College football playoff debate

The college football playoff debate is a normative discourse among college football fans, journalists, conference representatives, government officials, university administrators, coaches, and players concerning whether or not the current postseason format of the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) should be changed or modified. Playoff proponents argue that a bracket-style playoff championship should replace the current Bowl Championship Series, while others advocate for a Plus-one format, which would create a single national championship game with participants selected after the conclusion of the traditional bowl season. This debate has been ongoing since at least 1971.^[1]

The BCS is the system established, prior to the 1998-99 football season, to select two participants to compete for college football's FBS division (formerly division I-A) national championship. There have been numerous controversies about the teams that should play for the college football national championship.

Several polls have shown significant support among college football fans for a playoff to replace the BCS.^[2][3]

For a playoff

Playoff proponents argue against the internal validity of the BCS National Championship and lament that the participants of the BCS National Championship game are decided based upon coaches' and media polls rather than via previous, on-field competition such as the case with head-to-head, bracket-style tournaments in other major sports and levels of college football. Proponents occasionally accuse the Bowl Championship Series of financial conflict with respect to the money earned in bowl games and the allocation of those resources.^[4][5]

Barack Obama has spoken out in favor of a playoff, before and after the 2008 U.S. presidential election. On November 18, 2008, in Obama's first interview as president-elect, Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes ended the interview with a question about the topic. Obama replied:

I think any sensible person would say that if you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner that we should be creating a playoff system. Eight teams. That would be three rounds, to determine a national champion. It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm gonna throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do.^[6]

Against a playoff

Playoff critics point to various obstacles and unintended consequences that a college football playoff would present. Some university presidents and administrators argue that a playoff format would detract from the importance of the regular season and the intensity of rivalry games, while others argue that a playoff system would create conflicts with student-athletes' studies, final exams, and other academic endeavors.^[7] Critics argue that a single loss can potentially end a team's chance at a National Championship or propel some other team into the title game under the current system, making regular-season college football games, particularly in the beginning of the season, more important than regular-season games in sports with a playoff.^[7]

Critics note that the current bowl system allows for nearly half of the teams to travel and play in bowl games, while proposed playoff formats that include home games for higher seeded teams do not provide these players the bowl game rewards, which often include favorable hotel accommodations, gift bags, and travel to warm destinations.^[8] Additionally, under the BCS, fans who travel to bowl games are able to participate in parades and beach bases, which presumably would not be offered to teams losing in the playoffs.^[9]

The attendance issue

Another issue that has been largely ignored by both sides of the playoff debate is attendance. Under the current bowl system, fans of teams that make bowl games have a minimum of two weeks, and often a month or more, to make their travel plans for the game. In most playoff systems, teams will not know their next opponent or the game location until a week in advance. The NCAA Division I Football Championship (the formal name for the FCS playoffs) offers a point of comparison.^[10]

In the 2010 season, Delaware, a traditional FCS power that is consistently among the division's attendance leaders, averaged 20,684 for its regular-season home games. The Blue Hens won a share of the Colonial Athletic Association title and advanced to the playoffs, ultimately reaching the national championship game. Although they played all their playoff games before the final at home, their attendance took a nosedive. Their attendances for their playoff games were:^[10]

• Second round – 13,669 against Lehigh, a school located 80 miles (130 km) from the UD campus.
• Quarterfinal – 8,770 against conference rival New Hampshire.
• Semifinal – 10,317 against another traditional FCS power, Georgia Southern.

These attendance issues were not limited to Delaware. Appalachian State, another traditional FCS power, averaged over 29,000 for its 2010 home schedule—higher than a substantial number of FBS teams. The Mountaineers were unable to draw even 16,000 for either of their two home playoff games. In 2009, eventual national champion Villanova drew only 4,771 for its home semifinal against conference rival William & Mary.^[10]

Proposals

Several proposals for change to the current BCS have been presented. Recently, the Bowl Championship Series commissioners contemplated replacing the current BCS with a Plus-one format, which would create a national championship game at the conclusion of the traditional bowl season with the two participants selected among BCS Bowl winners. Ultimately, the Bowl Championship Series commissioners rejected any immediate action and tabled the discussion on whether to establish a Plus-one format.^[11]

