Keep the BCS:No Playoff Needed in College Football

"You better recognize!"

All we ever wanted to see was #1 play #2 and until 1998 we didn’t have that luxury. Previously #1 Alabama would have played in the Sugar Bowl and #2 Texas would have played in the Cotton Bowl on New Years Day. They both would’ve won their respective games and we’d have Co-Champions. The next morning we all would sit back in our recliners and say, “Man I wish that #1 could’ve played #2.” That’s all we ever wanted. Now that we’ve got it no one’s satisfied. The BCS has solved that dilemma. I here you in the background saying, “We need a playoff like the NFL.” That sounds great but it doesn’t make sense and here’s why. There are 120 teams in the FBS division formally known as Division 1 or D1.

 Within the D1 ranks there are 3 or 4 levels of competition, from the very best teams #1 Alabama and #2 Texas, using the 2009 rankings for example, down to the worst, #119 Eastern Kentucky and#120 Western Kentucky. The NFL has only 32 teams and 12 of them (37.5%) get to go to the playoffs. If we did the same thing in college football we’d have to put 45 teams in the playoffs if we want to be fair, right? That would be impossible to do because this isn’t basketball. You can only play one game a week not 2 like they do in the NCAA Tournament. I here you saying, “We only need the top 8 to play”. Well… 9, 10, 11 and 12 would be upset because we would still be voting on who gets to play and who doesn’t. So we really didn’t accomplish anything. All we want to see is #1 play #2, right? We’ll we’ve got that. You’re saying if we get rid of the bowls at the end of the season we could have a playoff. You’re right, but that would be unfair to 105 schools because there are only 15 schools that will ever win the national title. I’ll name them: USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Georgia, Florida St, Miami and Notre Dame if their administration ever wakes up. So what do you tell the other schools? It was nice doing business with you. See schools like Purdue, Indiana and Arizona will never even play for the title because they don’t get the players those schools previously mentioned get. If there isn’t a bowl for Purdue to play in after they’ve won 6 to 8 games on a good year what are those kids even playing for. Sure every 30 years or so they’ll get a player that everyone slept on like Drew Brees or Bob Grease and win the Big Ten Championship. However, they won’t ever play for a national title. It is what it is.

So by taking the bowl games away we cheat college football of the pageantry that is college football. It’s a playoff starting week one anyway. I still here you saying that those bowls are meaningless, we’ll… not to the kid playing at Missouri, Ole Miss or Western Michigan. The bowl game is their Super Bowl not to mention the revenue that the schools receive as a result of playing in those bowls. Do you realize that each bowl has a guaranteed payout for just showing up? If you’re fortunate enough to get to a BCS bowl it’s a $17 million payday whether you’re playing in the title game or not. The mid level bowls like the Chick-fila-A, Cotton and Outback pay $3 million each. The Sun Bowl which Purdue has participated in previous years pays out $1.9 million. Even if you play in a bottom tier bowl like the Emerald it’s worth $850,000 to your school.
So if you were the presidents of Fresno State and Wyoming would you have voted for a playoff or accepted the invite to this year’s New Mexico Bowl to make $750,000 just for showing up? See the greatness of college football is the pageantry and the excitement of the regular season and the culmination of events with the bowls. If I’m a Texas fan I’m not only concerned with the Longhorns, I’m concerned with all the chess pieces moving around it. Now really… did you want to take all that away just to see Alabama and Texas anyway? What's your opinion?

Jay Graves