If fair-minded and honest sports fans required any more evidence that the Football Bowl Subdivision is in desperate need of fundamental change in the way it crowns its title, then Utah's defeat of Alabam in the Sugarbowl should be it.
The major conferences have been determined to keep their stranglehold on the authority to grant the title of football supremacy.
The vestiges of a tired era designed to protect the established powers 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, Conference USA, and Western Athletic Conference have heretofore assumed the role of loyal opposition—playing by the rules in return for the slimmest of chances to spend but a fleeting moment in the spotlight in 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 which would only leave 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.”
Imagine if Utah, TCU, Tulsa, and Boise State vied for number one in a playoff. Might we now be talking about a ratings war against games like the Fiesta Bowl? And even if the polls and computers voted for the BCS champ this year, a Utah would have a trophy and a tournament to boast.
BCS Commissioners are not going to vote against their interests, it's time the non-BCS commissioners did the right thing in the name of a more perfect union.
No comments:
Post a Comment