Other proposed formats include bracket-style playoff championships with 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 64 teams. Although popular among college football fans, these formats have gained little momentum within the circle of BCS commissioners.^[12] The official response from the BCS to these formats is: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line.^[13][14]

The latest proposal to change the structure of the postseason came from the Mountain West Conference at the Bowl Championship Series commissioners' annual spring meetings in Pasadena, California in conjunction with the Rose Bowl's staging the 2010 BCS title game. The Mountain West Conference commissioner argued for a selection committee to replace the BCS ranking system, the establishment of an eight-team playoff, and a revision to the automatic qualifier rules.^[15]

United States Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has indicated that he would hold congressional hearings on the BCS in the future after a team within his constituency failed to play in the national championship game.^{[citation needed][16]}

Governmental intervention

According to CBSSports.com wire reports and information obtained by the Associated Press, Senator Orrin Hatch received a letter from the justice department concerning the possibility of a legal review of the BCS. The letter, received on January 29, 2010, states that the Obama administration will explore options to establish a college football playoff including (a) an anti-trust lawsuit against the BCS, (b) legal action under Federal Trade Commission consumer protection laws, (c) encouragement of the NCAA to take control of the college football postseason, (d) the establishment of an agency to review the costs and benefits of adopting a playoff system, and (e) continued legislation in favor of a playoff system. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich writes, "The administration shares your belief that the lack of a college football national championship playoff ...raises important questions affecting millions...." BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock responded to the letter that the BCS complies with all laws and is supported by the participating Division I universities.^[17]

Following up on Senator Hatch's actions in the Senate, in April 2011 the Attorney General of Utah announced that he would be initiating a class action anti-trust lawsuit against the BCS, despite the fact that Utah is moving to the Pacific 10 Conference, which is an automatic qualifying conference. In March 2011 the U.S. Justice Department sent a formal letter of notice to the NCAA asking for a detailed explanation about why FBS football was the only NCAA sport that the NCAA did not 1) have a playoff system in place to determine a champion and 2) why the NCAA had abrogated its responsibility to do so and given the authority to determine the NCAA Champion to an outside group such as the BCS. The Justice Department's investigation and Utah Attorney General's lawsuit are both aimed at forcing the BCS to open its books, which they are as a non-profit required to do every year and have never done, and at determining whether the BCS is an illegal trust or cartel based on Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914 and the Robinson-Patman Anti-Price Discrimination Act of 1936. Two more states Attorneys General are said to be considering joing the Utah lawsuit, and the investigation by the Justice Department will probably include a minute and extensive examination of the Fiesta Bowl Scandal as well as conducting complete audits of the other BCS Bowls, the BCS itself and possibly even the schools of the 6 BCS Automatic Qualification Conferences.

The Fiesta Bowl scandal in particular was the catalyst that opened the BCS up to Federal interest for the first time, largely because the government is concerned not only about the BCS's stifling of fair competition, but more importantly for the Federal Government about the possibility of fraud and tax evasion, if the BCS has violated the rules governing tax exempt organizations and groups that control tax exempt organizations. If the BCS Bowls, who are each separate entities yet also part of the BCS as a whole as well were to lose their tax exempt status, they could be liable for back taxes totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. The Fiesta Bowl abuses - especially those regarding alleged illegal and improper political contributions, excessive executive compensation and unjustified reimbursement payments, and the making of excessive, interest free and un-repaid loans - are precisely the types of abuses that would justify the Internal Revenue Service in stripping the BCS, and each BCS Bowl and possibly even each BCS Conference school (although that is highly unlikely) of their tax exempt status. In the worst case scenario the BCS could also be subject to forfeiture and seizure proceedings. While the worst penalties are unlikely to be enforced, even the milder penalties, such as a determination of a cartel and trust, would have devastating consequences for the BCS and the current system. The court could also order a resolution of the current unfair competition inherent in the structure of the BCS, including ordering a playoff system and ordering the Bowls to participate as the court directs rather than as the bowls had planned in the case of the BCS's demise. Despite Big 10 Commissioner Delaney's assertion that if the BCS were to fold they would "go back to the old system" ^[18] if a court ordered a solution such as a playoff the Conferences would have no choice in the matter, and would be required - especially if a determination is made that the BCS is an illegal trust or cartel - to do whatever the court says, including submitting to federal oversight of the Bowl's and Bowl teams' finances and administration, and conducting a 4, 8 or 16 team playoff, or whatever other remedy the court ordered in their holding. The structure, timing and participants in such a system would be completely out of the hands of the individuals and groups who now control those decisions, and those same individuals and groups would, in all likelihood, not be given the choice of not participating. A court ruling could require them to participate just as they are now, but they would be required to do so based on the court's rules rather than the BCS rules. This is one of the main reasons that the BCS is fighting against government intervention so strongly. The Department of Justice inquiry is far and away the most potentially dangerous legal situation that the BCS has faced to date.

