2008 Woodie Awards
Chaotic college football season mandates change
Issue date: 12/4/07 Section: Editorials
There is no clear-cut winner of this year's Bowl Championship Series (BCS) poll, as both No. 1 Missouri and No. 2 West Virginia University have lost games. Traditionally, BCS champions have gone undefeated or suffered just one loss, however the only undefeated team in this year's top 25 is Hawaii; unfortunately they also played the easiest schedule in the country. And thus the debate begins of who really deserves to be playing for the championship.
This year's BCS confusion demonstrates why the college football rankings system must be reformed-and reformed correctly.
The way the current system is set up-based on computer system, national polls and the strength of a team's schedule-results in questionable rankings. Indeed an excellent, but third ranked team, stands no chance of playing for the national title. Moreover, basing the national championship game off of the BCS rankings limits the game to teams from the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, Big East and SEC. It is apparent that something needs to be done-something that protects the many rich traditions of the BCS but also better ensures its fairness.
One such alternative that this editorial board recommends is a 16-team playoff tournament. A playoff system would mean a team would have to play up to five games in a tournament setting, instead of just the one bowl game. The winners of the 11 major conferences and five at-large bids would decide the participants. Such a playoff schedule would likely boost fan interest by pairing exciting match-ups and would give more schools the opportunity to win a national championship. Such a system would be more equitable, as teams that currently have no chance to play for the national championship would be in contention. A tournament would also generate revenue for the NCAA, sponsors and the all of the schools involved.
However, holding a playoff tournament has the chance of discounting the bowl tradition. Games such as the Rose Bowl, have long been staples of college football and form a rich and historic component of the game. These bowl games also perennially sell out and raise an enormous amount of revenue. More thought is needed in order to figure out how to maintain the bowl tradition, where bowls are always played by the winners of specific conferences, in a season where the national championship is to be decided by a tournament. Also, the addition of four more games to teams' schedules could add greater risk of injury.
The NCAA has recently renewed the BCS system for three years. While this extension has helped silence speculation about implementing a new rankings method over the next few years, the NCAA should use this time to come up with a strongerreplacement system. The replacement, however, must be well thought out and consider the numerous issues that a change might present.
This year's BCS confusion demonstrates why the college football rankings system must be reformed-and reformed correctly.
The way the current system is set up-based on computer system, national polls and the strength of a team's schedule-results in questionable rankings. Indeed an excellent, but third ranked team, stands no chance of playing for the national title. Moreover, basing the national championship game off of the BCS rankings limits the game to teams from the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, Big East and SEC. It is apparent that something needs to be done-something that protects the many rich traditions of the BCS but also better ensures its fairness.
One such alternative that this editorial board recommends is a 16-team playoff tournament. A playoff system would mean a team would have to play up to five games in a tournament setting, instead of just the one bowl game. The winners of the 11 major conferences and five at-large bids would decide the participants. Such a playoff schedule would likely boost fan interest by pairing exciting match-ups and would give more schools the opportunity to win a national championship. Such a system would be more equitable, as teams that currently have no chance to play for the national championship would be in contention. A tournament would also generate revenue for the NCAA, sponsors and the all of the schools involved.
However, holding a playoff tournament has the chance of discounting the bowl tradition. Games such as the Rose Bowl, have long been staples of college football and form a rich and historic component of the game. These bowl games also perennially sell out and raise an enormous amount of revenue. More thought is needed in order to figure out how to maintain the bowl tradition, where bowls are always played by the winners of specific conferences, in a season where the national championship is to be decided by a tournament. Also, the addition of four more games to teams' schedules could add greater risk of injury.
The NCAA has recently renewed the BCS system for three years. While this extension has helped silence speculation about implementing a new rankings method over the next few years, the NCAA should use this time to come up with a strongerreplacement system. The replacement, however, must be well thought out and consider the numerous issues that a change might present.
Be the first to comment on this story