A College Football Playoff System - Research Paper Example

College football has become a Saturday institution in American homes throughout the country. Graduates and undergraduates from small colleges and large universities alike feel a sense of unity with their student body as they cheer on the home team. But with the growing popularity of college football through the years, so has corporate influence over the sport grown. College football is now a multibillion-dollar industry thriving off the contributions of donors and the dollars of commercial advertisers. Perhaps because the system that runs college football championships, the Bowl Championship Series, has grown too fast for its own good, there are now significant problems with its structure. One of the deepest problems with this system, over which there is now considerable debate, is the validity of the bowl game concept for college football championship. While some advocate the BCS’s bowl game series, a growing voice advocates a playoff system like that seen in professional football and college basketball. Ultimately, this growing voice for the college football playoff gives a superior argument for why college football should adopt such a system. Firstly, the primary objection against a college football system is that such a structure is impractical; however, there is a playoff system that could very easily work (Suellentrop). One proposal is to give the six major conferences that currently hold power in the BCS an automatic bid to the playoff. When conferences pick their champions either by a championship game or by standing at the end of the year, the six winning teams then compete for the title of national champion. Under this system, “if you’re not good enough to win your conference, you’re not good enough to win the national championship” (Suellentrop). This system allows the most successful teams to decide among themselves who is the best by head-to-head play, instead of pitting two teams against one another in a single bowl game that decides only who is the best of that pairing. There are a number of criticisms to be leveled at the BCS. Although the system’s original intent was to provide an objective, logical, mathematical solution for deciding a team’s rankings, it often makes counterintuitive and downright wrong selections. In December 2010, for instance, the president of Boise State University criticized the BCS system for a computer error that likely dropped the team to number 10 in the national rankings. Frequently, these wrong rankings reflect the BCS’s attitude toward smaller schools from less well-respected conferences on the basis that those teams will not produce the same level of revenue as a larger school with more supporters. In December 2010, for instance, the president of Boise State University criticized the BCS system for a computer error that likely dropped the team to number 10 in the national rankings. Although the incident did not deprive Boise State of a bowl berth, under different circumstances (given Boise State’s place in the WAC, a less respected conference) it very likely could have left the college without a bowl (Cripe). Another criticism deals with the four major Bowl games played at the end of the college football season, into which only eight teams are admitted. Because some conferences have automatic bids to one of these games, these eight teams may not be the best (or even close to the best) teams in the nation. Some schools that are unfavorably regarded in the BCS system may be relegated to a less prestigious bowl simply on the basis of the BCS’s opinion of them. Lastly, since the BCS is largely comprised of computer algorithms to decide rankings of college teams for the bowl games, it is criticized for being easily manipulated by those who control the methods of determining bowl berths (Callaghan, Mucha and Porter). Because the BCS system leads to tremendous cash payoffs to larger schools, there is a lack of momentum in changing it, which makes a financial argument for introducing a playoff system necessary. Financially, a playoff system could benefit boosters, schools, and advertisers by removing any element of the BCS. According to sports writers Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan, removing the BCS in favor of a playoff system “would allow college football to end the most illogical business arrangement in all of sports: outsourcing its most profitable product, postseason football” (Wetzel, Peter and Passan).Under this revised system, college football teams outside of a playoff bracket would play in a bowl game to determine who would compete in a playoff; those teams who continue to win in the playoffs would receive cash rewards for their successes, which would come from advertisers and other revenue sources. Clearly, reabsorbing responsibility for the execution of its football games would entitle teams, universities, and their supporters to the revenues of the games played by the nation’s top football teams. And since there would be more net games played in a playoff system, with each game having its own sponsor, the potential for higher revenues exists under those conditions. Additionally, breaking up the BCS system may, in fact, be necessary in the coming years with pressure being exerted by the federal government on the basis of antitrust law. In 2009, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff challenged the legality of the Bowl Championship Series by citing the BCS’s ill-treatment of the Utes’ football team (Patashnik). Legal critics of the BCS claim that the Bowl Championship Series forms an unfair monopoly on college sports, which the federal government is legally obligated to break up. Like all other businesses, the BCS provides a service to paying customers; however, their business relies on their monopoly of college football sports in the United States. Those who believe, from a fan’s point of view, that college football teams ought to compete in a playoff system often cite this legal argument as support for why the BCS (which was founded upon the structure of bowl games) should be disbanded. But separate from financial and legal arguments, one could also argue that using a playoff system would benefit the student athletes competing in the sport. According to a 1996 conducted by Louis Amato, John M. Gandar, Irvin B. Tucker and Richard A. Zuber, a university’s responsibility is to provide academic incentives for their student athletes to graduate. Because of bowl games, football players (who tend to overestimate their professional prospects) practice more instead of studying for their classes. As a result of the bowl game system, graduation prospects for football players “appear to be related to the length of the season for bowl-bound teams” (193). This responsibility to their football players is often overlooked due to the financial consequences for colleges of playing their teams in bowl championship games. According to the authors, “our findings indicate that the movement from the current bowl system to a Division I-A playoff will actually improve the odds that a football player graduates” (Amato, Gandar and Tucker 187). There are many perspectives and arguments to take into consideration when judging the merits of keeping the current BCS system or scrapping it entirely in favor of a playoff system. It is not merely enough to say why the BCS ought not to exist anymore; in the absence of such a bowl-based system, it only makes sense for the NCAA to take control of college football championships, preferably in the form of a playoff system which rewards teams that can consistently perform at the end of the college football season. Because a playoff system is theoretically possible and clearly more desirable than our current system of bowl games, it seems apparent that the NCAA should be willing to experiment in ways to improve the fans’ game experience. Moving the current system back into the control of fans would return the sport back to those who brought it to prominent in the first place, and maintain that prominence through their commitment to their teams and respective institutions. Works Cited Amato, Louis, et al. "Bowls versus playoffs: The impact on football player graduation rates in the national collegiate athletic association." Economics of Education Review 15:2 (1996): 187-195. Callaghan, Thomas, Peter J. Mucha and Mason A. Porter. "The Bowl Championship Series: A Mathematical Review." Notices of the American Mathematical Society 51 (2004): 887-893. Cripe, Chadd. Boise State president Bob Kustra bashes BCS for computer error, lack of transparency, rewarding 'mediocre' seasons. 7 December 2010. 8 December 2010 . Patashnik, Josh. "The Problem With Utah's BCS Antitrust Claim." 11 January 2009. The New Republic. 6 December 2010 . Suellentrop, Chris. A College Football Playoff That Works. 24 October 2000. 6 December 2010 . Wetzel, Dan, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan. Death to the BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series. New York: Gotham, 2010. Read More