Last November, did you vote for or against a candidate who wants to run college football? Or did you not realize it was an issue? Tough shit, because that didn't stop Congress from staging hearings recently to berate those who choose the sport's national champion. The supposed lawmakers are trying to hassle the Bowl Championship Series into picking a winner their way; it's an exertion of power all can agree isn't spelled out in the Constitution, even near the document's end. People from every political spectrum can unite in nausea over such dumbassed intimidation.
Some of our shameful representatives held the committee so that they could call for a tournament following the regular season. You know what happened during the proceedings even if you didn't watch: they employed their standard method, namely self-righteous, finger-wagging lectures they think will appeal to dimmer voters. Think any press event about the FCC, only replace "Janet Jackson's nipple" with "The Big 10."
And, like harangues about how much breast private broadcasters should be allowed to flash onscreen, government infiltration into NCAA sports should piss off all sensible people -- regardless of party affiliation. One may be a pinko peacenik or fascist goon, but either way, all can agree that the government has more important things to screw up.
Plus, the legislative branch is trying to fix something that not everyone considers broken. Currently, the title game's participants are chosen through a combination of polling and computer models. It's not ideal; the two teams are determined by a formula more convoluted than Lost, and some number-3 teams will inevitably put forth compelling arguments for inclusion. But it's still an attempt to pick the two squads who performed the best during the regular slate to engage in a proper one-game clash for glory.
College football doesn't need a playoff: the regular season is already a playoff. If a team loses one game in September, they're probably out of the championship picture; if they lose another in October, they're definitely boned. Elite teams play elimination contests each time they play.
As it stands now, every fixture is important. Knowing that a defeat at any time could skunk title hopes is why so many fans lose their fucking minds when it comes to university-level football. It's not a religion -- they take it much more seriously than Mass.
Conversely, a team could laze through the foreplay of the regular season and then climax during a playoff to cheap satisfaction. Football should instead continue to reward those who have demonstrated that they can constantly make opponents their bitches.
A few postseason rounds would effectively give teams permission to slack off a few times; all they have to do is make the top eight, and they can then turn it on. Rewarding mediocrity would create a far worse example for our young people than even YouTube videos of Salvia users.
Plus, a tournament would mean three or four games on top of the current schedule, which will extend the season until approximately the summer solstice. That means student-athletes will spend even more time being athletic and less time being students. Don't our representatives want to take a stand against youths missing more classes? Or does Congress favor excused truancy? How dare you and up yours, Congress!
Capitol suits shouldn't be waging a sanctimonious battle on behalf of medium-sized colleges, either. Outsider schools whine about not getting a shot to win the title. But aside from the fact that bitching about fairness in sports is as pathetic as a struggling actor complaining it's too hard to break into Hollywood, the point is that it's up to the colleges to schedule tougher teams, or at least get the teams they have to play tougher. Instead of trying to tear down the big boys, the little boys should drink milk and do chin-ups until they can push back.
Either way, they shouldn't let a federal branch fight their battles. Even those who hate the way the sport chooses its champion should want Congress to cram it. If students who play football acted the way our government is in this case, they'd be rightly called bullies. Some of our elected officials are bigger pricks than those athletic brutes in Alpha Beta house.
Anthony Bialy is SG's no-jocks-required Sweaty Pursuits sports columnist. He follows sports religiously even though he's quite bad at them. He ran cross country and played rugby in college, and was horrid at both. He schedules his life around his favorite NHL team's games, and sadly lists his alma mater winning the NCAA basketball championship as his happiest moment. He likes other things besides sports, too, and requests a minute to think of them.
You make some very good points, but I still believe that a playoff system is the fairest one. With the BCS, ultimately who makes it to the title game is dependent on what team loses the earliest in the regular season and with parity the way it is, it is increasingly highly unlikely that many teams will make it through with an undefeated record.
Teams slack off many times during the regular season, particularly when they're playing a cream puff I-AA opponent chosen as slaughter for their homecoming game or as an early season tune-up before the tough conference opponents are on the schedule. And sometimes they slack off due to overconfidence no matter who they're playing that day. It's often very difficult unless you're a team insider to gauge the complexities of why a team is prepared or unprepared on game day---and rarely are they known until months or even years later.
There will be no perfect system, but a playoff at least tries to even the score. And yes, it will occasionally give rise to a Cinderella team from a weak conference who peaks at the exact right time, but then all teams hit peaks, too. It's been said before that the most any time can play its A game, for whatever reason, is five times. Football is a game of ebb and flow by its very nature and different systems have different ways of rewarding these ebbs and flows.
Anthony_Bialy
Buffalo, NY
February 2009
MAY 23, 2009 06:00 AM