"Playoffs? Don't talk about Playoffs" (Jim Mora)

First off, I want to congratulate the Georgia Tech fans on a big victory today against my beloved dogs. I have some close friends who are avid Tech fans, and why i am sad about the loss, a small corner of my heart is actually happy for them. When a streak against one of your most bitter rivals gets to the point where your team has lost more than 5 times in a row, it is rough. The relief of such a victory is very special, and I hope they all celebrate as hard as I did following UGA's victory against the Gators in '04 (for comparison's sake that would involve a ridiculous amount of alcohol, a friend being urinated on (not by me), and 4 guys sharing a hot tub made for two . . . good luck). With regards to Georgia, I have a lot of thoughts, both positive and negative, which I will share in a later blog.

PLAYOFFS

I want to preface this next section by stating that I support the idea of a playoff in D1A (I refuse to call it FBS). However, I am furious about the media's recent use of the fictional playoff system as an infallible/ultimate cure for the flaws in college football. In countless analysis by supposed "experts" the common denominator has been a concluding statement which went something like this, "Of course if we had a playoff non of this would matter" or "We wouldn't be having this debate if we had a playoff." It has become so stylish to bash the BCS now that it ends up making some of these analysts become hypocrites and look like asses. The best example I can remember of this phenomena actually occurred last year in an article written by Gene Wojciechowski. Within the article, he blasted the notion that UGA, which was being considered for the national title game at the time and was playing as well as anyone at the end of the season, should ever be considered for the championship game as they didn't win their conference championship. This in and of itself I don't mind, although I disagree with it, but the next part of his article completely contradicted his previous claim. He then heralded the notion of a playoff system. Well guess what Gene, not one proposed playoff system would have excluded UGA from having an opportunity to play for the championship. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This type of journalism/analysis infuriates me, as they are only preaching the magic of the playoff system (because it is a popular idea) without ever even considering what they are saying.

Now back to this year. Non of the serious proposals for a playoff system would work out neatly this year. Lets break them down 1 by 1 with a best case/worst case scenarios.
John Saunder's +1 system: He suggests a system where you don't even seed the top 4 but play the bowl games as they exist, and then play one more game a week later with the two best teams. OK really? This system would still need polls and would still involve human components. It is really the same system in the disguise of a magical "playoff system" and consequently wouldn't be any neater than it already is this year.
RE-Seeded +1 system: Best case scenario this year: Alabama/FL winner (by decisive victory), Big12 south winner, USC (if they win PAC-10 with Oregon State loss). A good, clear top 3 but still leaves one spot for debate between the other two teams in the Big 12 south (funny the analysts would never tell you this), Penn State (Big 10 champ) plus undefeated Utah and Boise State (I'm excluding Ball State). Most people want a playoff so the underdog's (Utah and Boise) have a shot for the championship, this system will never get that for them. Worst case scenario: Bama loses a squeaker to Florida and Oregon State wins the Pac-10. Now you have UF and Big-12 south winner and two (essentially) at large bids for the top 4 BCS teams with the before mentioned Utah, Boise, Big 12 south losers, Penn State, and now USC and Alabama all fighting for those 2 spots. Let the debate begin on who would deserve those two spots
8 team playoff: You take the 6 champions from the BCS conferences and two at large teams. Best case scenario: UF/Bama winner (clear and decisive game), Penn state, USC (with O-state loss), Big 12 champ (if it is a team from the south), ACC champ, and Cincinnati with the two at large bids between the previous suspects. There will still be a debate on who gets in for the at large bids plus you have added two teams who this year have no business playing for the national title (acc champ and Cincinnati). Worst case scenario: See above +4 worst case scenario: same teams, two spots, except you have the added crappyness of having the ACC champ and Big East champ playing for the title. This is my personal suggestion for a playoff, but it is clearly still flawed. It would preserve the uniqueness and importance of the regular season, but there would still be a huge debate at the end of the season on who gets into the playoffs. Which will ultimately always leave someone unfulfilled. There are also suggestions of a 8 team playoff without conference winner automatic bids, but again you will still have a huge component of human polling in deciding the spots. Plus it would seriously start debates over conference strength because the conference champs would not have automatic bids.
16 team playoff: We are now bordering on the impossible to ever happen. In this scenario the regular season would have to be shortened, which will never happen because it would cost the schools too much money by having fewer home games. However, the main flaw with 16 teams is that it would greatly diminish the importance of the regular season which is so special in college football. While it would pretty much exclude the possibility of ever leaving a deserving team out, it would also include far too many teams which have not earned the right to play for the title. I mean until UGA lost today to Tech (and maybe still) they would have been included in this system despite embarrassing losses. I love them, but UGA would have had no business playing for a title they could theoretically win if they happened to be hot for the playoff games. This system would greatly change and in my opinion ruin college football. Any playoff system with more teams above this should never be considered.

So as you can see the magical playoff system is a little more complicated than the media would have you believe. Even in the best case scenarios, each suggested playoff system is flawed. When I think about college football, I am reminded of a quotation from Good Will Hunting where Robin Williams character Shawn is describing his wife to Matt Damon's character Will. To paraphrase it, he tells Will that what he loved most about his wife were the imperfections. This is similar to College Football. It is different and unique from other collegiate sports. The number of teams in D1A combined with the ability to only play one game a week makes it difficult to "decide it on the field."
The debates are great, and many of its most enthusiastic critics make a good bit of money because of how it is set up. Fans eagerly await the release of the polls, because they matter. Fans live and die with each game because they matter. In some sense, college football does a better job of determining who was the best team during the year than any other sport. If Duke loses to UNC twice during the regular season and during the ACC championship in basketball, but then beats them in the National Title Game, they would be national champs. Are they really national champs? That would/could never happen in college football as you have to be good all year not just in the last game to win. I am pro playoffs, but changing to a playoff system will not be a cure all for college football, and if we are not careful, could hurt a wonderful game.