College football needs a playoff

The 2004 collegiate football season is over and the University of Southern California Trojans are national football champions after a 55-19 victory against Oklahoma in last Tuesday night’s Bowl Championship Series title game. Picked No. 1 in the Associated Press’ preseason poll, USC is only the second team to begin and end the year at No. 1 since AP started the poll in 1950. A co-national champion in 2003, and with most of its brightest stars returning next year, many are predicting that Coach Pete Carroll is building college football’s next dynasty in Los Angeles.

Supporters of the BCS claim the season ended as it should have -- No. 1 USC playing No. 2 Oklahoma for the national championship.

Maybe, but the Auburn Tigers (who finished 13-0, won the Southeastern Conference title, and defeated Virginia Tech in the Nokia Sugar Bowl) feel they should have an opportunity to play for the national title as well. They are right. While it won’t happen this year for the Tigers, the BCS commissioners will consider a “plus one” bowl format t at their annual conference. This system will match the two top teams after the BCS bowls end.

The “plus one” format is a good first step in correcting an inherent problem of the current BCS structure, It often doesn’t answer the question of who is the best college team in the nation. Another inherent problem with the BCS format are the preseason polls. They prematurely set the pecking order of the top eight teams in the country. Traditional powerhouses from major football conferences like the Pac 10 (USC) and Big 12 (Oklahoma) get the nod at the expense of teams like Utah and Boise State that come from less recognized conferences.

Indeed, coming from a non-traditional powerhouse conference would hurt undefeated Utah this year even if the “plus one” format was operational. An additional game this year to decide the national championship would pit USC and Auburn, a member of the potent SEC. Utah would remain sitting on the sidelines.

That’s exactly why a national collegiate football playoff is needed. Championships should be won on the field, not decided by the AP media poll, USA Today/ESPN coaches poll, or a computer poll average. Each of these three components now counts for one-third of a team’s overall BCS score in the BCS standings.

It is also a system can be manipulated. During the final weeks of the season, University of Texas coach Mack Brown openly lobbied AP writers and fellow coaches to include the 10-1 Longhorns (to the exclusion of the 10-1 California Bears) in the final BCS standings. The effort worked and Texas played in the Rose Bowl.

A playoff series would end all of the controversy over who is the true college football champion, stop coaches from leaning on their buddies for votes in the BCS standing, and give fans what they want -- a playoff system. Sports Illustrated writer Josh Elliott has devised a relatively simple format:

• The top 12 teams, as determined by a BCS-type format, qualify for the playoffs.

• The top four teams receive byes and become host teams for four geographically logical bowl sites.

• The bottom eight teams play in four second-tier bowls two weeks prior to the quarterfinals.

• Teams would then move to the quarterfinals with the top seed playing the lowest surviving seed, and so on.

• The two remaining teams play for the national championship.

Simple enough, huh? So, why isn’t there a college football playoff system? Some argue that a playoff format would destroy the traditional bowl system that allows 56 teams -- almost half of NCAA 1-A schools -- to stamp their season a success by reaching the postseason. This is true.

Others contend that a playoff format would diminish interest in the regular season where every game is vital in achieving a high BCS ranking. This is partially true. Teams with more than one loss would probably be in the elite 12 reaching the playoffs so regular season games would remain important. However, early season games like Miami and Florida State or USC vs. Cal might lose some of their luster if fans believe these teams could meet again in the playoffs.

College presidents maintain that a four-round playoff would occur during final exams and extend the season into the next semester. Players would be hard-pressed to be students. The first statement is true, but with most of the top football powers in the nation boasting graduation rates barely approaching 60 percent, university leaders should be publicly condemned for continuing to promote the hoax that football players are “student athletes.”

What the college heads are really concerned about is tampering with a system that guarantees millions of dollars to teams in the major football conferences. Teams and conferences that participate in BCS games receive revenue from two sources, ABC Sports and the host bowls. The total revenue for the 2005 BCS games is projected to exceed $93 million. Nearly $5 million of that is guaranteed to the five lesser football conferences. The remaining cash is split into six equal shares (in 2004-05, each base share exceeded $14 million) for participants in the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl pays its participants directly through a separate contractual agreement.

The Jan. 3 edition of USA Today reported that the per team payout for teams participating in the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls ranged between $14 and $17 million dollars. The college presidents, and the businesses in these host cities, don’t want to kill this golden goose.

These huge sums of money have a corrupting influence on the BCS system. By lobbying his fellow coaches in what is essentially a popularity contest, UT Coach Mack Brown got his team into the BCS Bowl series and they pocketed more than $14 million dollars for playing in the Rose Bowl. Conversely, California dropped in the final BCS rankings because of Brown’s lobbying efforts, was then relegated to the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl in San Diego, and earned $2 million dollars. Football coaches, like anyone else, know how to work a system. It'll happen again.

The “plus one” format will become a reality next season because ABC knows it will be a huge moneymaker for its sports division. The BCS commissioners and American Football Coaches Association will play politics for the cameras and then sign on to the concept in the next few weeks. Rather than clarify who the true national football champion is, however, the new format will only further muddy the water -- there will always be a Utah left out in the cold. Vested interests aside, there is simply no substitute for a playoff system.

Retired Brigham Young football coach LaVell Edwards, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 stated: “Surely, the NCAA and Division 1-A football can join the other 23 intercollegiate sports and devise a system that determines a true champion, preserves the integrity of the game, and levels the playing field.” Edwards is right and the operative word in his statement is “integrity.” Preseason ratings, deference to the major conferences (and payoffs to the lesser conferences to go along with the system), and coaches involved in popularity contests to get BCS votes all show that the fix is in under the current system.

It’s either a football playoff to decide the national championship or the BCS will have to stop pretending, like the World Wide Wresting Federation, that the system is not rigged and the winner predetermined.