See also

• BCS controversies
• Bowl Championship Series
• Mythical National Championship
• NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship

References

1. ^ "Two Opinions On National Football Playoff" (PDF). NCAA News. 1971-12-01. pp. 1–2. http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/NCAANewsArchive/1971/19711201.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-23. 
2. ^ Wetzel, Dan (2009-12-07). "Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks". Yahoo! Sports. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns. Retrieved 2009-12-30. "It is why, according to a Sports Illustrated poll, 90 percent of fans don’t approve of the BCS. We want to find out on the field." 
3. ^ "Poll: Americans favor college football playoff". Yahoo! Sports. 2009-12-29. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-collegeplayoff-poll&prov=ap&type=lgns. Retrieved 2009-12-30. "A majority of college football fans want to scrap the current Bowl Championship Series and replace it with a playoff system that’s similar to college basketball, according to a new national poll released Tuesday. The Quinnipiac University survey shows 63 percent favor getting rid of the current system, while 26 percent want to keep it." 
4. ^ Schad, Joe (2006-10-5). "Auburn coach Tuberville calls for a playoff system". ESPN.com. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2612789. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
5. ^ "Florida president to push playoff plan at SEC meetings". ESPN.com. 2007-05-29. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2885646. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
6. ^ "Obamas On Picking The Presidential Pooch". CBSNews.com. 2008-11-16. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/main4607927.shtml. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
7. ^ ^{a b} Klosterman, Chuck (2007-01-02). "No College Football Playoff, Please". ESPN.com. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
8. ^ Broughton, David (2008-12-8). "Sony’s suite is latest innovation in bowl gifts". Sports Business Journal. http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60900. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
9. ^ Araton, Harvey (2008-12-9). "Case Against a Playoff in Football". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/sports/ncaafootball/10araton.html?_r=1. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
10. ^ ^{a b c} Peloquin, Matt (December 16, 2010). "The Unspoken Potential Problem with College Football Playoffs vs BCS: Attendance". CollegeSportsInfo.com. http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/12/16/college-football-playoffs-vs-bcs/. Retrieved January 1, 2011. 
11. ^ Wetzel, Dan (2007-11-27). "The Wetzel plan". Yahoo! Sports. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
12. ^ Gardiner, Andy (2007-09-26). "I-A holds as I-AA looks at 24-team football playoff". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-09-26-playoff-field_N.htm. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
13. ^ Martin, Buddy (2008-04-30). "Playoff Smayoff! We don’t need it". GatorCountry.com. http://www.gatorcountry.com/football/article/playoff_smayoff_we_dont_need_it/3677. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
14. ^ "Officials: BCS too healthy to change". BCSfootball.org. 2008-06-28. Archived from the original on 28 June 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080628193924/http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/8163344/Officials:-BCS-too-healthy-to-change. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
15. ^ Dufresne, Chris (2009-04-22). "Mountain West Conference takes a radical tack". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/22/sports/sp-dufresne-bcs22. Retrieved 7 January 2010. 
16. ^ "Hatch calls for BCS investigation". ESPN. 2009-07-08. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4311694. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 
17. ^ http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12858012/obama-administration-considering-action-on-bcs
18. ^ Interview with ESPN

External links

• BCSfootball.org

Further reading

• Oriard, Michael (2009). Bowled Over: Big-Time College Football from the Sixties to the BCS Era. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807833292.