Playing Devil's Advocate in the BCS Debate

First off, I want to point out that I'm a huge proponent of the "plus one" system. I think it's a great idea and I'd love to see it implemented.

But.

I also want to play a little devil's advocate here. There are some problems with the "plus one" system that haven't been mentioned, and I'd like to take them into some better light so that all sides of the argument are being considered. Some of the obvious problems ("academics," "length of season," etc.) are all kind of bunk anyways, but here's some more to think about:

1) Logistics. First, consider how much it costs to move players, equipment, bands, cheerleaders, and all of the other things that move with football teams across the country. All of these things take planning, and any kind of tournament system would give teams at most two weeks of notice where they have to move things to, and that's just not enough time. Think about it, there's a reason the Men's Basketball Tournament is grouped into a relatively low number of physical arenas. Not to mention how much easier it is to move a Basketball team. Football teams usually take about 70 sets of helmets, shoulder pads, uniforms, cleats, and leg pads. Then there's the water coolers, tables, and bottles, the large cooling fans, practice equipment (cones, blocking dummies, etc.), a bunch of footballs, and all of the miscellaneous equipment that I'm undoubtedly forgetting.

Now, double all of that because it'll undoubtedly be a neutral site, then add in all of the equipment for the broadcasting companies. Needless to say, it's a logistical nightmare.

2) Fan Revenue. Have you ever really looked at the stands of NFL playoff games? It's not often that they sell out, unless it's a team that has been guaranteed home games in the playoffs. Think about it, how could this be? Again, it's logistics. The second round of the playoffs is the worst, because fans simply aren't sure who's playing in those games and where they are until the first round is over. Then, they only have 6 days to buy tickets, reserve hotel rooms, and book flights or arrange other travel. Not to mention, most people need more then 6 days notice to take off days from work.

3) It would make it even harder for non-BCS schools to get recognition. When March Madness is going on, how much attention is paid to the NIT? Do people even know that there are other tournaments besides the Big Dance and the NIT? Exactly. If we put so much emphasis on these playoff games, it would diminish from the rest of the bowls, pushing the Boise State's, Utah's and Hawaii's even farther out of the media sphere. Not to mention that smaller schools have even more trouble dealing with the problems outlined in #1 and #2 then large schools do. A lot of times when small schools go to bowl games and end up going across the country, they can't bring their bands along because the cost is too great, or they simply don't have the means to conquer the logistical hurdle.

4) There will always be somebody left out. Ok, so now #1-#4 are appeased, but now #5 is going to complain. When was the last time the top 4 teams were all undefeated? How do you determine the top 4 in each of these situations from previous years?

2002: Miami and OSU undefeated, Iowa and Georgia each 1-loss, all others 2-loss. Easy to pick
2003: Oklahoma undefeated. USC, LSU each 1-loss. Who's the 4th team? There was 7 2-loss teams.
2004: USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, Utah, and Boise State undefeated. 3 1-loss teams with tougher schedules then Utah and Boise behind them.
2005: USC, Texas undefeated. 3 1-loss teams, 6 2-loss teams ranked higher then one of the 1-loss teams.
2006: OSU and Boise State undefeated. Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin 1-loss. LSU, Oklahoma, and USC 2-loss.
2007: Top 10 looks like this: 11-1 / 11-2 / 11-2 / 10-2 / 11-2 / 10-2 / 11-2 / 11-1 / 9-3 / 12-0 Good luck picking 4 from that one.

So what do we use to pick the 4? The BCS? How ironic would that be? No matter what the system, somebody is going to be unhappy. Would the plus one be an improvement? Sure. But is it really worth all the hassle mentioned before if it's more of a band-aid then a real solution?

5) Revenue Sharing. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Same thing that happens in the NFL. Big Teams make Big Money. Who decides where the games are played? Are all 3 games neutral sites, or is the first round played as home games to give the #1 and #2 seeds the advantage they deserve with the higher seeding? If they are at the top seeds home stadiums, how are the revenues shared? ASponge is right, it does all come down to money, but we have to think about it a little deeper then just saying "oh it's rich people and their money" and taking it at that. There's reasons behind it, because we aren't talking about chump change. Revenue for BCS games is in the tens of millions.

