Prelude To The Debate: College Football Playoffs

by PB @ BON on Feb 13, 2007 9:46 AM CST in Football

This is part one of a series of essays on college football and the question of a playoff system to crown the national champion. The next set of essays will be a long analysis from reader Billyzane, and shall serve as the prelude to the forthcoming Great Debate between Kyle and SMQ on this very topic.

ESPN's Page 2 has a very thoughtful cautionary letter to the editor about what's wrong with the National Football League. Penned by Page 2 founder Jay Lovinger and columnist Patrick Hruby, the letter offers a point-by-point counterpunch to the usual NFL storyline of, "The NFL is bigger and better than ever, and can't be slowed down."

While I found myself nodding vigorously with most of the points, it was the affect the letter had on my thinking about a college football playoff that was most surprising. My feelings about how the letter related to college football evolved as I read through the arguments, but didn't come to a head until I got to the comment section at the end of the article. (ESPN now lets readers comment on stories, much in the way we do here at BON.)

The very first commenter, naming himself 'steelercrazy,' wrote:

If college football ever gets its act together and creates a 16-team playoff, a big chunk of fan interest in the NFL will disipate during mid-December to mid-January. Who isn't more interested in March Madness than the NBA Playoffs? The NFL will always be #1, but I do think the league has already reached its peak of popularity. Everything Hurby and Lovinger mentioned rings true, while "Holiday Madness" would create even more damage.

In the short- and maybe even medium-term, that may very well be true, but it was an odd comment to leave at the tail end of this particular letter. After all, one of Lovinger and Hruby's loudest complaints was the over-commercialization, over-hyping, and ridiculous ubiquity of the National Football League. Wouldn't a year-end playoff in college football make the sport more, and not less, like the NFL? Wouldn't a CFB playoff glitzify the sport in a way that made it more like the NFL's little sister, instead of its distant cousin?

In lusting for a college football playoff over the years, I've often focused on the notion of crowning the "right" team national championship, but if there was one big theme of the more philosophical banter during this college football season, it was that this may very well be a wild goose chase; in a game like football, played among a universe of 100+ teams, such a notion may be a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules which necessarily govern the operating system.

Justifying a college football playoff with the idea of "crowning the right team champion," then, may be a fool's errand, while simultaneously subjecting the sport to further commercialization, over-extension, and marketing of the sport to the lowest common denominator. Might we be better off leaving the sport as is? Or, better yet, returning it to how it once was, with all the bowls on one day and less obsession with finding the perfect system to crown someone #1?

I'm not sure, but the ugly side of the NFL as World's Biggest Sport gives me pause and reason to consider whether rocketing down the road that we're on really is - in the long-term view - best for the sport. Given the direction things are headed, there's little reason to think things actually will slow down, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask:

Is this what we really want?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

and so it begins....

i can't wait.

oh and "long analysis" might even be an understatement. i created a monster.

by billyzane on Feb 13, 2007 10:46 AM CST 0 recs

nfl

After all, one of Lovinger and Hruby's loudest complaints was the over-commercialization, over-hyping, and ridiculous ubiquity of the National Football League. Wouldn't a year-end playoff in college football make the sport more, and not less, like the NFL? Wouldn't a CFB playoff glitzify the sport in a way that made it more like the NFL's little sister, instead of its distant cousin?

College football is already there. With mostly meaningless games on almost every night of the week and annual excessive hype and teeth-gnashing over the BCS.

A lot of those problems that the NFL faces has nothing to do with its playoff format. The pensions, arrests, and medical issues are specific to the league. Plus, the authors take some dramatic leaps and assumptions (more teams, more games?), but the only thing Tagliabue ever wanted (not sure how high it is on Goodell's list) was to get a team into Los Angeles.

I'm not sure how you can compare the two. The hype for Texas-USC was tremendous as it was for all the other BCS championship games the last few years. Some games live up to it and some don't. That's not a failing of the sport, but a result of the unpredictability of it.

I'm just not seeing the comparison.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 13, 2007 10:57 AM CST 0 recs

Well

The question is which direction a college football playoff - if implemented - would move us toward. I don't think it's arguable that it would add to the commercialization and hypifying of the sport.

