Check out what Executive Director of the BCS, Bill Hancock, has to say in an op-ed in today’s USA Today about why a playoff would hurt the regular season.
USA Today
By Bill Hancock
Like millions of other fans, I love college football. Its passion, traditions and pageantry are truly cherished.
Fans will be watching intently on Jan. 7, when the top two teams meet in a bowl game. Those teams earned the opportunity through their achievements on the field. The BCS has been remarkably successful in making this happen: Such showdowns took place only eight times in 56 seasons previously, while they have occurred nine times in the last 12 years, by the Associated Press poll’s reckoning. The other BCS games will feature the remaining top ten teams in premiere bowl matchups. It will be another exciting finish to the most important regular season in sports.
We appreciate and encourage other ideas, but none has yet garnered a consensus among the presidents, athletics directors, coaches and faculty from the 120 major universities. There are several reasons why:
First, playoffs diminish the regular season. The interest of fans, sponsors and others is redirected into the playoff. Now, from August to December, fans nationwide shift their attention from game to game and conference to conference weekly, as teams move up and down the ladder toward the title game. Why would we want to dilute that?
Second, playoffs burden the fans. It’s unrealistic to ask thousands of college students and fans to travel to faraway places week after week, to follow their teams through a playoff.
Third, a playoff would fuel even more controversy, as more teams with similar records are left out. Think it’s tough picking the top two? Try selecting eight or sixteen. This would guarantee additional pressure to expand brackets to uncontrollable levels. Historical note: The NCAA men’s basketball tournament began with just eight teams.
Fourth, the vast majority of college athletes will succeed in life because of their classroom — not football — performance. These are college students, not NFL pros.
In conclusion, with all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than dictating how college football is played.
The championship of this treasured sport will be decided on the field Jan. 7. We’ll be watching.
Bill Hancock is executive director of the Bowl Championship Series, or BCS. (c) Copyright 2009 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tags: BCS
Your arguments are weak and narrow-minded. How much money are you being paid? Who is lining your pockets? Can you honestly sleep at night and belief the ridiculousness you’re posting on this blog?
Your current BCS system touts matching number 1 vs. number 2. That’s great. So, tell me, what is the purpose of the other BCS bowls? Why not just focus on the championship game and leave it at that?
The goal of a playoff system would be to find out who is the best NCAA football team in the country, not who has the best record at the end of the season.
Bill, you have been stating these arguments over and over. We, the fans, on Twitter and elsewhere have given you answers. All four questions are answered in Dan Wetzels blog, with his 16 team plan. It has garnered much support from fans. http://bit.ly/8d4DAB
Now, as to why there has been no consensus. The presidents, ADs, coaches, and faculty need to be shown that a playoff will not lose them money before they agree. If the BCS brought them the figures, then the BCS would stay intact as the Admins for the playoff. Otherwise, once the schools do decide to go with a playoff, you will be left out in the cold.
If you wanted to find out what the fans really wanted, why doesn’t the BCS take the most popular plans endorsed by fans. Boil them down to their components and let the fans vote on what they want. You can present pros and cons of each plan and compare it to the pros and cons of the BCS. Then you can truly see what the fans want.
Fans want specific games specific times that the BCS is a better option than a playoff. Give us those, give us hard facts as to why BCS is better, then we might listen.
Translated – Please don’t take my cushy position as BCS czar and force me to get a real job. Teams maintaining poll position by scheduling cupcakes are so good for college football. Teams that have an outstanding year but may have stumbled in previous years get no consideration.
Mr. Hancock,
The BCS, while it does more than the old bowl system, does not do enough to settle a true champion. Your arguments are too easily countered to provide a good reason why the BCS should stay.
For instance, do you think last month’s games would’ve been diluted due to a playoff? Not really. If anything dilutes things, it’s being a school that starts out too low in the polls and once they really start winning, they hit the glass ceiling and can advance no farther in the polls. (see Cincy or TCU as examples)
Second, how much class time does one miss during the holiday season, especially since most schools do not have classes from the 3rd week in December to nearly the middle of January.
Third, if travel is a worry, have 2 of the potential 4 games at the home campus of the higher seed.
Controversy will always be there even with a playoff, but at least if there was a playoff this year, we’d be left with one undefeated champion instead of potentially three undefeated teams and only one claiming the title due to having the biggest brand.
On the Alabama/Texas match-up:
“Those teams earned the opportunity through their achievements on the field.”
And TCU didn’t? And what about the ‘08 Utah squad? What criteria are we using to determine whether or not a team has ‘earned’ their opportunity on the field? Conference affiliation?
Did it ever occur to the BCS ‘Gods’ that, the reason you have to defend your ’scam’ so vigorously is because it’s flawed? Unfair? And a total joke?
Actually, with the 16-team format provided by Dan Weztel, the playoffs would not hurt the regular season at all. Under the current format, teams who lose early or have a drastic, season-changing injury suffer the consequences of the system. Also, if a team isn’t considered a big name within the system, they get no respect despite being told “at the beginning of every season, every team in the nation has an equal shot at the title.”
