Playoff Jockeying Begins

When the four-team playoff system to determine the college football national champion was established there were plenty of folks predicting two spots for the SEC and two spots for everyone else (little guys need not apply). Of course the season(s) will have to play out but the rest of college football cannot let the SEC be considered so much better than everyone else that its top two teams--heck even three teams--get to play for the national championship--even though we just had that happen three years ago. The key is to continue to offset the excellent job the SEC does promoting itself so that it is no longer given that the cream of the SEC is much better than champions from other conferences. The conference that has done the most to disrupt this notion, beyond what Florida State did on the football field last year, is the Big 12 and the Big 12 program that has been the most vocal is Oklahoma. One year ago OU coach Bob Stoops began the offensive by questioning just how good the SEC was when its bottom teams seem to stink year in and year out. Stoops blamed the writers for believing SEC "propaganda." Although he was correct the media just threw his argument back in his face as sour grapes. Stoops got the last laugh when his Sooners easily won the Sugar Bowl against favored Alabama this past January. then after Alabama coach Nick Saban attributed his team's performance in that game to not being up for a bowl game that did not have national championship implications, Stoops correctly ripped his counterpart for a lame excuse. And lame it was. But, again, these tit-for-tat quotes mean so much more than uncovering motive for a bowl game from last season. It is all about jockeying for the four spots in the playoff. The problem with this system or any system is that the top college football teams play different schedules. So computer numbers can only give us a portion of the picture. And so voters rely on their eyes but that is flawed as no voter can watch every game. How many Auburn games did experts watch last season? They were not expected to compete for a title so you can excuse folks for skipping games 1-3 (wins over Washington State, Arkansas State and Mississippi State). They lost game four by 14 to LSU and so after watching that game you could again excuse voters from watching Auburn's wins over Mississippi and Western Carolina. You get where I am going with this. Since it will be difficult to choose the four teams on years when we do not have four clear cut best teams--that is every year in college football history--the teams and conferences need to win the propaganda war now even before the season starts. And Alabama, who has enjoyed its recent status as king, needs to get the Sugar Bowl defeat out of the picture while OU must do the opposite. And every conference not named the SEC must promote itself better. And of course win on the field consistently through the season.

Much Ado About Nothing: The Playoffs

I find it funny that people are discussing the possibility of a four-team playoff for college football, as if the group of self-interested parties needed to sign off on anything would ever agree to something that would be good for the sport.  How does the SEC sign off on any plan that prevents them from getting two teams into the mix?  How does the Big Ten, who packs the biggest marketing punch (which is why we have to see so many conference teams play in January) agree to any system that does not get them a guaranteed spot?  How do the ACC and Big East plus the little guys agree to anything that does not guarantee them from ever whiffing the playoffs?  If we used the top four conference champion plan last year we would have watched LSU, Oklahoma State, Stanford and Boise State square off.  Meanwhile I can name four other programs--Alabama, Oregon, Arkansas and Wisconsin--who would put on a final four that would have been just as compelling and would have attracted higher television ratings and ticket sales.  But now they would be playing in bowl games that would lose a lot of luster with a playoff scheduled a few days later.  And if you are willing to put two teams in from one conference, then last year by November when it became clear that Alabama and LSU would be getting into a playoff barring a huge upset, all of the rest of the powers would have been fighting for two spots (which is of course, two spots more than they ended up with but how is that a solution?) and Boise would have had no chance.
Which leads me to my next problem with this format and any playoff idea.  How do you pull it off?  Neutral sites or home fields?  The first round cannot be played on January 1, as that magical date will be needed to save as many of the old bowls as possible.  Because of the NFL playoffs you would be stuck with weeknights, which makes a doubleheader difficult.  And then there are the fans.  If you are doing neutral sites you are asking fans of say Oklahoma to shell out the money for tickets, flights and hotels for let's say Phoenix for the semis and then, if the Sooners win, New Orleans one week later.  Remember, the bowl system was set up to encourage Northerners to vacation in sunny climes in the winter.They would have a month to plan what would basically be their winter holiday.  Now they would be scrambling with a travel agent.  Putting the entire final four in one site helps that but creates another difficulty.  College football already has the problem of teams winning titles in what are basically home games (Miami feasted on games in the Orange Bowl, ditto USC in the Rose Bowl and LSU in the Sugar).  What's the point of a playoff system if one team gets two home games? 
I can continue this but will wait until we see what they end up with, if anything.  I am not optimistic.