graduation, I have to say college football is one of the few ways that I still identify with my undergraduate university even while living in Pittsburgh and now Berkeley.
To me it doesn't make sense to propose a playoff system that departs to significantly from the current BCS. Nobody would agree to such a major change unless it was a Pareto improvement for all =P
The incremental changes that are taking place (e.g. adding a 5th championship game) will keep just enough people happy to keep the money rolling and not upset the fans. The worse the BCS performs every year, the more drastic the reforms they enact the following year. Makes sense to me.
D-Rock,
You assume that a playoff system would mean an end to all other bowls, but I don't see why that has to be. Why couldn't you take the 8 best teams and have them play in a playoff and then have all of the other bowls continue as is? I don't see why any of the existing bowls would lose esteem since they don't matter now and they won't matter with a playoff. They would still give "mid-majors" (and weaker "majors" like my beloved Syracuse) the opportunity to play in a post season game and make some money (kind of like the NIT).
- Agent Orange