Nebraska’s new conference home is a curious beast.
On the one hand, the B1G Conference is a forward-thinking innovator, creating the Big Ten Network and ushering in a new era of exposure and available resources for college sports. The creation and success of the Big Ten Network has, unquestionably, changed the landscape of college athletics.
On the other hand, though, the B1G has been the strongest opponent of change in an area most desperately needing it, specifically the college football postseason.
Back in 2008, SEC president Mike Slive proposed a “plus one” model that would functionally create a four-team playoff in college football (via AL.com). It was the Big Ten (they weren’t B1G at the time), lead by commissioner Jim Delany, that was the strongest opponent of such an idea, and the “plus one” died on the vine (via Sports Illustrated).
Fast forward four years later, to a world where BCS attendance and ratings are markedly declining, according to CBS Sports, and where B1G teams have been noticeably absent from the discussion about national title contenders. Combine those two factors (weighing the first far more heavily than the second), and all of a sudden the B1G is “kicking around” the idea of supporting a four-team playoff, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Of course, Delany isn’t commenting on the proposal until he “takes the temperature” of the B1G presidents, but don’t kid yourself. This story came out because Delany wanted it out, and Delany wanted it out because he wanted to set the stage for it to happen.
So what is the B1G’s big idea for a playoff?
It would be a four-team playoff, with the semifinal rounds played at the home fields of the top two seeds. The championship game would then be played at a neutral site determined by bidding each year.
Some college football observers (including one very bright and ruggedly handsome one), have been saying for some time that the momentum for a playoff in college football is inexorable, and that it will happen before the BCS television contract expires in 2014. So if that happens, and the model is what Delany has allowed to be floated in the media, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
The Good
Obviously, the best thing about the proposal is that it’s a playoff.
Instead of arbitrarily picking out two teams and calling the winner champion, the proposal lets four teams into the mix and allows a champion to be determined on the field. While not perfect, it’s a huge step toward making college football fairer and more exciting.
A four-team playoff, while still leaving problems unresolved, does serve the goal of protecting the relevance of the regular season. There will be little danger of a team being able to mail in the last two weeks of the season after locking up its postseason berth.
Having the semifinal games at the home fields of the higher seeds might be the best part of the whole concept. Not only does that provide further incentive to finish as high as possible in the standings to get a home game (thus further protecting the integrity of the regular season), it sets the stage for some incredible pageantry.
Imagine, Nebraska fans, the sight of Memorial Stadium hosting a playoff game in mid-December against a top-notch opponent. Or imagine the Horseshoe, or the Swamp, or Death Valley, or any other icon of college football hosting a playoff game.
Even if your team isn’t involved, semifinal Saturday would be one of the most incredible days of television ever.
The Bad
It’s not a perfect idea, of course.
The primary issue with the four-team playoff is the unspoken detail—how are the four teams selected? The BCS selection process is a mess, with polls voted on by coaches with conflicts of interest and computers with results that can’t even be verified or trusted.
There is still so much room for either incompetence or shenanigans to prevail, raising the specter of a garbage-in, garbage-out selection process that excludes the wrong teams for the wrong reasons.
Even if the BCS ranking system is sorted out (or, better, that a selection committee is used to pick the teams and seed them), the four-team playoff does run the risk of neutering the non-conference schedule. Much like the current system, teams that will start the season highly ranked will have every incentive to hold serve and not lose a game. That means there will be no incentive for those teams to schedule challenging (and exciting) non-conference games.
Under the four-team playoff structure, the pressure to schedule paycheck games instead of competitive and exciting ones will remain intact. But until a playoff structure is devised to give conference champions automatic qualification to the playoffs, that problem will remain.
The Bottom Line
Sure, the four-team proposal isn’t perfect. But it’s light years past the monstrosity of a postseason system college football currently has in place. One of the arguments against a small playoff system is that it would inevitably grow into a larger, more inclusive playoff system.
They’re right, of course.
The four-team playoff will be great, but the flaws in that system will inevitably lead college football into a broader playoff, encouraging better non-conference game, protecting the integrity of the regular season, ensuring athletes still meet their academic obligations and giving fans the spectacle they have spent decades clamoring for.
So, it’s a step in the right direction, at least.
If you would like to contact me directly to schedule an interview, ask a question or to get my recipe for a killer peach cobbler, you can send an e-mail to patrickrunge@gmail.com. (DISCLAIMER: Peach cobbler recipe might not be all that killer.)
Or, you could always ... Follow @patrickrunge
Arsenal Cary RailHawks U23 Milwaukee Wave Atlanta Silverbacks
No comments:
Post a Comment