Recently, the creative geniuses at the BCS unleashed their magnum opus: PlayoffProblem.com. This divinely inspired site recites the “unsolvable” obstacles standing in the way of a college football playoff. PlayoffProblem.com “was created by the BCS group in an effort to join the conversation about the football post-season.” Helpfully, it contains links to fantastic articles like “If BCS Not Completely Broken, Don’t Fix It.”
Also, the site features epic quotes from our two favorite conveyors of common sense, BCS officials Harvey Perlman and Bill Hancock. Mr. Perlman muses: “There’d be a lot of frustrated teams out there, more than you have with the BCS.” And Mr. Hancock sagely explains: “If you think the BCS is controversial, wait until you realize how much more contentious a playoff would be.”
In short, the BCS’s PlayoffProblem.com attacks potential college football playoff systems. The site argues that the enormity of playoff “problems” would overwhelm the country, causing widespread panic and terror. Apparently, kingdoms would fall battling over which teams would participate in a playoff. Also, brother would turn against brother in hashing out where and when such games would be played.
The BCS now has a fully staffed PR machine. Is this the best they could come up with?
Hmmm . . . doesn’t the NCAA resolve such minor concerns pretty efficiently via its selection committee? Admittedly, as in hoops, football seedings will not be without controversy. An 8-team playoff may lead to some tricky decisions between some 2-loss teams. However, an 8-team playoff would not, as has happened nearly every year for the past decade, leave undefeated teams home without so much as a sympathy kiss (we haven’t forgotten you, 2004 Auburn). And we’re not familiar with any playoff systems that would leave-out three undefeated teams, as the BCS has this year.
By mounting its “attack the alternatives” campaign, the BCS appears to have shifted tactics. Perhaps this effort is the brain-child of the BCS’s recently hired gun: Ari Fleischer (former Bush press secretary). Like any political advisor worth his six-figure retainer, Mr. Fleischer apparently knows that when your client is a loser, your only hope rests in launching attacks on the competition. Perhaps Mr. Fleischer explained at the first BCS crisis group meeting: “Hey guys, not even W. had ‘unfavorables’ this high: we’ve got nothing to defend, so let’s get busy deflecting and attacking.”
Thus, via PlayoffProblem.com, the BCS shifts its waning strength to an attack upon playoff alternatives. One such argument is termed “bracket creep.” Under this theory, any playoff will cave into pressure to increase the allowed number of participants. PlayoffProblem.com waxes eloquent about bracket creep: “Think about what bracket creep would do to college football: it would greatly diminish the importance of the regular season, and would forever change the bowl system.”
Ever willing to debate, Playoff PAC listened to and followed PlayoffProblem.com’s inspired counsel. We “thought about” bracket creep. Here’s our take: bracket creep is a textbook example of what’s called “slippery slope fallacy.” You see, BCS officials know an 8-, 10-, 12-, or 16-team playoff resolves the inherent stupidity of voting on only 2 teams to play in a putative championship game. They know it’s impossible to favorably compare the status quo with a mainstream playoff proposal, so they pull an argumentative trick. They raise the specter of an absurdly large, 65-team playoff and then say that any playoff will inescapably lead to that undesirable scheme.
One puff of a playoff, Bill Hancock warns us, and we’ll wake up years down the road a toothless bracket addict, longing for the whimsical bowls of our youth.
Playoffs and brackets aren’t addictive substances, and as far as Playoff PAC knows, there is no invisible, magical force that involuntarily expands all playoff systems. Restraint is possible. We can move to a sensible playoff system without going too far. Each "creep" example the BCS cites occurred because it made sense for that sport. Yes, college basketball’s post-season once had an 8-team playoff and then moved to a 65-team format. Is the BCS really trying to argue that the “bracket creep” that produced March Madness was a bad thing for college basketball?
As to PlayoffProblem.com’s second point, Playoff PAC responds more concisely: bring us this “forever change” now, please. Let us “forever change” the corrupt, insulting, and non-competitive bowl system. Let us “forever change” a system where undefeated small-market teams with unglamorous histories are left out in the cold, with only Mr. Hancock to reassure them with the oh-so-comforting words: “You had a great season.”
In conclusion, Playoff PAC signs off with a special message to Bill Hancock, Ari Fleischer, and the rest of the folks who enjoy managing, dispersing and skimming the monopoly profits of the BCS. If the college football gods ever wake up and restore competition as a governing value of this game, we’ll be there to compliment you as you pack up your desk: “Hey Bill, you had a great job.”