**PROLOGUE **

I am an avid fan of college football with a pretty solid understanding of the fundamental differences in the sport compared to other major American sports. I am not an economist, booster, Athletic Director, or coach. I have, however, spent countless hours of my life discussing and arguing about the BCS/playoffs, and I even wrote a blog article before the 2007 season discussing the main points of the debate at that time. I am now attempting to consolidate the main arguments for a playoff system (and against the BCS) in a single reference point. 

I almost wrote these articles as a guide to counter the popular arguments towards a playoff. I decided a more objective view would be more effective, but throughout these articles I have essentially laid the ground plan for attacking the major talking points of the anti-BCS. I have attempted to logically display the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in these argument(s). I am not trying to defend the BCS with this opus as much as I am trying to show how playoffs don’t solve the perceived problems of the BCS, and only create more problems. 

The structure of these articles centers around three main concepts: (1) Title-determining systems in general, (2) the current structure of CFB and the role of the BCS within that structure, and (3) the problems of playoffs in reality. I admit that I have written a lot of words in this discussion, but they are all meant to weave these three concepts together in some way. Don’t get lost in the text, and always remember to keep these concepts in mind when reading these articles.

Those who push for a playoff system are attempting to right perceived wrongs in the present. My main worry regarding a playoff involves the unintended consequences of the future. Now I am not going to sit here and say I would be happy with a 16-team playoff in 2011, because in my opinion in no year have 16 teams ever shown they have an argument for being the best team. But I would adapt, as the college programs and conferences in the crosshairs would adapt. That adaptation of the players involved leads to hazy questions that the pro-playoff crowd does not attempt to answer at this time. They declare the current system unfair, and want to make extreme changes (mind you, without a consensus as to these changes) to correct the current system immediately without thinking about future implications. 

The concept of “fairness” is discussed at length when discussions about the BCS and playoffs arise. In anticipation of this journey, I re-read a great series of articles by the economist Thomas Sowell titled, “The Fallacy of Fairness.” (published on townhall.com). I suggest reading this as a general discussion of fairness, and how the concept has been morphed into an attempt to reward the lowest segment (of whatever grouping you can create) by “raising’ their position only by dragging down the level of the highest segment. I will post a quote (discussing multiculturalism) from this article here to conclude this prologue, discussing the societal limitations of accepting all cultures (or conferences/teams, if you will) as equal: 

“Under these severe constraints, all that is left is to blame others when the outcomes are different for different individuals and groups. Apparently those who are lagging are to continue to think and act as they have in the past – and yet somehow have better outcomes in the future. And, if they don’t get the same outcomes as others, then according to this way of seeing the world, it is society’s fault!”  

**TITLE-DETERMINATION **

Introduction 

The heart of this issue is how we crown a champion, or in nerdier terms, the “system of title-determination.” American sports and culture are playoff-centered. A system is developed to include a number of teams who play past the post-season. These teams square off against one another, in a particular format, in rounds. The winner of each round moves onto the next round, to face a companion champion of an analogous round. 

The format required in football limits the potential weeding out of weaker teams. Sports that can play more than one game per week can have multiple-game series without taking too much time to resolve themselves. Baseball and basketball, for example, can have series of seven games without anyone batting an eyelash (I will not argue that the NBA playoffs don’t drag on, however, but that is not a function of the format. It is a function of including too many teams). Football can be played approximately once per week, which severely limits the available formats. A playoff of eight teams would take half a year. This is not workable.

 A one-and-done, single game format is all but required with football. However, any time a one-and-done system is in place, the chances of an upset increase. A team can lose a game in a seven-game series and they will not cripple their chances of advancing. If you lose a one-and-done game, your chance at the title has been eliminated. The format for the system (and discussion) has been framed. Now we can move onto how we perceive the system. 

The pervasiveness of playoffs in American culture has led to many statements and conclusions which have become so common, they are accepted as fact. The most relevant example of such a conclusion is the saying that “champions win, when it counts.” Without this logical step, people would not be able to so quickly proclaim the winners of the playoffs as the champion, and a logical step to justify a system has become truth in the American lexicon. I see these logical conclusions as nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecy, and if you accept these comments as fact without question, you’re not willing to have a discussion about these issues and any input you may have regarding the BCS or playoffs is irrelevant. 

The irony of the hatred towards the BCS is that the BCS title system (not the BCS in its entirety) is, essentially, a playoff consisting of two teams. Or to describe it more accurately, the BCS title game is the final round of a playoff format. A true BCS would crown the team who is ranked at the top at the end of the championship games, and many who argue against the BCS essentially make this logical leap regarding the system. 

The mirroring of the title-determination of the BCS compared to the title-determination of playoffs leads us to the question: where is the anger of the BCS opponents targeted? This anger is towards the BCS’s system of inclusion/exclusion in the title determination process. So naturally, a discussion of inclusion and exclusion of the title-determining system is the starting point of the discussion. 

**Entitlements **

A playoff system (including the BCS) at its heart is a system of entitlements. If you meet whatever criteria (which we will discuss later) is necessary for inclusion according to the system, you are granted an entitlement into the process of title-determination. 

The question of entitlements is how equal each is. In a system where true home field advantage can be experienced, it can be argued that each entitlement is not equal. Having to play on the road makes a game more difficult, and therefore, this disadvantage decreases the value of the entitlement a small bit. This is the only argument I have seen that decreases the value of an entitlement, so this argument should only be used when discussing a system of playoffs with home-field advantage. Without the presence of home-field advantage, each entitlement is equal. 

