College football season is over, but the controversy rolls on. It is a controversy that many Utahns are passionate about, and it may be the only controversy that Senator Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) and President Barack Obama will ever agree on. It is the way that college football determines a national champion. Now, before non-football fans stop reading this entry, I want to let you know that this issue is not only about football. It is about equality and education. It has become a top priority for Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, and he has decided to tackle (pun intended) the problem head on by taking it to Washington.
In college football there is a group of 74 schools, divided into six separate conferences, that is infamously (depending on who you ask) known as the BCS. By some they are viewed as that older brother who will never let you win a game of one-on-one, even if that does mean cheating. To others they are a group as crooked as cigar smoking, back room dealing politicians. These descriptions are harsh, but they do not come undeserved. Without boring you with too many details of the system, the bottom line is that college football teams generate revenue by playing in post season games hosted by the BCS, and the BCS almost always guarantees itself 8 of the 10 teams in these games, including the national championship game.
Doesn’t sound fair? Just ask the University of Utah. In 2008 Utah’s football program went undefeated, and beat four nationally ranked opponents en route. Somehow that was still not enough to crack the top two in the BCS rankings. The BCS system determined Utah did not play against elite competition (despite the four ranked teams), and that it did not matter that they were the only undefeated team in the country. Aside from Utah, other schools including Boise State and Cincinnati have run into similar issues with the BCS. The message the BCS has sent to the outsiders, non-BCS schools, is that even perfection is not good enough to make it to the national championship.
Why does this all matter? It is just football, right? Wrong. Each BCS conference gets 18 million dollars, plus another 4 million for every additional school they send to a BCS bowl game. Remember, they guarantee themselves eight of ten spots almost every year. The non-BCS conferences get about 9 million dollars COMBINED. That is about 1.8 million per conference. With the BCS continuing to get the majority of the revenue, it becomes a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
The solution: the BCS should be disregarded, and a playoff system should allow both BCS and non BCS teams to have a chance at getting the money. The playoff system would ensure there is no bias in a selection of the championship game because teams would have to earn it through winning. The teams that deserved the money by winning in the playoffs would be the beneficiaries.
The money not only goes to building athletic programs, but also is spent on academic scholarships, computers, books, research, and any other areas the universities decide is necessary to improve education. Money that is that important should not be decided by a computer formula determined by a bias selection committee with their own interests in mind, namely, the BCS.
Random Fact: The Mountain West Conference (non-BCS) had two bowl games against BCS conference schools in 2009. Utah beat California and BYU beat Oregon State.
See what Utah Attorney General is doing about it: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=294&sid=9269002
In college football there is a group of 74 schools, divided into six separate conferences, that is infamously (depending on who you ask) known as the BCS. By some they are viewed as that older brother who will never let you win a game of one-on-one, even if that does mean cheating. To others they are a group as crooked as cigar smoking, back room dealing politicians. These descriptions are harsh, but they do not come undeserved. Without boring you with too many details of the system, the bottom line is that college football teams generate revenue by playing in post season games hosted by the BCS, and the BCS almost always guarantees itself 8 of the 10 teams in these games, including the national championship game.
Doesn’t sound fair? Just ask the University of Utah. In 2008 Utah’s football program went undefeated, and beat four nationally ranked opponents en route. Somehow that was still not enough to crack the top two in the BCS rankings. The BCS system determined Utah did not play against elite competition (despite the four ranked teams), and that it did not matter that they were the only undefeated team in the country. Aside from Utah, other schools including Boise State and Cincinnati have run into similar issues with the BCS. The message the BCS has sent to the outsiders, non-BCS schools, is that even perfection is not good enough to make it to the national championship.
Why does this all matter? It is just football, right? Wrong. Each BCS conference gets 18 million dollars, plus another 4 million for every additional school they send to a BCS bowl game. Remember, they guarantee themselves eight of ten spots almost every year. The non-BCS conferences get about 9 million dollars COMBINED. That is about 1.8 million per conference. With the BCS continuing to get the majority of the revenue, it becomes a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
The solution: the BCS should be disregarded, and a playoff system should allow both BCS and non BCS teams to have a chance at getting the money. The playoff system would ensure there is no bias in a selection of the championship game because teams would have to earn it through winning. The teams that deserved the money by winning in the playoffs would be the beneficiaries.
The money not only goes to building athletic programs, but also is spent on academic scholarships, computers, books, research, and any other areas the universities decide is necessary to improve education. Money that is that important should not be decided by a computer formula determined by a bias selection committee with their own interests in mind, namely, the BCS.
Random Fact: The Mountain West Conference (non-BCS) had two bowl games against BCS conference schools in 2009. Utah beat California and BYU beat Oregon State.
See what Utah Attorney General is doing about it: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=294&sid=9269002
I AGREE!! I am all for a playoff system that rewards the best team in a given year and doesn't favor the teams based on their conference. However, I am a little surprised that President Obama doesn't favor a large bureaucratic selection approach that knows better than the competitive environment preferred by its fans, coaches, and players.
ReplyDeletei like football
ReplyDelete