I agree wholeheartedly that we're already more than halfway there; the question is whether we want to keep going down this path. Given the realities of the situation (which we both note, and agree on), the argument is largely academic. I'm more than happy to concede that point.

That underlying reality doesn't make the question not worth asking, any more than asking "Is globalization a good thing for everyone?" a good idea, too. Yeah: globalization isn't going to stop, but it's worth talking about, anyway.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 13, 2007 12:30 PM CST up 0 recs

Can we debate global economic policy?

I'm down for that.

by Wells on Feb 13, 2007 1:07 PM CST up 0 recs

playoff

Well, I wasn't necessarily saying the question wasn't worth asking. However, I do think that a playoff would lead us down the exact same road as the BCS is now in terms of commercialization. And for me, hype is what it is - you choose to bathe in the excess or ignore it.

But to answer your question, I don't think the path college football is on right now is a bad one, just like I don't think the on-the-field product in the NFL is bad, either. There's nothing worse than older people clamoring for the "good ole days" of their youth. If you lived in DFW and had to listen to Dale Hansen for 5 seconds you would understand how annoying that is. The NFL has its share of problems, but contrary to the authors' view, those problems only exist on the field in their imaginations.

That's why I don't see any dire consequences for the college game, because those same problems don't translate to the NCAA.

And I think I lost anybody reading this halfway through. Sorry for the ramble.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 13, 2007 1:33 PM CST up 0 recs

And

I'm not necessarily in disagreement over that. I followed you.

Pining for the days of yesteryear often involves revisionist history, too - remembering things as "better back then," when there were a slew of problems during that time, too.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 13, 2007 2:42 PM CST up 0 recs

"Is this what we really want?"

What I want is simple. I want it to be decided on the field.

College basketball, NFL, NBA, MLB... they sometimes don't crown "the Right team" Champion. Especially in the NFL, & college basketball when it is 1 and done. But it cannot be argued because the team that lost - "LOST"!

Thats what I want.

We have a Mythical National Champion right now. I want an Actual Nation Champion.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Feb 13, 2007 11:25 AM CST 0 recs

"decided on the field"

I don't want to get too deep into this because my thoughts on the issue are going to be expressed in long-winded fashion pretty soon, but one of the major points of the piece that I wrote is that the question of "what is the best system for crowning a national champion of college football?" is not as simple as saying "it should be settled on the field." There's more to it than that.

by billyzane on Feb 13, 2007 2:04 PM CST up 0 recs

It's Just That Simple

Granted, there are certain outside factors affecting it. Namely, working around finals, deciding who gets the chance to play in the playoffs, etc. But if you're talking strictly in terms of competition, there is no better way. The best team will be the one that is able to win all of the important games against the other good teams.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 13, 2007 3:05 PM CST up 0 recs

well...

my forthcoming post will hopefully change your mind on that matter, or at least make you think about it more. i'll wait to respond until it gets posted.

by billyzane on Feb 13, 2007 3:24 PM CST up 0 recs

we'll see

i'm on pins and needles

by Jason Mayer on Feb 13, 2007 3:32 PM CST up 0 recs

Agree with SwimTexas

It is what I really want.

I don't think commercialization is inherently bad. It is what has allowed UT to have a large enough and rabid enough fan base to support this great site. It is when short term commercialization is the driving factor without looking at the long term effects to the fans that it becomes a problem.

Also, a college playoff does not have to be similar to the NFL. both the NBA and the NCAA have playoff systems, but the only think similar about them is the game itself.

by Wells on Feb 13, 2007 11:40 AM CST 0 recs

D1aa tourny is a blast

I don't know if anyone follows D1aa football, but their tournament is a ton of fun to watch and follow.

Imagine if Texas got to play in a multiple game tourny that would take them from Ann Arbor to Gainesville to Berkley over a couple of weeks, then on to the Fiesta/Sugar/Rose/Orange for the MNC. Each week the pressure builds and builds, while Texas fans follow their team on a college town odyssey.