I’ll point out the biggest five teams who are outside looking in:
TCU – finished the season undefeated but because they are the #4 team and from the MWC, no chance for a title. Give them a shot to prove themselves against the big boys on a national stage. They handled Clemson, who was an ACC title contender at the start of the season, pretty easily.
Boise St. – finished undefeated again but are the #5 team and in the WAC, also no chance for the title. They handled #7 Oregon in the opener. Oregon was a national title possibility after being the most consistent team through the majority of the season. Prior experience on the big stage proves that Boise doesn’t have that “star-struck appearance” when playing the big boys.
Cincy – finished undefeated as well and are the #3 team in the nation. They had the injury bug but were able to overcome it. They handled their tough opponents and came out on top.
Iowa – finished 10-2. They lost their QB and then the last two games without him. Had he not had the injury, Iowa was in contention for the title as well before the injury.
Oregon – suffered the early loss to Boise St. but bounced back being the most consistent team over the course of the season to win the Pac-10.
The three other undefeated teams have a legit claim to say that they should play for the title. Under the current system, if multiple teams finish undefeated, an arbitrary decision decides after everything is done who’s better. But how can you prove that the winner of the NCG is better than the winner of the TCU/Boise St. game and Cincy – should Cincy win as well – when there are three undefeated teams at the end?? It is impossible to do because the only accurate portrayal of who is better is on the field.
Adding Oregon and Iowa into this mix, they lost early and even though there was talk that they could be in the NCG, the current system would keep them out unless a plethora of conditions were met. Florida can even lay a claim to be in the mix as well. They only have one loss. Why shouldn’t these teams be in the mix to prove that their losses to higher-ranked teams were flukes??
This drama is eliminated because the system has major flaws and refuses to address these issues. People can talk all they want about who’s better but until it’s settled on the field, every one of the undefeated teams at the end can say they are the best.
As far as a playoff ruining the regular season, it won’t. Teams who happen to lose early can still fight their way back into contention. Same with the undefeated teams on the outside looking in. Also, with the format Wetzel proposes, the first three rounds are home-away games. It would be beneficial to still keep winning games, even after a loss, because seeding would mean a lot. It would be a different ballgame if Florida had to go through Boise St., the blue turf, and the icy-cold weather to get to the next round or Texas had to go into The Horseshoe into that hostile environment in cold and snow. This would add more drama and emphasis on the regular season since every game would matter. It could mean the difference between playing a game in the comforts of home or traveling to a harsh environment.
All the playoffs would do is add drama, meaning, and revenue while proving who really is the best team in the nation. Once all is said and done, the team who wins the fifteenth game of the playoffs is the best and deservedly so because they proved it on the field.
I certainly agree that the BCS does pair top teams in exciting must see games. The National Championship Game, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls certainly fit this billing this year. Some could argue that each of these three bowls still holds some claim to determining the true national champion.
Do you really want to encourage every person under a rock with a playoff design to attempt to contact and persuade the presidents, athletic directores, coaches and faculty that their plan is the best? Shouldn’t it be the task of the BCS determine their ideals and find and implement designs that improve upon these ideals?
I disagree with your assertions and here are several reasons why:
First, playoffs only diminish the regular season if teams with more than two losses become a significant part of it. Allowing higher seeded teams to have byes or host the first rounds both reduces travel costs and adds incentive to the top ranked teams to finish strong.
Second, for three weeks college fans travel for basketball to watch their team advance through March Maddness. While many fans will find this task unaffordable plenty will be able to manage and fill the venues. The rest of us will watch at home from TV, like most of us do now.
Third, shoehorning teams into a pre-constructed one size fits all seasons tournament will generate selection controversy that grows with the size of the tournament. What is needed is a new paradigm that defines qualified teams to be selected and then apply one of a battery of designs that best fits that year’s situation.
Fourth, college football (thanks in large part to the Saturday game tradition) interferes with classes and finals less than any other collegiate sport. Even playing through December, as FCS Division II and Division III do would not alter this fact.
While congress has better issues to address than the management of the college football postseason, they would not need to if the BCS would follow due diligence in hearing issues and researching solutions without outside pressure.
The national champion of this sport will not be determiened until all teams can earn the title by winning the games they are allowed to play.
That said, the games are good, so we will be watching.
Such weak arguments…
1)”First, playoffs diminish the regular season.”
How is this? Because it will have such a great finish? Teams are still going to have to compete to win their conferences and/or compete for an at large bid, if there was a playoff. With the short season that college football is every game will still be extremely important. Not to mention that teams would be competing for seeding in a playoff.
2) “Second, for three weeks college fans travel for basketball to watch their team advance through March Madness. While many fans will find this task unaffordable plenty will be able to manage and fill the venues. The rest of us will watch at home from TV, like most of us do now.”
So college Basketball fans can do it but football fans cannot? Why not play a home game for the higher seeded team? And watching it on TV is a bad thing? Wouldn’t that bring higher TV Ratings and in turn networks would be paying an extreme amount of $$ to broadcast them?
