How was this bowl season better than a playoff?

Auburn Tigers quarterback Cam Newton (R) is tackled by Oregon Ducks Spencer Paysinger during the second quarter in the NCAA BCS National Championship college football game in Glendale, Arizona, January 10, 2011. REUTERS/Mike Blake (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT FOOTBALL IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Bill Hancock seems like a nice enough guy but he’s delusional if he thinks that this past bowl season was a rousing success and that it proved that there’s no need for a playoff.

First and foremost, that title game was terrible. It may have had an exciting finish but a great game it was not.

Two of the most explosive offenses in the nation were on display Monday night and yet, you couldn’t have asked for worse field conditions. This should have been the most entertaining game of the season but from the opening kickoff, players resembled hockey players sliding on a sheet of ice. Neither team could catch their footing, which is probably why the combined score totaled only 41 points (or 31 fewer points than what Vegas installed for the over/under). How does this happen in an indoor stadium when the grass can easily be maintained?

Granted, it’s not the BCS’ fault that the game was rather lousy on a whole. Even if there were a playoff, there would be no guarantee that all the games would be exciting. But at the very least, the teams would be playing for something every week.

The matchup between Auburn and Oregon was dead on, but the BCS largely struck out with its other games. They made Stanford fly cross-country just to crush an overmatched Virginia Tech team and there’s no reason to relive the Oklahoma-UConn debacle.

The Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl were both highly entertaining – I’ll give the BCS that. But why must there be a long delay between the BCS bowl games and the championship? And for the love of college football, why were the Go Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, the BBVA Compass Bowl and the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl shown as a lead up to the national title game? I felt bad for the kids who played in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl because nobody cared by that point. They made those poor kids play on Sunday night following four NFL playoff games – only action junkies tuned into that one.

The five BCS games should all be shown in succession. The Rose Bowl is on New Year’s Day, while the Fiesta Bowl is shown on New Year’s night. The Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl can take turns rotating between Monday and Tuesday following the final week of the NFL.

Finally, on Thursday, the BCS should have its title game. Doesn’t that make more sense instead of having five meaningless bowls leading up to the NC? I actually don’t mind that there are 35 bowl games because I love football and would watch a simulated Tecmo Football video game right now. But why not save your best games for last?

I can’t understand how the BCS can actually believe that this system is better than having a playoff. They say that this is better for the students but how? How is it better for the students that the bowl season lasts six weeks when a playoff could be wrapped up in a shorter period of time? How was it better for the student athletes at Boston College and Nevada to wait six weeks to play in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl at 9:00PM ET on a Sunday night before the national title game?

This isn’t meant to be a dig at the players, by the way. They work hard and they deserve to be on ESPN for whatever bowl game they play in. What I’m saying is they deserve to play in a playoff tournament that would bring out the natural excitement that surrounds college football. What I’m saying is: They deserve more.

This bowl season was not a success. I don’t care how much guys like Hancock spin it.

Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.

Related Posts