Watching the D1aa tourny you can see the momentum mount with the fan base each week. It becomes like a traveling circus.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Feb 13, 2007 11:51 AM CST 0 recs

fears overblown

while the correlation between an event's popularity and commercial interest is inherently positive, what separates CFB from the NFL and will forever protect college athletics from becoming "too commercial" are the NCAA's non-profit status and marriage to education, which serve as barriers to expansion. While the boundaries are currently being flexed (see broadcaster influence in the time length of games), they will not/cannot break, else the hundreds of members of the NCAA would face millions in taxes and penalties.

Like any business confined to a (relatively)niche market, to survive the overall quality of the product must remain high, which is why the BCS contract will expire and a December-madness system will develop...hopefully in time for our children to enjoy.

by the12thManchild on Feb 13, 2007 1:13 PM CST 0 recs

Any predictions

On who would have won the 2006 tourney had there ben one in place?

"Excuse me while I whip this out."

by FreedomDip on Feb 13, 2007 3:16 PM CST 0 recs

florida or lsu

both teams ended the year with amazing bowl games, although lsu was more impressive at the end of the season leading up to the bowl. florida had a couple of games that made you scratch your head. of course, they made up for those in the bcs mnc game

...til Gabriel blows his horn

by BigTexBD on Feb 13, 2007 5:46 PM CST 0 recs

I hope I'm not too late to jump in here

The way I see it, there are too kinds of winning. One kind is winning consistently: you can be counted on to win or compete in any game in which you take the field. Your ability to win games again and again and again is tested in the regular season. The teams that prove themselves steady and solid will rise to the top during this endurance test, while those who prove themselves unfit for this challenge will sink to the bottom.

But there is another type of winning- the type tested in the playoffs. This type of winning is the ability to win one game, at any time, no matter the circumstances. This could be thought of as the sprint as opposed to the regular season marathon.

The first type of winning, the marathon, is rewarded most overseas in soccer leagues where the winner is the team with the best record, while the playoffs are things like the European Championship, and, of course, the World Cup. So what essentially happens is you have regular season-type teams and playoff-type teams, each built specifically for that purpose.

The club soccer teams, even, say, Real Madrid, have almost no chance in a single game against the national powers of Brazil, France, and Italy. Conversely, a national team would have too many issues with all of its star players that it runs the risk of imploding over the long haul, not to mention that most leagues would never allow such a team. I know I'm generalizing, but all of this is to say that these teams are ill-equipped in the "style" of winning they are not built for.

Now compare this to American sports, with the exception of IA college football. The regular season determines who can win over the long haul. The playoffs determine who, of those teams, can win in any given moment. Thus, you have an "all-around" champion who has proven themselves winners in both ways.

Take, for example, the San Diego Chargers, who proved themselves the best endurance team out of a rather mundane NFL. Had the NFL used the soccer method, the Chargers and Ravens would be fighting down the stretch for the AFC title.

Both teams lost in their first playoff game, despite facing semi-injured teams and despite having home-field advantage. They proved themselves incapable of winning when it counted- they proved themselves poor sprinters.

Instead, we saw the Colts, who had a respectable but not remarkable 12-4 record, who had run down a bit at teh end of the year, win when it mattered most, something many (including me) thought they couldn't do. The Colts win a Super Bowl, and everyone's happey except Bears fans. More importantly, nobody questions their legitimacy or their versatility (as far as winning is concerned).

You could even take as an example the BCS championship, as the BCS is basically a two-team playoff. Ohio State, the regular season champ, the seminal favorite, was thrashed by underdog Florida, who had survived a tougher season than tOSU and come away with a single loss, to a talented Auburn team. Ohio State's most difficult opponents were Texas and Michigan, both teams with several glaring weak points that were exposed over the course of the season.

The only complaint I have is that sometimes the playoffs can get to big in American sports. I don't like the NBA playoffs (the early rounds, anyway) because they're bloated and allow poor teams to be rewarded for being less poor than others. The NFL has only four less teams, admittedly, but is still makes a huge difference in quality. (This is likely due to the wild-card format which groups comparably-talented teams together, for the most part.) Sometimes the playoffs aren't terribly exciting, but the format can often produce memorable results (The Drive, The Catch, Scott Norwood, etc.).