So there it is, the counter-argument. Note again that I, as a true fan, want the "plus one" system to be used, but I also realize the problems associated with it. In the interest of fairness and total coverage, I felt like these things should be mentioned.

BCS Movers Play the Media, Fans

Recently, our eloquent poster EJ talked about the shame of the BCS rejecting a +1 format. I wholeheartedly agreed.

What puzzles me more about this whole fiasco, however, is how something as significant as this can get swept under the media rug. What if this story were to emerge, say 6 months ago, when the BCS computer system failed again for yet another year? The blame for this falls in three areas:

1. Fans - We are most to blame. Why are we so fickle? Two years ago, I remember having volatile discussions for hours, stressing that the Gators deserved the spot over Michigan. There were fist fights, cries of activism, and ESPN ran the story for five straight weeks. What happened?

The sad reality is that college football is not in the national consciousness right now. Fans are thinking about the NFL Draft, baseball, and getting their tax refunds. The BCS just isn't as important. When the outcry begins next December, just be ready to point the fingers where they belong.

2. Media - Much like the fans, the media (particularly ESPN) is a symptom of the current focus. Any network that can have a show called "Who's NOW" is not concerned with long-term issues. They'll milk the BCS fatalities for all its worth come college football season, but it's irrelevant now. Ratings dominate all.

3. College Football Presidents, Conference Commissioners - Simply put, they just don't have any guts. They cave to the bottom line every single time, without actually exploring whether the bottom line can be increased. That's the most astonishing thing about this whole affair...as EJ pointed out, this could be extremely lucrative.

We all know the system will fail again this year. We'll also know why.

College Football Could Have Had a Playoff

The college football world, at least as represented by most league commissioners, has shelved for at least another several years the idea of a plus-one playoff system that would have matched the BCS-ranked #1 and #4 teams, and the #2 and #3 teams, against each other, with the winners playing in a national title game. Think of the proposal as the NCAA Tournament, but skipping the earlier games and jumping right into the Final Four.

It was a golden opportunity to make college football that much more exciting, and that much fairer. The fans were clamoring for it. Justice and fairness demanded it. But most of the league commissioners lacked the vision and courage to make such a system happen. Notre Dame A.D. Kevin White, whose football program isn't even affiliated with a BCS conference, said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Tell that to Auburn University, who went undefeated in the SEC in 2004, and was not given the opportunity to play for a national championship. USC defeated Oklahoma that year to claim its place on the college football throne, but Auburn fans will always be left wondering "what if?" Tell it to Oregon in 2001, who saw Nebraska reach the championship game against Miami after getting annihilated in its final regular-season game against Colorado.

Those resisting the change cite a couple of major reasons for keeping the current system intact - (1) they don't want to extend the season and have their players miss too much class, and (2) they worry that a playoff-like system would minimize the relative importance of the regular season.

The first concern is fatuous in light of how other collegiate sports do this without blinking an eye - college basketball has its 64 team tournament, prolonging the season for many teams, whose players or school presidents never seem to fret about missed school time; baseball has the regional/super-regional/CWS system which does the same thing; Division II college football has a 16-team playoff. The second is simply not true - the plus-one playoff format would have every team fighting to not be #5, and thus left out of the Final Four that plays for the championship. Rivalry games will still be rivalry games. Big conference matchups will still be big conference matchups.

While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the plus-one format would have been an enormous improvement over the current regime, and the commissioners meeting in Hollywood missed a chance to make college football fairer and more exciting, and to earn the lasting gratitude and reverence of fans for being the pioneers who made it all happen. Major kudos to SEC commissioner Mike Slive, who proposed the plus-one system only to have it speedily shot down, and ACC commissioner John Swofford, who also expressed a willingness to change the status quo. UF, FSU, and UM are lucky to have such leaders.