This is an important point for the concept of the “next team,” which will be discussed later. To summarize, however, the argument for the third team in the current BCS is equal to the argument of the 5th team in a four-team playoff. To fully understand this point, you have to accept the concept of playoff entitlements.   As we have seen in other areas of life, an entitlement mentality creates a multitude of problems which will be discussed in more detail later.

Further, an unexpected consequence of an expanded playoff system will be lowering of standards of those given entitlements. Teams will adapt to do just enough to earn their entitlement, which will further complicate the system. The lack of competition among good teams (especially out of conference) will decrease the available data to judge and compare the teams in question. Those who take the easy road will be rewarded under this system, and excluding better teams who are not allowed to do this runs contrary to a system attempting to crown the best team as champion. 

**The “Best Team” vs. the “Best Team Right Now” **

The great divide in the theories of title determination at hand is those of perception. The admitted fear of playoff opponents centers on the discussion of the “best team” versus the “best team right now.” The champion of a playoff system will be the “best team right now” by default. The shift of focus from the regular season to the playoffs means that no matter how mediocre (or bad) the team in question was, all that matters is right now. The goal of the BCS system is to determine who the two “best teams” were over the course of the entire regular season. 

I argue that the entire point of any title determination should be a process wherein those teams who have arguments over being the best team over the course of the playing year should be given the entitlement of playing for the national title. I believe any system of title determination should strive first and foremost to crown the best team as champion. This is a simple, logical conclusion I have come to, and I believe any argument contrary to this should be discarded. Some playoff proponents are honest and fully admit that they want to create a system of entertainment (like March Madness) and not a system of determining the best team. As long as these people are honest in their position, I do not believe a response is necessary. It is their right to desire a system of entertainment, and not one that seeks to produce the best team as champion.

Playoff proponents argue that determining the “best team” is an impossible feat, as it is completely subjective and teams should “play it out on the field.” These arguments ignore the fact that when comparing teams, there exists a 12-13 game sample to give data for analysts to judge. They also ignore these 12-13 games as being played on the field, apparently, as their focus is on the playoffs and the “best team right now.” In fact the “best team right now” may not be the best description of the champion, as playoff proponents don’t care about discovering who the best team is; they only want to crown a champion (and upsets…lots of upsets). 

**“The Best Team” of 2007 **

In 2007 the BCS was criticized for pairing Ohio State (the consensus #1 team and only BCS team with a single loss) and LSU (the preseason favorite and SEC champion who had two losses, like West Virginia, Georgia, Virginia Tech, USC, and Oklahoma). A non-BCS undefeated (Hawaii) was left out of the title game in favor of a BCS team with two more losses, which had yet to occur. There were many arguments over who should get that second slot, which is nothing new. The argument only grew in size because the number of teams who could make a claim grew in size. It was argued that the BCS was an unworkable system, even with the champion (LSU) ending the year as the consensus champion and admitted best team over 2007. 

**“The Best Team Right Now” of 2007 **

The NFL had a dream matchup in the Super Bowl, with the New England Patriots marching their way through an undefeated regular season, demolishing multiple opponents along the way. One such opponent, the New York Giants, faced the Pats in the Super Bowl. What ensued was a greater embarrassment than any product the BCS had put into the sports discussion of America.   The Giants, who had already lost to the Pats, won the Super Bowl. 

The New York Giants went 9-7 in the regular season. The Giants were not the best team in their conference, and they failed to even win their division. The Giants lost two regular season games to the Cowboys, only to beat them in the playoffs. The Giants also lost to the Packers and Patriots, who they later beat in the playoffs. So the Giants were 0-4 against playoff opponents before the playoffs, yet they were crowned champion. The Giants are the epitome of the “best team right now.” 

College football has had these threats in this past decade. In 2001 LSU was a 3-loss regular season team who got hot late, slipped by the #2-ranked Tennessee in the SEC Championship, and who were playing as well as any team in the country to end 2001. The very next year, 2002 USC started rough, with 2 early losses. The finish?   A 30-point win over rival UCLA and a 20-point Orange Bowl win against then-#3 Iowa. USC finished as the top team, with two losses, in the highly-respected Sagarin poll. College football may have faced two straight years of champions comparable to the 2007 New York Giants. And I might add that both champions in the years of note are undisputed champions, with Ohio State going undefeated throughout 2002 and 2001 Miami being declared by many to be the greatest college team of all time. 

The threat of the “best team right now” winning the title is a very serious threat to college football, in my opinion. This worry exponentially increases with every new playoff proposal adding teams to the equation. Remember, as you expand the field of play, the field of entitlement will increase and the number of teams vying for that entitlement will also increase. This is because as you expand the number of entitlements, you will lower the standard of performance required to be given the entitlements at the back end. When the standards are lowered, more and more teams at the bottom will have a viable argument to be given a spot in the playoff. For example, in the NFL you can literally forfeit 25% of your games, and afterwards it is possible to make the playoffs by winning only 2/3 of your remaining games (which is 8 wins). Further, this year the NFC West champion is likely to only have seven wins. 

In addition, once the standards are lowered, those located towards the top of the system can secure their entitlement more easily and more quickly, and the integrity of the system itself will come under fire. Teams resting players at the end of the NFL season is so common now that the integrity of these final games is barely questioned (analysts question the strategy involved, but not the integrity of the free wins delivered). Ask the 2009 New York Jets how a team can benefit from this embarrassment. 

Re-read this final paragraph and think about it for a second. Is this unintended consequence good for the sport? Is this an improvement for college football?