3) “Third, a playoff would fuel even more controversy, as more teams with similar records are left out….”
Isn’t the goal to find out who the best in the nation is? Sure teams will be left out that are on the bubble, but you actually think there will be “more controversy” if a 9-3 team doesn’t make it to the playoff as opposed to a 12-0 team? If you answer is yes then you are obviously being paid to think so. Answer me this, what is more controversial every year, the BCS or the bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament? What a ridiculous argument.
4) “Fourth, the vast majority of college athletes will succeed in life because of their classroom — not football — performance. These are college students, not NFL pros.”
Isn’t the BCS “National Championship” game played on January 7th? That leaves nearly 5 weeks between most conferences championship game to the National Championship game, plenty of time in there for a 3-4 week playoff. Again this is a failed argument.
Seriously, how much are you getting paid?
No it doesn’t. In fact, the BCS has hurt the regular season with Florida and Texas scheduling weak opponents to play into the BCS hands.
Having a 16 team playoff with conference champions getting automatic bids strengthens the season. Every win counts.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709
Sorry guys, the “college basketball does it, so football can too” is a lame comparison.
Travel costs for a basket ball team are also a fraction of what they are for football.
Basketball venues are a fraction the size of football venues- and the tournament games rely on fans from four teams to try to fill it.
The basketball tourney is played in an off-peak season, when travel costs are lower (for teams and fans), and not as crowded as December, January.
A March tournament causes less disruption in the academic year than one over December and January.
These arguments are unbelievably poor, particularly the one about playoffs reducing interest in the regular season. After all, you still have to **make** the playoffs… and given the increasing number of excellent teams in the FBS, competition for those 8/16 spots would be intense every year. And beyond simply qualifying, there would be **enormous** incentive to shoot for higher rankings in order to secure home-field advantage.
And as for claims about selecting the playoff field being difficult… sure, it’s always going to be difficult. But the beauty of a playoff is twofold. First off, you don’t have to select only 2 teams – and since many of the toughest decisions in ranking are in selecting/organizing the top spots, you’d allow those issues to be ironed out (largely) on the field. Secondly, sure, there would be teams upset about not making the playoffs… the 17-20 teams on the outside looking in. But – and I think this is possibly the most important issue at play here – there would be a clear reason each of those teams was not included in the playoff. And every single one of them would be able to clearly see what they needed to do the next year to make the playoffs. The BCS system, on the other hand, this year left several teams who were undefeated during the regular season scratching their heads over what they could/should have done to make it to the championship. What more can you do besides never lose? And before you start screaming about strength of schedule/conference, I direct you back to the argument about logistical difficulties. There is **no** possible way to make crowning a champion more complicated than by basing it heavily on regular-season scheduling. In many ways, it’s almost like trying to schedule a playoff, but before any games have been played. What if you schedule what you consider a “rigorous” regular season docket, but 2 of your top opponents, who were initially ranked in the top 25, struggle and drop out of the rankings before you play them? That’s completely feasible. If someone can prove me wrong on this point, I’d love to hear it…
In any case, know that this site is actually funny in its failed attempts to legitimize a fatally flawed system. It is further testament to the fact that the BCS is an unpopular, ineffective sham supported by few, hated by the majority, and propped up by those who make enormous amounts of money from it. Think about it… you have to run/fund a PR campaign in an attempt to build support for your system? Really? Wow… well, I suppose those who manage the BCS have deep enough pockets that throwing up a Wordpress blog won’t really break the bank.
This is a tired argument that can actually be disproven simply by looking at this season. One need look no further than the last Saturday of the season, when conference championships were being played. In the end, only two games played that day, Florida-Alabama and Texas-Nebraska, had any bearing on the BCS “title” game — at the time the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh game was being played, its relevance was still pending based on the outcome of a game to be played later.
Consider instead the alternative with a 16-team playoff. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh would have been battling for a playoff spot. The Georgia Tech-Clemson game would have had meaning. Nebraska would have been playing not just to be a spoiler, but for a playoff spot. In short, every conference championship game would have had an impact on the national championship hunt. Even the SEC title game, where both teams would have been assured of a playoff spot already, would have stayed relevant — that would have been the game deciding the #1 overall seed for the playoffs.
This fan believes the regular season becomes *much* more exciting with 16 playoff slots avallable.
Douglas…..I must discredit your argument as being baseless and in some instances incorrect. Travel costs are less, but most schools have a base of fans that will travel regardless. Regarding venues, the facilities for a potential playoff are starting to more and more overlap, and since the Final 4 has a minimum seating of 70k, your attendance theory is null and void. Lastly, as for academics, most schools are not in classes from the 3rd week of December to the 2nd week of January, prime time for a playoff. Schools are, however, mostly in session during March/April.
I was going to get on this site (just heard about it today) and pontificate about the most self-serving organization known to man – the BCS – but, you have all beat me to it and in very articulate and well-thought out arguments.
Mr. Hancock, your continued defense of the indefensible system the BCS has created only serves to undermine your credibility and integrity. Please stop.