View From Bennett Avenue

I just finished reading an editorial by New York Times writer Pete Thamel that lambasts college football for not instituting a playoff system. Because of a lack of a playoff system college football this season is "sputtering to the finish." The term "lackluster" is used in the headline and later in the article he negatively compares the college game to the NFL version because the NFL playoff system guarantees that "the top teams are usually left to play each other."

There is so much wrong with his analysis that I am unsure of where to begin. For one thing there is the tone, which is one of someone who does not seem to appreciate the basic joys of college football. I began a text Sunday morning to a friend, Patrick Carroll, with the line "another great day in cfb." Unlike Mr. Thamel I enjoyed a slate of games that featured a heavyweight clash between Alabama and Louisiana State, a stunning performance by Stanford in beating Oregon, wild finishes involving ranked teams such as Cincinnati, Houston, Georgia Tech and USC and upsets of Northwestern over Iowa, Navy over Notre Dame (okay, so I a lifelong ND fan did not enjoy this one too much) and Nebraska over Oklahoma. I do not know what sport he was following, but college football delivered Saturday as it does every week.

Now the three teams atop the rankings are still there and have been there all season, which is something that drives him crazy. This is where the college game gets treated unfairly by the national media, especially by those who do not understand the sport. There are some years, such as 2005, where one or two or even three schools separate themselves from the pack. In other years, like the past few, we have multiple undefeated or one-loss teams all fighting to finish in the top two of the final regular season BCS poll. Prior to the BCS, the Alabama-Florida winner and Texas would have been contracted to play in different bowl games. With that now a thing of the past, they can meet in a BCS title game reminiscent of the 2005 season when USC and Texas pulled away from the others by mid-season and then met in a memorable title game. In the NFL, we actually have the same situation as the past two seasons can illuminate. Where was the suspense two years ago when everyone was waiting to coronate the Pats from late September on? Yes the Giants upset them in the Super Bowl, but so too in 2005 did Texas (a dog of more than a touchdown) shock a Trojans squad that was being ranked with the best of all-time. What is the difference? But then last season the NFL was so wide open that a mediocre Arizona Cardinals team that lost games during the regular season by scores of 56-35, 48-20 and 47-7 reached the Super Bowl. Where is Thamel's editorial decrying the lack of excitement in the NFL this season as New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, New Orleans and Arizona all look to be locks to win their respective division crowns? You get both types of seasons in both the pro and college game.

The next item on the list is that Thamel knows today, November 10, that the rest of the season lacks "a single competitive game left on the schedule that directly relates to the national title." That is completely wrong for two major reasons. One is that the games on the field have to be played out. Is it really impossible for Texas to lose to Texas A&M, who won this hard-fought series match-up two out of the last three years, and then fall behind a Cincinnati squad in the BCS standings, if the Bearcats can stay undefeated? Or for Alabama to drop road games at Mississippi State and Auburn or Florida to lost at South Carolina or to a Florida State squad playing for its aging coaching staff? He writes that there are "no elite teams" yet is upset that these three teams are running away with the national title picture. In 2006, a 10-1 USC squad was knocked out of the BCS title game on the final day of the regular season by a 6-5 UCLA team. In 2007, the final three weeks of the regular season saw massive upsets in Arizona beating Oregon, Texas Tech beating Oklahoma, Arkansas beating LSU and Pitt beating West Virginia, all of which shook up the BCS rankings. So, upsets occur. Watch the games!

The other major reason that the statement above, which mocks the rest of the regular season, is incorrect is that it misses the point about college athletics. Professional sports are set up in such a way that there is one champion and the rest of the teams are losers. The college game cannot be set up that way, and should not be set up that way. I am looking forward to next week's Ohio State game versus Iowa, which is a de facto playoff game for a spot in the Rose Bowl. Does it have any national title implications? No. Can it be a fun and competitive game? Sure. Do these two teams want to win that game more than any other because they want to win the Big Ten and get to the Rose Bowl? Absolutely. There is nothing like that in the pro game. And then the following week, Ohio State has to travel to Ann Arbor to face a Michigan squad that knows that they can restore a great deal of lost pride by upsetting the Buckeyes. Would the Redskins, let's say, want to beat the first-place Cowboys (as a Giants fan I cannot believe I typed those words) this season. Sure. Is it anywhere close to being the same as the Michigan-OSU level of emotion? Not by a mile.

Which gets back to Thamel's main argument that by not having a playoff system the college game is eliminating suspense from the end of the regular season…umm on the off years that teams pull away from the pack. That the Iowa-OSU game would be more important if the two teams were not just playing for the conference title and BCS game berth but for a shot at a playoff where they could possibly win the whole thing. But, of course, everyone is knocking the Big Ten this season. So the Big Ten's fight for a potential playoff spot would be the equivalent of this season's AFC West battle between San Diego and Denver--that is, two decent teams who do not look to be as good as some other AFC teams. Or it would if the two teams played each other in December, which they do not. In fact, San Diego's last six games are against non AFC West opponents. How stupid is that?

While a playoff system would cheapen the regular season, the main argument against it is economics. First of all you would have to have a 16-team system as there would be no way to determine at large teams fairly in an 8-team system. With eight teams the winners of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac Ten and SEC would eat up six spots. How would you then determine the remaining two spots when, using this season as an example, you would have too many deserving teams to choose from (Boise, TCU, the SEC title game loser, etc.)? So, let's go with a 16-team playoffs with the lesser bowls being used as sites for playoff games. But that would mean that the teams from up north would have a huge disadvantage as they would be playing on the road throughout the playoffs. But more importantly, how could they fill the seats for these games? Right now the Outback Bowl grabs teams from the Big Ten and SEC and gives their fans a month to book flights, hotel rooms and rental cars for a game played when they have off from work in a place where they would want to spend a winter vacation. Now you would be telling fans of the Iowa-Ohio State game that they would play December 12 in Orlando and if they win they will play the following weekend in Dallas and then the following weekend in Pasadena. Apart from some very wealthy folks who would have to have a lot of free time, it would not work. It somewhat works for hoops, but the arenas, which do not always sell out, are much smaller and the NCAA has teams play in the same site for two games. That works in basketball where you can play twice in three days. Giving some teams home games would be good for attendance, but bad for both the visitors and the current bowl system. If Oregon hosted three to four playoff games they would be a favorite for the national title. Having to win on the road for the month of December would make it nearly impossible for the Ducks to win. And, of course, their getting a home game in round one as the Pac Ten winner while Boise would have to go on the road will get Senator Hatch and his ilk all fired up again.

So for anyone unable to be excited by the rest of this college football season, I say good riddance to you. There are plenty of fans glad to take your tickets.