I’m not necessarily saying someone holds all of these views but I’m curious if there are Dopers that can answer any of the points. I am in favor of a playoff in D1 football, something that happens not only in every other division of football but every other (major) NCAA sport. But opponents of a playoff usually base their argument on one or more points:
Bowl Game Arguments
The tradition of the individual bowls.
There are currently 34 bowl games. Of these 13 have started in the last 10 years and over half (19) have started in the last 20 years.
A playoff would make current bowls meaningless
Really? There are only five bowl games that mean anything anymore and some can argue only the championship game matters. Even before the BCS system , was there ever a year that more than two bowl games meant anything?
The bowls rewards teams.
Ummm . . . kind of. Other than the BCS bowls, teams are rarely rewarded except for automatic bids such as the Sun Bowl gives out. Many times however, teams are rewarded by being a hometown team or a good traveling team and better teams end up not going to any bowl.
My bottom-line counter to any bowl argument is: suppose the top 8 teams start the playoffs in the Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls and other NCAA teams are free to play in the other bowl games. Would that be any different than the current system for the also-rans in D1?
Other arguments
4) With a playoff, it nullifies the impact of season. (Every game counts)
Then you would get rid of playoffs in every other sport, pro or college? Even if you say yes, then lets look at the current status of the BCS. LSU is number 1 and Alabama is number 2. It is entirely possible that they could meet for a rematch for the championship. Let me say that again - a REMATCH for the championship. Then how did the game earlier in the year count for anything? LSU beat Alabama so if the season does mean anything, Alabama had their chance and lost so they should not get a second chance.
Oh and if every game counts, how come 1 loss teams make it over undefeated teams?
The BCS puts the two best teams together.
Do we even ignore how the system gets manipulated? Mack Brown whining about Texas getting a chance in the 2004-2005 season to play in a BCS game? The fact remains that the coach’s poll manipulated it to give Texas the chance over Cal so the system is not foolproof if voting in the polls can be used to game the system.
But let’s go one step further and only look at the Championship game. How do you pick the 2 “best” teams?
In 2000-1, was the second best team FSU, Washington or Miami?
2001-2: Nebraska or Oregon?
2003-4: Pick the best 2 teams out of USC, LSU and Oklahoma
2004-5: So Auburn was not one of the two best teams? It also called into question of how mid-majors could get into the championship game as long as they suffer from a weak schedule which incidently comes about by strong teams refusing to play strong mid-majors.
2006-7: Could Boise St have beaten Ohio St and/or Florida? The world wonders
If you believe that the “system” does pick the two best teams, then why does the formula need to be tweeked every so often? Ultimately, picking the two best teams comes down to subjective criteria and is no better than the old poll system.
The BCS system is fair to all teams/conferences.
I have NEVER heard this argument. That should tell you something.
So BCS proponants. Go ahead and justify any of the above points or give us one of your own.
You overlook the obvious one: #1 WITH A BULLET) The NCAA and university bigwigs believe (rightly or wrongly) that there is more money to be made continuing the bowl system than there would be switching to a playoff system.
Everything else is after-the-fact rationalization.
#1.5 NCAA bigwigs believe adding games to the season is unfair to the scholar athletes, ignoring the fact that the basketball program’s schedule is far more intensive.
I frankly haven’t heard much of any of the rest of the points you brought up. Nearly every playoff system I’ve seen proposed accounts for all of those.
Incorporating the bowls into a playoff is another idea bandied about.
Except no fans could afford it.
Round 1: Sun Bowl
Round 2: Orange Bowl
Final: Rose Bowl
3 straight weekends in El Paso, Miami, Pasadena. With airfare, car, hotel, never mind the game tickets. Or the last minute tickets if #8 upsets #1 in the first round.
See, I wouldn’t do it that way. Have the top 8 teams do a playoff, with the championship game rotating among 4 bowls, with the other 6 spots filled by the losers of the playoff. So they wouldn’t play 3 bowls in a row, they’d play 2 unnamed games in one of their stadiums (have fun picking the home team) followed by the Bowl game.
Except that ABC as already offered a contract for covering playoff games that is MORE than they make now.
Also, who says that the also-rans cannot have their bowls like they currently do? How does a playoff affect those?
Screw the Bowls. They’re promotions profited upon by money-grubbing outsiders with a kickback to the NC double-A. There is no reason to include them in a playoff system. Let the NCAA profit off the players without a middleman.
I recall that a couple years back Buffalo hosted a NCAA Men’s Basketball regional. None of the teams participating were even close by to Buffalo, yet there was a good turnout from traveling fans.
I think playoffs would work if it were home-based. And why shouldn’t the top-seeded team get homefield advantage?
Agreed - any tradition that existed went out the window even before the BCS started, when the old CFA (which didn’t include the Big 10 or then Pac-10) forced bowl matchups based on rankings (something like 1-2, 3-5, 4-6).
The bowls wouldn’t be meaningless for the teams that didn’t qualify for the tournament (the only problem might be, everybody would have to wait until the tournament field was announced before accepting bowl bids, which doesn’t give schools much time to organize).
Also, a significant number of teams end up losing money by going to bowl games (because they have to share the revenues with the other schools in their conferences, and usually have to pay for tickets they end up not using).
Every game would still count, as they still need to determine the at-large teams for the tournament.
Only if everybody agrees which two are the best - and you get six computers (five of whose methods are secret, which is another problem I have with the BCS) that might disagree.
It’s “fair to all conferences” only that, in theory, the teams in all FBS conferences (plus the independents) have a shot of playing in the championship game.
I am not a BCS proponent, but you forgot one:
With the BCS system, the bowl money stays primarily in the BCS conferences. With a playoff, the NCAA would demand a system similar to the one used in basketball, where half of the money goes to schools based on little, if anything, to do with the sport in question (1/6 of the money is based on how many sports a school offers; 1/3 is based on how many full-time-equivalent scholarships it gives out; 1/2 is based on how well the conference did in the six previous tournaments).
#7 is almost certainly the primary reason pretty much nobody in a BCS conference wants a playoff system.