Before I sat down to watch the BCS title game last night, it
already felt like the college football season ended a long time
ago.
So you’ll have to excuse me for sitting in front of the
television, looking on halfheartedly while spending more time
worrying about the divisional playoff matchups in the NFL.
It didn’t matter how well Ohio State or Florida played on
Monday, because the game was not a true championship.
So congratulations to the Gators for winning an arbitrary title
in Glendale, Ariz. Perhaps it is fitting that this
quasi-championship was played over a week after Boise State
absorbed all the energy of the 2006 BCS, leaving the supposed No. 1
and No. 2 to play for sloppy seconds.
And that’s exactly why the BCS works.
Now there are plenty of criticisms of the Bowl Championship
Series that have been outlined in the nine years that system has
been in place (has it really been that long?), some of them
credible and some of them illogical.
The irony of this ongoing debate is that the national argument
actually gives the BCS credibility it never had in the first
place.
And for those of you who sat on your couches last night and
briefly entertained ideas of a college football postseason
tournament, I have a message for you: The BCS is the best possible
system, precisely because it isn’t designed to give us a
clear-cut national champion.
Let me repeat myself for clarity’s sake. College football
functions better without a playoff because it is structured to keep
the majority of Division IA teams relevant, rather than giving us
an undisputed national champion.
Until recently, I would have been one of the people who
wouldn’t believe that last statement, one of those who railed
against the BCS system, proclaiming that it was a mockery of a
postseason format.
That’s before I realized that the BCS isn’t
structured to give the country a champion, but rather a group of
quality games while keeping the BCS slush fund circulating among
the same six BCS conferences. For that reason, there are few
““ if any ““ coaches and players who outwardly express
their pleasure with the current system. The media has used that as
some sort of proof that the BCS is morally repugnant.
Look, the competitive nature of sports would lead us to assume
that the best way to solve anything is out on the field, or any
other cliche that fits. However, there are three reasons why
college football is better served with the current system: money,
parity and national interest.
Money
First, the money is a key reason why the BCS is a far superior
system to the tournament. And it’s not for the reason you
think. It’s not because it allows the six BCS conferences
(Pac-10, Big Ten, Big XII, SEC, Big East and the ACC) to monopolize
all the revenue generated from each of the five BCS games.
That’s the reason why it exists, but that’s not why I
like it.
As long as the NCAA prohibits college football players from
getting paid, then at least we are all spared a gross misconduct
from getting worse.
At the BCS Championship media day on Saturday, OSU senior guard
T.J. Downing gave away the worst-kept secret in American sports:
College football players think they should get paid and see a
portion of the millions of dollars they bring to their respective
universities.
“We all deserve more money,” Downing said.
“We’re the reason this money’s coming in.
We’re the guys out there sacrificing our bodies. We’re
taking years off our lives out here hitting each other, and
we’re not being compensated for it.”
All the players from Ohio State and Florida got for a BCS
Championship appearance was a portable satellite radio, a
commemorative wristwatch, a first-class meal on the airplane and
VIP treatment at local spas.
That may seem nice, but it pales in comparison to the $17
million purse that goes to each school.
Until the NCAA is honest enough to admit that there’s a
difference between a college football player and a college water
polo player, then football teams shouldn’t have to go through
18- or 20-game seasons without any monetary compensation.
Parity
The newfound parity in the game is the best defense of the BCS
system. There has never been a more competitive balance throughout
college football than what we are currently witnessing. Think about
it. Louisville has become a football school. West Virginia coach
Rich Rodriguez declined the chance to run the Alabama program.
Boise State’s shocking upset over Oklahoma at the first of
two Fiesta Bowls has already been filed away as one of the greatest
games of all time. Without the BCS, Boise State wouldn’t have
been able to have that miraculous moment in the desert.
Opponents of the BCS actually hail Boise State as the reason why
there should be a tournament (just ask play-by-play guy Thom
Brennaman, who went into an ill-conceived BCS rant right when Boise
State was going for the two-point conversion), but just consider
how much luster would have come off the Broncos’ season if
they had played USC the next week and taken a drubbing. As an
encore to Ian Johnson’s surprise on-air proposal to his
cheerleader girlfriend, USC linebacker Keith Rivers would have
given Johnson snot bubbles as an engagement gift.
As it stands now, Boise State is the top storyline of the 2006
season.
National interest
The biggest reason why people hate the BCS is because they have
short attention spans. How easily they forget about the wonderful
autumn games that are circled on the calendar for every national
championship contender.
The only trump card that college football has on the NFL ““
aside from the game day atmosphere ““ is that each and every
game in the regular season matters. That is why high-profile
nonconference games are followed so closely.
Can you imagine what would happen with a playoff tournament? The
entire college football culture would drastically change.
Teams would feel less urgency to win every game with a shot of
redemption in the postseason. For instance, UCLA’s 13-9 win
over USC would have meant a whole lot less to both programs,
because the Trojans would have been competing in a national playoff
tournament the next weekend anyway.
Without the BCS, college football would merely play second
fiddle to the NFL, rather than keeping its unique identity.
As a result, people just wouldn’t care as much.
I know it flies in the face of everything we were taught to
understand about athletic competition, but maybe the need for a
battle-tested champion is dwarfed by other considerations.
After all, we don’t really lose any sleep knowing that the
college champ isn’t as legitimate as the NFL champ. Do
we?
E-mail De Jong at adejong@media.ucla.edu.