With the BCS [Bowl Championship Series] college football ranking system drawing to a close, much debate has arisen over its effectiveness. Many claim the BCS destroyed college football, leaving hopeful and deserving teams out of the coveted BCS bowl games. These critics, ignorant to the inner workings of the system, often credit this inherent problem to the BCS to the computer aspect of the ranking system.
Most recently, the anti-BCS movement was fueled in 2012, when a supposedly overrated team, the Northern Illinois Huskies, received an invite to the prestigious Discover Orange Bowl, where they proved their insignificance by losing 31-10 to the Florida State Seminoles. The general public was quick to jump on the computer rankings that allowed Northern Illinois into the sixteenth spot that was needed to make the bowl game; furthermore, they failed to recognize that the other two thirds of the system, the human voting polls, ranked Northern Illinois as the sixteenth best team.
People forget that the beef of the rankings lies in the polls, and a major discrepancy would have to occur between the computer rankings and the poll rankings for there to be any major impact. These same people treat the imminent playoff system as the cure to the plague that is the BCS. This new playoff system, which begins in the 2014-2015 season, is designed to rid college football of the lingering errors of the BCS. The idea is simple: a committee of people, immersed in college football, chooses four teams that are worthy of receiving a playoff berth. The teams are ranked one through four. Then, seed one plays against seed four, and seed two plays seed three to decide the championship game.
Members of the playoff committee include former Secretary of State and college football fan, Condoleezza Rice, Oliver Luck, father of Andrew Luck and athletic director of West Virginia, and Archie Manning, a famous former Ole Miss Quarterback. While the résumés of these members are certainly impressive, many of the them still have jobs and other conflicts. If this is the case, how is this any more effective than the Coaches Poll, which has current college football coaches rank the top twenty five teams? In fact, it can be argued that the Coaches Poll is more accurate because the coaches study film of the opposing teams they may play.
While this idea might appear revolutionary and innovative at first, people ignore one major flaw. A multi-team playoff detracts from the regular season by giving teams with one or two losses the opportunity to win the National Championship. Just in this season, we witnessed the spectacular finish to the Alabama-Auburn game, a moment that defined the awe-inspiring sport that college football is.
Frankly, this game would not gave carried the same immense pressure with the new playoff system as it did with the current BCS system. Alabama would mostly likely reach the playoffs, despite the loss to Auburn. In other words, the new playoff system removes the fire underneath the feet of each team; it allows imperfection to suffice.
Also, where can the line be drawn as to how many teams make the postseason? People enjoy thrilling playoffs like March Madness, but implementing a system like this into college football makes the regular season meaningless.
Finally, people complain when one of two equally matched teams miss out on the second place spot in the BCS National Championship, arguing that the new playoff system solves this problem. However, similar debates would spark over the team that misses out on the fourth place spot in the playoffs.
As this new system approaches, I would just like to remind everyone that this playoff committee might not be as effective and brilliant as it appears.
