The College Football Controversy: BCS vs. Playoffs
10 Steps
Below is a rewrite of a paper I wrought on the BCS contreversy. I will include analysis of this paper and myself as a thinker further below.
Where can you find more than 100,000 people, sat together, outdoors in a freezing blizzard, all screaming about a game? In University of Michigan’s football stadium of course. Known as the “Big House” because of its immense size, this is a stadium where they have continued to play in rivalry games that originated all the way back in the early parts of the 20th century despite rain, sleet, or snow. Most fans do not even consider the cold that could drop to well below freezing temperatures and some of them have not missed a single game in years. This kind of hardy, raucous, and passionate spirit that these fans possess is the heart of what NCAA College Football is all about. It is about a love for a game and a tradition of intense competition that is laden with incredible historic plays such as the famous “Hail Mary” of Boston College and even more remarkable people such as legendary coach Joe Paterno of Penn State. This tradition has continued to entertain and amaze fans for over a century now, but it as also had its fair share of challenges. Due to its immense size, Division 1-A College Football has a difficult time determining it’s champion each year. The old system of numerous polls each providing their own champion did not work well, with multiple teams splitting the title almost every year and rarely a single overall winner (1). The new system introduced before the 1998 season, known as the Bowl Championship Series or BCS, uses a complex computer formula to rank each team and assign them to the appropriate post-season game (2), known as a bowl, based upon their performance during the regular season. This system has had a good history of providing a single national champion, but its imperfections are well illustrated by last year’s championship turmoil. LSU won what was decided to be that year’s title game, but numerous polls in the media declared USC the true national champions. The result was a split championship between the two schools and the second lowest TV ratings for the BCS title game since its conception (3). In recent years, the BCS’s effectiveness has become such a controversy that the system has even been applauded by some as a good source of healthy debate each year.
Not only does the current postseason format of college football prevent the fans from seeing a wonderful, decisive, championship game, but it also has a dramatic effect on the financial impact of the sport as well. Millions of dollars change hands every year based upon the outcome of college football games. In 2004 alone, the BCS is getting paid an estimated 89,920,000 dollars by ABC for advertising revenues, and by the bowl games themselves for tickets and licensing (4). After that, it is entirely up to the BCS to decide which schools and conferences get how much money.
In the current system for college football, the vast majority of this money goes only to BCS conferences. These are the six conferences whose regular season winners are guaranteed bids to the BCS bowl games which are the most important ones of the postseason (5). They are thereby given more money than other teams for their appearances in such prestigious events. As it stands, the 62 teams in the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac Ten, and the SEC will receive more than 80 million dollars of the almost 90 million made (6). The other 55 schools with Division 1-A football programs will only receive around 6 million dollars out of all that money (7). This drastic discrepancy in funds for these programs based solely upon which conference to which they belong is creating problems for those schools that go beyond just football. The exclusion of teams in non-BCS conferences is so bad that many members of congress want to consider it for violation of anti-trust laws.
Not only are certain schools losing valuable money which could help improve football facilities and even other areas of the institution, but they lose the equal opportunity to compete and are thereby denied what is a fundamental American ideal. If having a small athletic budget was not enough of a problem for a non-BCS football team, only BCS teams have made it to the BCS bowl games(8) . Bowl appearances are a major recruiting incentive so this has even more of an impact than may appear at first. If a good player has a choice between going to a BCS school with great facilities and a legitimate shot at competing in an important bowl game or going to another school without any of those perks, the choice is often simple. When the majority of the top high school football players choose the BCS schools over their counterparts, the scales tilt even more dramatically in favor of non-BCS football teams. In this cycle college football repeats itself year after year, denying non-BCS teams much of a chance to be on an equal field as the rest of them. The best game, and sport for that matter, a fan can hope to watch is a highly competitive one and with the current system favoring one side more than the other, this is prevented this from happening.
Many proponents of the BCS would disagree however. Supporters of the system argue that it is a great improvement upon the previous method for determining the national champion (9). In the older system, various media and coaches polls were the only means of crowning a champion. The problem was that the five or six major polls would rarely agree with each other, sometimes leading to as many as five teams sharing the title (10). After decades of dealing with such a clearly ineffective system, the BCS appeared in the late 90s to be an amazing invention. In the BCS, one loss during the season can end a team’s championship hopes. Many anti-BCS activists have complained about this aspect of the system as they believe even a great team can lose one game and still deserve a chance to compete for the championship. On the other hand, it has drawn endless acclaim from fans for the intensity of each regular season match-up where teams know their championship hopes are on the line every single week. Proponents of the BCS argue that playoffs in college football postseason would diminish the intensity of these regular season games (11).
Supporters of the playoff system, on the other hand, have huge problems with the BCS’s failure to decide on a single champion year in and year out (12). In the late 1990s, shortly after the BCS had first been implemented, not many people had a problem. As time has passed, however, non-BCS teams and disgruntled fans have started to complain and have also begun to organize an effective method for either changing the BCS, or getting rid of it all together (13). They believe that the BCS ultimately loses the fans interest, as it did last year with the USC-LSU debacle. When the postseason is not exciting and definite, they believe the fans simply will not be as interested. Playoff supporters think that this lack of interest will result ultimately in the decline of the sport in terms of its overall popularity and financial success. According to their beliefs, not only will the economic side of football prosper from a playoff system, but this wealth will be spread much more evenly throughout the league than before. They argue that playoffs would also end up creating a more balanced and surprising season each year that would continue to keep fans excited (14).