Effective playoffs are small, but not too small (otherwise, you've got two teams and it's the BCS). I'd like to see a six-team playoff in college football. It rewards the best of the best with first-round byes, but also gives other deserving teams a chance at the playofs, without being so inclusive as to reward teams that have no business there- do we really want to see the Sun Belt champ get destroyed in the name of automatic bids? It works in college basketball, but not in football. To combat rust, I would place the first two rounds immediately following the conference championship. The regular bowl season would commence once we find out who will play in the championship (just like it is now), and the title game will be the last game of the season.

(I'm not very good at conclusions, and this turned out to be a lot longer than I expected when I started typing, so I'll just shut up for now.)

by boomhauer25 on Feb 13, 2007 8:03 PM CST 0 recs

Soccer Argument

The soccer argument can not apply to any American sport because the soccer leagues that crown a regular season champion play everyone else in the league. The closest that comes to that is baseball, but it still has divisions and does not play every other team an even amount of times.

by Wells on Feb 14, 2007 12:56 PM CST up 0 recs

This is true

but I was not basing my argument on the applicability of soccer's schedule to American leagues.

My point is that the regular season rewards consistency and longevity, while the playoffs reward winning one game "when it counts." These are wo different ways of looking at winning. The American systems reward both while the European systems reward neither.

Just because American teams don't play the ENTIRE league doesn't mean the regular seasons aren't long enough to test consistent success.

by boomhauer25 on Feb 14, 2007 2:01 PM CST up 0 recs

Not neither

one or the other.

by boomhauer25 on Feb 14, 2007 2:02 PM CST up 0 recs

I agree to a point

But I think with a limited number of contestants you have the ability to declare a champion of the regular season that is fair because everyone has played the same group of teams. When it is impossible to do that, because of schedule constraints, striking a balance between regular season, to allow all teams to play a certain number of games and to reduce the number of teams that are worthy of playing for the championship, and then creating some kind of playoff seems to me to be the most fair way of determining a champion.

by Wells on Feb 14, 2007 3:15 PM CST up 0 recs

I see

The soccer example, then, was not the best I could have used, since the idea of "winning in the moment" is built in to the schedule. If you are a championship caliber team, then you will beat your rivals for the championship.

Perhaps I should have added a caveat: "When it is impractical for every team to play every other team, the "hybrid" season-playoff format used in American sports works best."

by boomhauer25 on Feb 14, 2007 4:23 PM CST up 0 recs

This isn't necessarily about

"crowning the right team" as national champion, but rather giving the "right teams" the chance to earn the title of national champion. Was Florida the "right team" this year? Maybe, maybe not not, but if they had beaten four of the top teams in the country in successive weeks then no one would be arguing.

Anyone who takes the "no playoff" side simply likes to argue and/or be different.

by Mike05 on Feb 13, 2007 9:10 PM CST 0 recs

That's bullshit

Someone who takes the no playoff stance might be thinking - A playoff system doesn't serve the best interests of collegiate football and the student athletes that are involved in it.

No, I'm not going to explain that further. I wasn't invited to the debate so screw you guys, I'm going home.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
http://www.cornnation.com

by cornnation on Feb 13, 2007 9:26 PM CST up 0 recs

2 points

a) i agree
b) you totally have a blog, you should get in on this.

by billyzane on Feb 13, 2007 9:31 PM CST up 0 recs

who's kidding who

Student athletes??? Come on. As soon as people stop hiding behind that self-righteous, pious argument, the sooner we can begin a real debate.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 13, 2007 9:45 PM CST up 0 recs

it's debatable...

...whether we should make them be more like student athletes or treat them more like professional athletes (instead of letting them hover somewhere in the middle), but i don't think it's debatable that anyone who's clinging to this argument as a reason against a playoff is being either dishonest or incredibly naive.

when i said "i agree" above, i meant with cornnation's assertion that not everyone who argues against a playoff is doing so just to be different. there are good arguments on all sides, depending on your perspective.

by billyzane on Feb 13, 2007 10:28 PM CST up 0 recs