The ghosts of Georgia Tech 1990, Auburn 1983 and 2004, Utah 2008, and Oklahoma 1978, just to name a few, now hover over the carcass of the BCS.
The plan to bring a playoff system to big-time college football may leave us with snubs and what-ifs, but a four-team tournament will greatly reduce the frequency and outrageousness. It should never have taken this long for common sense to prevail.
In its 14-year existence, the BCS has generated such exasperation and disgust that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, a leading playoff resister, used the words "battered" and "treated like a piñata" to explain his shift.
But its predecessor, a "mythical national championship" determined by a combination of bowl results, polls and Ouija boards, was even more egregious. The bowls' rigid conference allegiances, before the BCS era, tended to keep top-ranked teams apart in the final week of the season.
The journey from then to now has been an odd one. On this issue, the West Coast defied its identity as a place of pioneers. The Pac-10, now Pac-12, long resisted the movement toward a playoff as vigilantly as Delany, but Commissioner Larry Scott weaned his members from their fixation with buggy-whip traditions.
"Historically, we've been very conservative, protective of the status quo, but we've had a complete cultural transformation," Scott said, via the Associated Press, at the commissioners' meeting Thursday in Chicago.
In return, there should be a fairly radical financial transformation. The TV money is expected to double the current intake from the big bowls, which are expected to function in rotation as the semifinal games. One can only guess the obscene amounts of cash that sponsors will dole out.
The biggest remaining question, of course, is how that money will be distributed. The large conferences could easily take the bulk of it, replicating the exclusionary qualities that have always made college football more of an aristocracy than a meritocracy.
The pedigreed conferences have certainly become more willing to bond with lower-born, nouveau riche schools. As a result, Boise State plans to move to the Big East, positioning itself to avoid a repeat of its 2006 and 2010 seasons, when undefeated seasons as a member of the have-not WAC failed to place the school in contention for the national title.
A new four-team playoff format, combined with the rise of the super-conferences, probably won't rectify that sort of slight. The plan tentatively calls for the four "best" teams to be chosen by a committee. The SEC, winner of the past six BCS titles, strongly preferred this option, presumably because it could anticipate placing multiple teams in the Football Final Four in any given year.
So imagine the next Boise State emerging in a lesser conference, perfect through the regular season, like the 2006 Broncos. That team got a bid to the Fiesta Bowl and beat Oklahoma 43-42 in overtime on a quasi-Statue of Liberty play that ranks as one of the most thrilling moments in college football history.
Ideally, in a playoff format, Boise State could have moved on to face Florida, which beat undefeated Ohio State in the BCS title game. Plenty of fans wondered how the Broncos would have fared in such a matchup. But Boise State was ranked eighth that year, meaning that it would not have been one of the four semifinalists.
Michigan (No. 3) and LSU (No. 4) probably would have faced Florida and Ohio State if there had been semifinals that year. (And no one would have known that, matched against No. 5 USC in the Rose Bowl, the Wolverines would founder 32-18.)
Boise State finished at 13-0, the only undefeated team in the country. In SEC country, you know what that means? Nothing. The Broncos didn't have to play Auburn, Alabama, LSU or Florida. Coming out of that tough crowd with a two-loss record would be platinum to Boise State's gold.
Likewise, Utah's undefeated 2008 team beat up on Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, raising fascinating questions about how the Utes would have done against Florida, the national champ, if they had met after the Gators beat Oklahoma. But a four-team playoff would undoubtedly have featured Texas or USC instead of Utah, then a member of the WAC.
The undefeated Auburn team of 2004, however, would have gotten a crack at USC after the Trojans beat Oklahoma in the semi-legitimate title game. All three were undefeated but, without a playoff, could not fight it out properly for the championship.
The new system can't answer every question about deserving champions, but it won't be haunted by an endless list of those that went officially unasked.
 |
| Don't expect football playoff to solve all debate |
The plan to bring a playoff system to big-time college football may leave us with snubs and what-ifs, but a four-team tournament will greatly reduce the frequency and outrageousness. It should never have taken this long for common sense to prevail.
In its 14-year existence, the BCS has generated such exasperation and disgust that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, a leading playoff resister, used the words "battered" and "treated like a piñata" to explain his shift.
But its predecessor, a "mythical national championship" determined by a combination of bowl results, polls and Ouija boards, was even more egregious. The bowls' rigid conference allegiances, before the BCS era, tended to keep top-ranked teams apart in the final week of the season.
The journey from then to now has been an odd one. On this issue, the West Coast defied its identity as a place of pioneers. The Pac-10, now Pac-12, long resisted the movement toward a playoff as vigilantly as Delany, but Commissioner Larry Scott weaned his members from their fixation with buggy-whip traditions.
"Historically, we've been very conservative, protective of the status quo, but we've had a complete cultural transformation," Scott said, via the Associated Press, at the commissioners' meeting Thursday in Chicago.
In return, there should be a fairly radical financial transformation. The TV money is expected to double the current intake from the big bowls, which are expected to function in rotation as the semifinal games. One can only guess the obscene amounts of cash that sponsors will dole out.
The biggest remaining question, of course, is how that money will be distributed. The large conferences could easily take the bulk of it, replicating the exclusionary qualities that have always made college football more of an aristocracy than a meritocracy.
The pedigreed conferences have certainly become more willing to bond with lower-born, nouveau riche schools. As a result, Boise State plans to move to the Big East, positioning itself to avoid a repeat of its 2006 and 2010 seasons, when undefeated seasons as a member of the have-not WAC failed to place the school in contention for the national title.
A new four-team playoff format, combined with the rise of the super-conferences, probably won't rectify that sort of slight. The plan tentatively calls for the four "best" teams to be chosen by a committee. The SEC, winner of the past six BCS titles, strongly preferred this option, presumably because it could anticipate placing multiple teams in the Football Final Four in any given year.
So imagine the next Boise State emerging in a lesser conference, perfect through the regular season, like the 2006 Broncos. That team got a bid to the Fiesta Bowl and beat Oklahoma 43-42 in overtime on a quasi-Statue of Liberty play that ranks as one of the most thrilling moments in college football history.
Ideally, in a playoff format, Boise State could have moved on to face Florida, which beat undefeated Ohio State in the BCS title game. Plenty of fans wondered how the Broncos would have fared in such a matchup. But Boise State was ranked eighth that year, meaning that it would not have been one of the four semifinalists.
Michigan (No. 3) and LSU (No. 4) probably would have faced Florida and Ohio State if there had been semifinals that year. (And no one would have known that, matched against No. 5 USC in the Rose Bowl, the Wolverines would founder 32-18.)
Boise State finished at 13-0, the only undefeated team in the country. In SEC country, you know what that means? Nothing. The Broncos didn't have to play Auburn, Alabama, LSU or Florida. Coming out of that tough crowd with a two-loss record would be platinum to Boise State's gold.
Likewise, Utah's undefeated 2008 team beat up on Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, raising fascinating questions about how the Utes would have done against Florida, the national champ, if they had met after the Gators beat Oklahoma. But a four-team playoff would undoubtedly have featured Texas or USC instead of Utah, then a member of the WAC.
The undefeated Auburn team of 2004, however, would have gotten a crack at USC after the Trojans beat Oklahoma in the semi-legitimate title game. All three were undefeated but, without a playoff, could not fight it out properly for the championship.
The new system can't answer every question about deserving champions, but it won't be haunted by an endless list of those that went officially unasked.
0 comments:
Post a Comment