Supporters of the BCS agree that playoffs would bring a more decisive end to a season (15). However, BCS supporters think that the current system brings enough finality to college football as it has yielded a single champion for the majority of the years it has been in place. Another argument against the playoff system is that it would limit the excitement of the regular season games knowing that almost all the good teams would eventually make it to the playoffs be able to compete for the title (16). However, does not each fan care simply if their team wins or loses each week? In addition, the college football regular season is packed with long-standing rivalries and coveted trophies switching between teams each year that make it much more than just a regular game each week. For the very good teams who are most likely going to make it to the playoffs, wins and losses would also have a big impact on their seeding in the postseason which would be something to play for each week. However, if fans will always be excited for their team to win, then the playoff supporters’ argument that postseason games are less exciting due to the lack of championship implications is nothing but hypocritical.
Even though both sides in this controversy are arguing for two completely different postseason systems in college football, they are all fans of the game and what they both really want is best quality football possible. Money is a factor, but money ultimately can only come from fans interest in the games, whether through tickets, advertising, or sponsorship. Other than the financial aspect, quality football is the real goal and it helps the monetary side of things anyway. The only difference comes in each sides’ methods of reaching such a goal. The BCS relies on an intense regular season with a more indecisive postseason, while the playoff system focuses on a large tournament of teams similar to NCAA basketball that capitalizes a less dramatic regular season.
The previous method for mending the cracks in the college football season, the BCS, has been a substantial improvement on its predecessors, but it still has a long way to go. The biggest flaw in the BCS is that it only works well if the regular season ends in specific fashion. If the regular season ends with many teams tied for the best record, it is very difficult to decide on two of those teams as the best without inciting a lot of controversy about the judgment. The BCS is also a system of oppression where the smaller teams do not have the power or the opportunity to be equals with the BCS conference teams (17). When this happens, there will always be unhappiness from the oppressed and it is just a matter of time until they change something to their favor. If the problem is solved by an agreement between both sides than maybe the solution would be a better long-term success.
How is college football played in such a way as to create maximum amount of competition? How can the league be set up so that smaller, non-BCS teams will be able to play on a more level playing field with much larger schools? How can both the BCS and playoff supporters agree on a postseason format that will make for the most exciting, competitive, and decisive college football season possible?
My paper is finished, but I would like to reflect a little on my growth as a thinker and a writer throughout the process of researching and writing on the college football postseason controversy as it may help you realize something about your own growth in relation to this topic. When I selected this binary to be the focus of my paper, it was originally because I was against the BCS system. As I began to learn more on the subject, my opinion slowly changed until I became much less in favor of just a playoff system, but instead I wanted to find any solution that would fix the problems currently facing college football and it's postseason. I believe that to truly attempt to fix something, the best way is to work together with your opposition in order to create a fair, lasting solution instead of one could soon be replaced because the other side is not satified with it. This is probably the most important information that I learned while reseaching and writing my paper, and designing this website. Although I have come a long way since I started and I have learned so much new information, there are some obstacles I cannot overcome as a thinker and a writer. Bias is something that is very hard, maybe impossible, to avoid althogether. I don't think I managed to acheive such a feat, but I did lose a lot of bias that I had about the BCS before I started working on this paper/website. I always root for the underdog, so I obviously favored a playoff system which would give smaller teams a better chance to compete. Other than having some bias, my biggest flaw is being too blind to see my other faults and problems clearly enough to write about them here.
(1) "College Football National Champions" http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cfchamps.shtm
(2) "Welcome" http://www.bcsfootball.org
(3) "TV Ratings up for Rose Bowl, Down for Title Game" http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/ncaa/specials/bowls/2003/01/05/bc.fbc.bowls.ratings.ap/
(4) "Congress Criticizes BCS" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(5) http://www.bcsfootball.org
(6) "Congress Criticizes BCS" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(7) "Congress Criticizes BCS" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(8)Rock, Brad "11-0 Utes Make Bowl History" http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595107022,00.html
(9) Wilson, Charlie "College Season Too Good to Change" http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/south0299_playoffs.html
(10) http://www.ncaafootball.net/index.php?s=&change_well_id=9994
(11) Wilson, Charlie "College Season Too Good to Change" http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/south0299_playoffs.html
(12) "SFAA College Football Playoff Proposals" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(13) "SFAA College Football Playoff Proposals" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(14) "SFAA College Football Playoff Proposals"http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
(15) Wilson, Charlie "College Season Too Good to Change" http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/south0299_playoffs.html
(16) Wilson, Charlie "College Season Too Good to Change" http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/south0299_playoffs.html
(17) "Congress Criticizes BCS" http://i.tsn.com/cfootball/articles/20030904/490733.html
