This post is in response to Bill Hancock’s article: “Playoffs hurt regular season.”
The premise of Executive Director Hancock’s article seems to be that a playoff has yet to gain a consensus, and therefore should not be adopted. His supporting reasons for this assertion use faulty logic, omissions of previous conflicting arguments, and irrelevant posturing.
First, he claims playoffs diminish and dilute the regular season. Untrue. In the BCS system, only games involving teams likely to finish first or second in the final standings really “matter.” As we’ve seen in the final weeks of each season, only a handful of teams fit this description. In contrast, a larger field playoff would produce an exponentially larger number of games that “matter.” How can a larger number be seen as diminishing?
Perhaps he views an increase in the number of meaningful games as dilution. If so, he must also believe demand for meaningful games is currently being satisfied; which would fly in the face of conventional wisdom, and probably come as a surprise to ALL college football fans. It’s more likely that a higher number of meaningful games would be universally well received.
Second, he claims, “It’s unrealistic to ask thousands of college students and fans to travel to faraway places week after week.” How does he know this? The closest equivalent, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, has no trouble filling arenas for its 74 games of 65 teams. Compare that to 15 games among 16 teams in an upper-division college football playoff, and it’s hard to see why Executive Director Hancock is being so pessimistic. In fairness, Hancock could be expecting THE SAME group of fans to travel to each of their teams’ games every week. But in my experience, not all fans attend all their teams’ games, currently.
Third, he claims that the opportunity for additional teams to compete for a championship would generate more controversy. In a quantitative sense, he could be correct. However, in a qualitative sense, he fails to admit that the nature of the controversy would shift from debating the worthiness of the top teams, to one debating those at the bottom.
It’s also worth noting that the BCS’s position on controversy has changed significantly over the years. Previous SEC Commissioner and BCS co-architect, Roy Kramer, said in 1999, “you people will write some great articles and we’ll have everyone in the world talking about college football. Isn’t that what we’re after anyway?” The BCS needs to explain this flip-flop. What exactly has happened since 1999 that’s made controversy something to be avoided where it once was embraced?
Fourth, Hancock makes a weak and irrelevant mention of student athletes and their long term athletic involvement. I actually agree with the statement he makes. I just wish he would have omitted it, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the alleged lack of consensus for a playoff. I don’t like to project motives, but it seems like he feels compelled to throw in an obligatory reference to student athletes… because, that’s obviously the BCS’s fourth major concern.
In conclusion, I believe Executive Director Hancock needs to reexamine the strength of his position against an upper-division college football playoff. Currently, his arguments don’t meet the critical thinking standards of the universities whose interests he claims he has at heart.