Last spring’s news about the BCS rejection of any semblance of a playoff is only a symptom of the powerful’s determination to keep its stranglehold on the authority to grant the title of football supremacy.
The vestiges of a former era designed to protect the powerful and elite at the expense of the weak continues to reign, only because the people haven’t realized their own power.
The current system, whereby a veritable aristocracy of football elites chooses representatives from among its own ranks, is fraught with inequity and controversy. The plebeians clamor for a more just arrangement, while the power brokers ignore them with impunity.
Ever since its inception in 1998, the Bowl Championship Series has not been able to soften the din of cries for its replacement with a true, tournament-style playoff system. Among the most passionate opponents of the tyrannical system are the fans of schools from the non-BCS conferences which have virtually no chance of vying for the title.
Schools from conferences like the Mountain West, Mid-American, and Western Athletic Conference have heretofore played the part of loyal opposition—playing by the rules in return for the slimmest of chances to play for glory and reap in huge rewards. Meanwhile, year after year, the BCS conferences get richer and more entrenched in their power.
It is high time these loyalists to the current regime band together and secede from the Union.
The larger, richer BCS conferences, of which there are six, can safely ignore the mid-majors under the status quo. The current power structure heavily favors the larger conferences, but rests purely on the “consent of the governed.” The latter should dissent, in a violent way.
The way forward for the non-BCS conferences is to stage an open rebellion, whereby they format their own playoff system. They could call it the “Football Playoff Series” (FPS) and, starting from scratch, would be free to design the optimum scheme. It should have in mind three goals: to provide a more exciting postseason for college football fans, to earn its participants’ more money than they currently get, and to force the BCS to reform.
According to the rules of the new FPS, all participating schools would agree to boycott BCS games, even if invited. They would then stage their own 16-team playoff, to be scheduled against BCS game time slots. Let the viewing public decide which they’d prefer to see.
Under fair rules, even the lowliest conference would send a representative to the tournament, providing possibilities of Cinderella stories and thrilling moments. Much like the NCAA basketball tournament, the ultimate winner would usually be one of the grittiest, toughest, most battle-tested teams, even if an underdog.
Thus, the FPS would crown its own, dare I say, more legitimate? champion—casting doubt on the superiority of the BCS winner. With 15 games to be played (beginning before Christmas and ending sometime in mid-January,) the FPS would clearly increase revenue over the paltry sums they get now. With a hiatus in college football, viewers would abound during the first weeks, especially given the opportunities to see exciting teams and upset possibilities. By the time the field was narrowed to four teams, television audiences would rival at least non-BCS bowls. And if these conference commissioners don’t think a true championship game would attract as big an audience as a non-championship Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl—which is as far as mid-majors would ever get anyway—then they aren’t worth whatever salaries they’re getting.
A real football playoff would certainly bring NFL scouts to the stands, which in turn would attract more blue chip recruits to the FPS schools, and the balance of power would slowly correct itself.
Though it may take a couple of years, it would eventually become evident that there is more money and fan support in the FPS, at which point the scenarios all play in the FPS’ favor.
One possibility is that the BCS ignores the upstart and leaves the FPS conferences in a better state than before. Either way, the FPS is making more money, attracting better athletes, and rewarding a more loyal fan base.
Or, the BCS sees the new champion as a threat to its own legitimacy and proposes an ultimate bowl game featuring the BCS champ and the FPS champ, similar to the way the NFL and AFL agreed on a championship in 1967. You want to talk about ratings? The first Superbowl had nothing on this.
Most likely, the BCS would amend their own system to be more equitable and some sort of merger would result.
To quote a unionist, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” The BCS is unfair and ill-conceived, and any real football enthusiast knows it. Only when the BCS house of cards falls will we have a more perfect Union in college football.
3 comments:
It's good to see the time and voice of the people dedicated to what really matters...college football. A dynamic established for the rich to argue about supremacy with the richer. While it's true that mid-majors get left out in the cold in regards to recognition and draft-ability, it really comes down one thing - the closer to the top, the more money. However, regardless of which fan whines about which team is the "best" college football team in America, none of these schools are really suffering financially. Billions of dollars a year are poured into the system through advertising, boosters, and "prize" money. New fields and facilities are being built around the country, and I have yet to see a college team from mid-major on up ever take the field in old, dirty, need-to-be-replaced uniforms. College football has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is plenty to go around.
But even while schools like Boise State, Hawaii, and Utah can manage to find some share of the pie (which they have to share with their conference), how many students will end the year with more than $10,000 worth of debt from school loans? Money they mostly borrowed from the government, helping push the deficit up by borrowing on the credit of the United States. How many students will not finish college because of the almost annual fee/tuition hikes due to shortcoming in the budget for academic support? How many will not finish because their school only wanted them for their football skills? How many of my students will believe in the hype of athletics as their in-road to a life outside of their low-income community because our society idolizes and throws money at athletics?
The BCS is truly a troubled system, full of inequalities and elitism; but let's not kid ourselves, any school that can't afford to have a football program to be shunned by the BCS will simply shut it down (like my alma mater). Does this make the school worthless? Of course not. In fact, in some cases, some of that money can be diverted to support academics resulting in improved academic facilities, equipment, and scholarships. And if the purpose of college is to educate for a better citizen, society, and human being, perhaps the time has come to stop worrying about "will some broken, archaic system recognize the small pool of talent my alma mater has been able to collect" vs. "could my favorite college even make it out of the first round of a playoff system", and start focusing on the other thousands of students who quietly change themselves and the world in the classrooms.
Previous comment a bit verbose, but still good.
Great ideas on the play-off system and the revolt. I think a 16-team play-off with a rep from each of the 12 conferences is the best systems. The 4 "wild-card" spots can be for the PAC 10, SEC, and others who have top-ranked teams. That way, rankings still matter, because 4 non-conference champs get to go if they are ranked high.
And what I really like is that the emphasis goes back to conference play, where a conference champion means something. That is what college football is all about. Non-conference games are good practice, but not post-season life-or-death.
I nominate you commissioner of the CFPS.
Post a Comment