Blog Entry

BCS...College Football is not a Sport

Posted on: November 9, 2008 10:45 pm
Edited on: November 9, 2008 10:53 pm

The night before the election, Barack Obama said in an interview at halftime of Monday Night Football that he would propose a playoff system for college football.  Now, he may have been joking, because this obviously is a mundane detail in the reasons he defeated McCain so easily, but I couldn't agree with the President more.

How do we call college football a sport when the media votes on who plays for the championship?  Without any playoff system at all, I put it in the same ranks as figure skating, gymnastics, and cheerleading.  Let's let athletes do their thing, then we'll decide, with whatever knowledge we think we have, who we liked the best.  Who's to say LSU was the best two-loss team last year?  How can we be certain they were better than Missouri, USC, or West Virginia? Kansas only lost one game (Hawaii too, but they honestly played nobody and then got killed in their bowl game).

The 2003 season is another great example.  USC and LSU both won their BCS games, LSU finished 13-1, USC 12-1, but USC was the official BCS Champion.  So, because the "great minds" voted for USC to play in that game, they were the official champs.  How are you going to tell members of the 2003 LSU Tigers that even though they didn't get a shot at USC, they were not that seasons best.  Common sense says they should have played to determine the champion.  Instead, there was controversy as the ESPN/USA Today poll differed from the AP poll.

The regular season IS NOT the playoffs in college football.  Ask Penn State if it's better to lose a game in September or November.  What happens if Texas Tech or Alabama lose a game in the next couple of weeks?  How do we decide between them, along with Florida or Texas or Oklahoma or USC or Boise State or Utah? 


A quick solution would be an eight-team playoff.  This means that the champion will have to play three extra games.  Considering lesser athletes in Division III can play a 32-team playoff, eight teams is justifyable for everyone who is worried about these students playing too many games.  Critics might say that this still leaves the ninth best team out.  At least we're letting more teams get a chance to actually play the game of football to decide a champion.  That's a big difference compared to letting the third ranked team play in a game, where whether they win or lose, their conference and school still get money, but the fact they might be the best team in college football means nothing.

Obama is in office to change things that are outdated.  I don't want to get into healthcare, my college loans, or why I am saving so I can afford to pay rent all by myself in the future.  Let me stick with what I know and a solution to change it.  Colleges, conferences, and companies are all making profits at the expense of the credibility of college football.  There are so many great aspects of the game.  I love the devotion of the fans and the feeling of seeing my school play with other alumni and students.  I just can't take the game seriously and call it a sport.  Sports determine their winners based on what the outcome of the games are, not by sports writers voting on "sexy" teams.  Ask previous champions in college baseball, basketball, the NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL, etc.  A lot of these teams weren't expected to win a title when the playoffs started, but that's why you play the games. 




Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: November 13, 2008 8:27 am

BCS...College Football is not a Sport

If Obama wants to put a little push behind the idea that is fine by me but please no more "steroids in baseball" hearings when Congress should be debating real issues like Fannie and Freddie and the subprime mortgage problem. (See 2005 Congress)

Imagine last season in College basketball.  Given the wonders of the tourney, Davidson emerged as a real contender thanks to the play of Stephon Currey (sp.?).  Who would have seen that coming?  Would Davidson have made a BCS style championship system last year?  No way.  They would not even have made the equivalent of a college bowl game.

Of course the discussion would not be complete without bringing up my favorite team beating up my least favorite team last year (Appy St and Michigan University, respectively).  Keeping in mind Appy State would not have made the proposed 8 team tourney you propose in football either, but Mich U turned out to be a decent team beating Florida as you recall.  The point is parity is just as good for football as it is for basketball. 

Last year would have been very interesting to see who would have won the 8 team playoff.  Would LSU have beaten the likes of West Virginia or Vagina Polytech Institute at the end of the season.  How about mighty Oklahoma had they had something to play for other than a win in an also-ran bowl, which is the case for all BCS bowls because they are not the championship game.  It would have been a special three weeks to watch football.  And who wouldn't be glued to the tvs if they could not attend in person?

Since: Jul 11, 2007
Posted on: November 12, 2008 11:41 pm

BCS...College Football is not a Sport

Thanks for the reply lookalive.  Yeah, college football does need a playoff for more reasons than we both mentioned.  I should have mentioned how there could still be bowl games with a playoff and everyone could make money, that's another good point.  I guess all we can do is complain about it until the idiots in charge come to their senses.

Since: Sep 17, 2008
Posted on: November 10, 2008 12:45 pm

BCS...College Football is not a Sport

I couldn't agree more!  I am a big LSU fan (just thought I'd get that out there, GEAUX TIGERS!).  However, I have a problem with who we played last year for the National Championship for a couple reasons.  One - it was Ohio State, but I won't go down that road today.  Two - The ONLY reason VA Tech did not play for the NC is because we waxed them at the beginning of the season.  VA Tech, at the end of the year, would have given us a run for our money, much more so than Ohio did.  And the reason they didn't get to is because they already played us.  They go snubbed because it would be better for ratings if LSU played a team they hadn't played yet.

I know the bowls take a in a ton of profits and that is why they are reluctant to go to playoff format.  However, I read another thread where the publisher recommended using the bowl games as part of the playoff system!  What a GREAT idea!  The bowl games are still there to bring in the revenue.  We don't have to completely eliminate the BCS (initially).  We use the top ranked teams in the BCS and other polls to determine who goes to the playoffs.  Ok, so some people may say that the 9th team didn't get a chance, but there is always going to be that.  Not everyone can get into the playoffs so there has to be a cut-off somewhere.

In regards to academics - you said it Considering lesser athletes in Division III can play a 32-team playoff

And how about this one....a system like the BCS would NEVER fly in any other sport, Pro and College - why? Because it is unfair and doesn't give every team a chance "ghasp!".

One more thought....Independent schools are guaranteed to get left out of the BCS - Hawaii last year, like you already said.  They were ranked...12th at the end of the year? Undefeated!!!  There isn't a single argument that can convince me they did not deserve a shot at the NC.  Yea, they got blown out by UGA, but we didn't know that would happen until after the fact.  Hawaii got robbed in a major way.

College Football needs a playoff for more reasons than I can mention

...Speaking of which - Think of all the money that would be made by extending into a playoff format...(Not that I condone all of the profits, but businesses and colleges are insane if they think they wouldn't make enough money in a playoff format).

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or