Tag: John Walters

NBCSports.com John Walters chimes in with a lame argument in favor of the BCS. Walters is a little different from the other BCS-apologists out there in that he framed his pitch as an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama, who recently reiterated his support for a college football playoff. Whenever I read these pro-BCS arguments, I feel compelled to pick them apart point by point (like I did with Tim Cowlishaw two weeks ago).

I will begin with my most ardent point (we’ll call it Item 1): The beauty of the alchemy of the unknown. College football offers unforeseen plot twists and turns each Saturday. It is a fragile yet fertile ecosystem, something that man could not knowingly create yet, now that it exists in its present form, he can appreciate. To attempt to “fix it” would no less befoul the college gridiron landscape than would unregulated drilling in Alaska.

So instituting a playoff would automatically ruin the “alchemy of the unknown”? What does that mean? Even with a playoff, college football will still offer unforeseen plot twists and turns each Saturday, just like the NFL does each Sunday.

It’s always funny when commentators wax poetic about the uniqueness of the college football championship format. They mention qualities (that would not suddenly go away with a playoff) as reasons to keep a bad system.

In your proposed universe, Mr. President-Elect, you only say you want an eight-team playoff. I humbly submit that conference champions must be a part of that, or you will never get buy-in. You’re not THAT powerful.

I don’t really care if the conference champions get an automatic bid, but let’s say they do. That eats up six of the eight playoff spots. There are still two spots for at-large bids, like undefeated teams from non-power conferences or the next best team in a power conference. How does this lower the impact of the regular season? If anything the competitiveness will be increased because all of those teams in the #6-#15 range will know that they have a legitimate shot to make the playoffs.

Even better, there could be a rule that conference champions will get an automatic berth, but only if they have fewer than four losses. This protects the conference champs, but if they have proven they aren’t elite, then they don’t get a berth. The power conferences might agree to this rule because they could just as easily benefit from it (by getting a second or third team in during a particularly strong season) as they could be hurt by it.

The intrigue of a team remaining perfect…of games that one month earlier no one could have foreseen as having an impact (I refer you to the landmark case of Pittsburgh v. West Virginia, 2007), would be forfeited under your plan.

Why would it be any less intriguing for a team to remain perfect? Does Walters only find it interesting because an undefeated team might get the shot to play in the BCS Championship Game? Isn’t there something intrinsically wrong with a system where a power conference team must go undefeated to have a shot to play for the title?

Simply put, the games between Labor Day and Thanksgiving would lose nearly all their juice — or have you noticed that college basketball is a back-burner sport from November through February?

Okay, now Walters is following the mindless drones that trip over themselves trying to put down college basketball’s regular season. Why aren’t they using a much better comparison – like the NFL? Isn’t that a closer estimation to what a college football playoff would mean for its regular season? After all, NFL teams play 16 games, while college basketball teams sometimes play 30 games. Which is the better comparison? They use college basketball as an example because using the NFL – the country’s most popular sport – would be counterproductive to their argument.

Item 2: Just because something is different does not mean that it is flawed (a truism to which you of all Americans must subscribe). Thanksgiving is the only federal holiday that falls on a Thursday, but would anyone want to tweak Thanksgiving? Pass an executive order mandating that Virginia stop referring to itself as a commonwealth? Edit Pulp Fiction so that it runs chronologically?

Pulp Fiction, by the way, is the very analogue of college football’s playoff as presently constituted: non-chronological, maddening, filled with heroes, villains and inexplicable moments (Why is Mr. Wolf wearing a tuxedo and attending a cocktail party at 8:30 a.m.?), and yet ultimately brilliant. Satisfying. A masterpiece.

While it’s true that “just because something is different does not mean that it is flawed,” it also doesn’t mean that it’s not flawed. Walters throws out a few examples to try to prove his point, but all he does is prove the exception to the rule. Sure, “Pulp Fiction” was a good movie, but how often does a movie like that work? And is he really comparing the BCS system to a Quentin Tarantino movie?!?

March Madness is at best half the tournament the BCS is. To win the NCAA basketball championship, a team must win six consecutive games, a run that almost every Division I team (with the possible exceptions of Oregon State and Northwestern) is capable of. To even advance to the BCS championship game a team must win twelve straight or twelve of thirteen. Which is more difficult?

Walters is missing something here – during March Madness team must win six consecutive games against the best competition in the country. That’s a little different than just having to win six consecutive games, which is a feat unto itself. He then states that college football teams must win twelve straight or twelve of thirteen to appear in the BCS Championship Game. Of course, winning this many games is an impressive feat as well, but the problem is that there are sometimes six or seven teams that have accomplished the exact same thing. What about them?

I will close with this, Mr. President-Elect. Just as “Drill, baby, drill” advocates fail to appreciate the grandeur of the millions of years of natural beauty they would be destroying in exchange for a few decades’ worth of oil, playoff advocates fail to appreciate that a postseason playoff would undermine the magic of the regular season.

A postseason playoff would undermine the magic of the regular season. BCS apologists keep repeating this position, so it must be true, right? Wrong. A playoff would be more inclusive which would only serve to increase the net competitiveness and excitement in college football. The rivalry games aren’t suddenly going to lose their meaning. Sure, there might be a game here or there that will become a little less important because both teams have a little breathing room to make the playoffs, but in that case we’re talking about two of the best teams in the land – does anyone think that a game between two top teams will suddenly lose its importance? And what about the multitude of games that suddenly become more important because they involve teams ranked in the aforementioned #6-#15 range that will be fighting tooth and nail for a playoff berth? Are BCS apologists simply ignoring the increased importance and competitiveness of those games?