The Penn State Football Show

As the college football season progresses into the final month, the BCS puzzle pieces begin to fall into place. Like they say, "You remember what happens in November." As the season rolls on, we will hear fans ignorantly bitch, moan, and debate over the validity of the current BCS system. Everyone will give you their "perfect playoff" scenario: a 6-team playoff, an 8-team playoff, a 16-team playoff similar to D-IAA, II, and III. All of these are valid arguments and potentially could happen.

If you are a college football fan, you have probably shed your opinion on this matter at some point and you cant help but get caught up in the debate. And if you're like "Rulebook" Albright, you have gone as far as sending letters to Joe Paterno and the NCAA outlining your proposal. Say what you want about the business aspects and how the bureaucrats control the system, but in terms of football and the product on the field, the BCS might not be all that bad. Not too long ago, I too was one of those clamoring for a playoff system, but as my wisdom continues to expand at an exponential rate and i invest more time and interest into college football, my thoughts have slowly changed to the contrary. Here is why...

As Jim Mora would say, "PLAY-OFFS? PLAY-OFFS? PLAY-OFFS!?!?!?" I am beginning to agree with the notion that a playoff system will significantly de-emphasize the importance of many of the regular season games (I mean, PSU fans need some reason to get all jacked up for Eastern Illinois, right?). Case in point: Florida and Alabama will meet in the SEC championship game ranked #1 and #2. As the BCS system currently works, this game will essentially be a semi-final matchup for the National Championship...winner is in and loser is out. With an 8 or 16-team playoff system in place, this game would be far less important. Yes, they would be playing for an SEC Championship, but the loser would probably only drop to #6 or #7 and still be seeded in the playoff, taking the National Title implications off of this game. The only people with any vested interest in this game would be fans of the respective schools.

This late season matchup was also the case back in 2006 when #1 Ohio State played #2 Michigan, both undefeated, on the final weekend of the Big Ten season. Another semi-final to the National Championship. With so much riding on this game, it lead to one of the most exciting games in recent college football history. Again, if a playoff system were involved, this game would not have had as much of an impact nationally. It would have merely determined playoff seeding. Note: I understand the importance of a #1 or #2 seed in a playoff system, but that does not grant playoff immunity. In one game in football, anybody can win.

Take the 2008 Penn State season as another example. After the big win at Ohio State, Penn State would have had to win two out of the last three games to win the Big Ten and be placed in a playoff system. If this were the case, would we all have been hanging on the edge of our couches as Ricky Stanzi drove Iowa down the field in the 4th quarter? Probably not as much. The loss at Iowa would not have been as devastating and Penn State would not have been in a must-win scenario until after this loss. And to go one step further...would USC or Oklahoma fans have cared at all about our loss?

As a result of the situations described above coupled with a playoff system, teams will begin to employ strategies similar to the NFL, i.e. resting players for the playoff run and essentially throwing end of season games because they "don't matter." I do not want to see this in college football. This is why college football is so much more exciting than the NFL. There only are 11, sometimes 12 games. EVERY game should be meaningful. I don't really care about the NFL till about week 10 when the playoff picture begins to take shape and the games mean something.

Frankly, I think a playoff system promotes too much post-season parody...much like the NFL where Wild Card teams end up winning the Super Bowl and much like college basketball where the best teams going into the tourney often get knocked off before the final (it's not a coincidence that only once have four #1 seeds met in the Final Four). Should a college football team who goes 12-0 in the regular season be subject to a first round playoff loss? Or, do we really want to see a 9-3 West Virginia team playing a 10-2 Virginia Tech team in the title game while two 12-0 teams sit at home because they got bumped in the first round? The parody should arise throughout the regular season, not the post-season, which is evident in the current BCS system.

The current BCS system is not perfect by any means, but it's almost a playoff system in disguise. On any given year, there are probably three or four teams who, at the end of the year, truly deserve to play for a National Championship. Furthermore, every year there are always late season, intra-conference matchups between two highly ranked teams that can determine the seasons of the respective teams, ala Penn State-Ohio State, LSU-Alabama, Oregon-USC, Texas-Oklahoma and so on. Aren't these games kind of like playoff games...lose and you're out? At season's end, does the sixteenth, or even eighth ranked BCS team truly deserve an equal opportunity at a National Championship as the #1 or #2 teams? NO!

Ideally, I think a +1 system would be then next step and probably would be sufficient. Teams would be re-ranked following the four BCS games and #1 and #2 would then match-up for the Championship. Therefore, an undefeated non-BCS school such as Boise State/TCU/Utah (2008), who had not yet beaten anyone of respective quality, gets an opportunity to show they are for real and belong in a title game.

The bottom line is the BCS is good for college football. It is always a topic for discussion and the discussion brings college football to the forefront of the sports world. Only time will tell what happens, but I don't think the BCS is as big of a disaster as the average fan believes.