Football Playoff

The talk of a football playoff has been around for a while. It was brought up in 1999 when the BCS formed, it is brought up every time someone gets screwed, it is brought up every time Boise or TCU or another minor conference team does well, and even Obama, in his need to weigh in on every single thing under the sun, has expressed his opinion on it. Now, with the NCAA Basketball tournament going on, and VCU set to face Butler, many have started talking about how a football tournament would work.

Before I establish some ground rules of how it would work, let me be perfectly honest. I have, in the past, been against a playoff. I feel that it would ruin the regular season of football (Feldman agrees with me, to a certain extent).

I still feel this way, but I am warming up to the idea of a playoff. I will reach a conclusion as I go through the ground rules.

- I agree with Feldman in that it would have to be 8 teams or less. For one, football is not basketball. You cannot play multiple times a week. Going to eight teams means adding two games, and thus, two weeks. In a world full of concussions, injuries, and allegedly interest in academics and learning (or at least pretending to care about those things), adding two more games IS PLENTY. Therefore, we can already scrap Dodd's propsoal of a 16 game tourney, (although I will reference this article many times to make fun of Dodd).

-There will always be argument over who should be in. If here are four teams, there will be debate over the fifth team in (this year it would be oregon, auburn, and tcu, but you could easily argue Wisconsin vs Stanford!). If it is eight teams, you will argue who the eighth team should be. How do I know this? Look at the fucking basketball tournament. People, including myself, spend months arguing over who should be the last team into that tournament, and that has 68 teams! We sit here and say "No Way! Colorado and Alabama are way better than UAB and USC!), when 99% of the time, it doesnt matter; the other 1% is VCU.

- I would not automatically invite the conference champions. So again, Dodd's plan is kaput. Not only is it kaput, its fucking idiotic. No one said it has to work exactly like basketball, and invite every conference champion. And I know that people say "theres no way Hampton is going to beat Iowa State," or "theres no way that VCU is going to make the final four," but there would be no way that FIU would beat Auburn, or that any Sun Belt champion ever would beat the #1 team in the nation.

Why? Again, football is a different sport. The difference in athleticism between an SEC team and a Sun Belt team is more noticeable in football than it is in basketball. Also, football requires that players stay for 3+ years. I think that one of the equalizing factors for a lot of mid majors is their teams' chemistry and experience, where as the more traditional powers often times see their talent leave early for the NBA. Thats just a hunch though. The difference in athleticism is for real.

- Teams/conferences should not complain about not getting invited, since they already have a better chance than they do now. This may make sense and be obvious, but I can see it being a problem, and may actually be why Dodd invited everyone.

Say you're Virginia Tech last year. VT had no business being in the national championship game, and no one is arguing that, including VT people. VT wasn't one of the four best teams going into the bowl games last year. Again, no one is arguing that, although someone from their constituents could probably make some half ass claim otherwise. Therefore, if there was a four team playoff last year, no one should lose any sleep about VT not being invited, right?

I don't know if it would necessarily play out that way though, all because of conference affiliation/pride. I have a hard time believing that the ACC (or whoever it would be for any example any year), would sit idlely and be left out. Currently, only two teams and two conferences play for a title. BUT, the BCS takes care of everyone else. Therefore, this year the Big10 still made out pretty well, despite not having a team that had any chance of winning the championship. If you make the change, you're going to lose money, and thats what this is all about. Right now, the 6 BCS conferences are guaranteed money. So while the teams in the Sugar Bowl may not be playing for the title, they are getting paid. If you change the format, and make a four game tournament, now, all of a sudden, what are Ohio State and Arkansas playing for? They can still play on a neutral. It can still be a great game. The atmosphere may be the same, but they and their conferences wont get paid the same.

Despite what anyone tells you, this is the #1 reason why there isn't a playoff to this date. Isn't it interesting that this has all of a sudden become an issue that is discussed in Washington and congress? Well, go back through the history of this, and see which senators are proposing a playoff.........it isn't senators from any states such as Alabama, Ohio, California, Florida, but states like Utah and Idaho. Hmmmmmm, didnt those states recently have public universities in which their football teams did pretty well, but had to settle for minor BCS bowl victories?????


That all being said, I would not mind if there were a four team tournament....no more. These debates usually come down to 3 teams anyway. THis accomplishes a few things, and prevents a few others:

Let's say Arkansas was a top 8 team last year (they were 8th in the BCS going into the bowls). THis prevents Arkansas from winning the national championship. Does this sound unfair? It shouldnt. Why? Because Arkansas lost to Alabama and Auburn in the regular season. Tough shit, you should have won. If they had, they would have been in the real national championship. Critics of the tournament (including myself) feel that the tournament would take away from the importance of every single regular season game. Going to eight teams might; it wouldn't matter that Auburn beat Arkansas by 22 points in the regular season, because now, they would play again on a neutral field. As we see in basketball, the more teams you invite, the more likely someone unlikely is going to go far. The more likely it is that somone unlikely goes far, the more you delegitimize the regular season; if that makes sense.

But if you stick to four, you can see that there isn't a lot of bitching and moaning. The top 4 last year would have been Aubrun, Oregon, TCU, Stanford. Again, Wisconsin would argue that they deserve to be in there, but again, I would argue that they wouldnt be in a title game under the old rules, so tough shit. Now, critics of non-BCS schools criticize their soft schedule. If TCU went undefeated, and then beat Oregon and Auburn in consecutive weeks, I don't think anyone could argue against them being the national champion. It wouldnt be the same situation as VCU in basketball. You hear that Dodd? It WOULDNT. It does NOT deligitamize the regular season, because you still have to do a lot to make the top 4, and that is something that is hard earned.

I would go back and give the top four for every single year of the BCS, but I'm about to leave work. Instead, I will go back one year, to 2009-10. The top four was Alabama, Texas, Cincinatti, and TCU. Dodd proposes the question "would you be ready for Cinci to win the title?" Well, they went 12-0 in 2009. They ended up losing by a lot to Florida in the Sugar Bowl. BUT. If they went 12-0. And then they beat Texas, and then Alabama, then...FUCK YES, I would have no problem saying they are the national champion.

THis is what he doesnt understand. Just because a team isnt a traditional power doesnt mean they are undeserving. VCU is not a traditional power, AND they lost a lot of games this year, finished 4th in the CAA, and etc, etc.... Cinci is not a traditional football power, but they went 12-0 during the season, and under this hypothetical, they would be 14-0 with two more incredible wins. That, to me, is totally deserving of a national championship. By the way, in 2009, Florida finished 5th - no crying there, they shoulda beat Alabama in the SEC title (who played a perfect game IMO).

So, there you have it. I'm all for a four team playoff. I switched sides. Now, we just need all the execs to figure out how to make more money off of it than they do now to implement it.


Clip of the Day? When you're pressed for time, just go to your bread and butter.......Musburger, Rose Bowl, Great Game, and the all time best announcing call at 6:23.