Bowl Championship Series officials and apologists have a tough job, and Playoff PAC sympathizes (abstractly, anyway) with their plight. Defending defective positions has never been an easy task, even for well-paid mercenaries. In some respect, at least from a “difficulty of advocacy” standard, BCS officials find themselves in a position similar to William Jennings Bryan’s attack upon a teacher’s right to present the theory of evolution. Like Mr. Bryan at the Scopes trial, BCS advocates pull illogical arguments from a bare cupboard; for instance, BCS boosters predictably defend their scheme with the false argument that the only alternative to the BCS is the pre-1992 college football bowl system. 

As an example of the BCS’s reliance upon this false dilemma, consider the following statement of Harvey S. Perlman, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman: “If the antitrust laws prohibit [the BCS] agreement, then the only alternative is to return to the old bowl system that operated from 1902 until 1991.” (emphasis added)

Applying even a small dose of objective perspective to this statement reveals it as a base and unsophisticated rhetorical ploy. Mr. Perlman would have us believe that only two options exist: the BCS or nothing. This tactic, time-honored by those who oppose progress, is premised solely upon fear. Mr. Perlman hopes to deceive fans into believing that their choice is limited to two options. This is a wholly illusory dilemma. However, BCS advocates consistently promote this false dichotomy as an assumed premise. 

Moreover, this particular false dilemma seeks to prey upon a listener’s fear that things could somehow be worse: in essence, Mr. Perlman threatens: “Don’t attempt to change the status quo, or else things will inevitably be worse.” Mr. Perlman channels an equally ill-considered line said in a more consequential context: “You are either with us or against us.” Each argument presents a false choice. Each ignores the proper spectrum of logic-defined legitimate arguments. From the standpoint of argumentation theory, such ploys are properly situated as desperate appeals to a listener’s fears or irrational emotions.

Another favorite BCS argument is an adjunct to Mr. Perlman’s fear-based approach: “The BCS should remain in place because it is a vast improvement over the old bowl system.” 

This line, not true even on its own terms, also presents a false comparison. Mr. Perlman would have us restrict the discussion to the simple comparison of the current system to the old system. However, the truth that Mr. Perlman and the BCS seek to obfuscate is that a playoff system is a viable alternative to both the BCS and to the old bowl system. The BCS claim of superiority over its predecessor is wholly beside the point in a debate regarding the future of college football. 

In short, we need not accept the BCS’s premise that the old bowl system is the only relevant measuring stick. Despite the misguided and dishonest rhetorical tactics of both Mssrs. Bryan and Perlman, teachers should teach evolution, and college football should not remain Cro-Magnon simply because it was once primordial. Essentially, Mr. Perlman argues that we should keep our VHS, because VHS is better than our old slide projector. 

Fortunately, the BCS does not run other aspects of our culture or economy. Past successes of other fields emerge from the efforts of visionaries capable of envisaging life in all its dimensions, without pre-defined boundaries placed upon potential solutions. Visionaries also refuse to allow insignificant obstacles to retard society’s natural urges to evolve to something better. However, like Mr. Bryan at Scopes, Mr. Perlman would have us paralyzed with fear of the unknown. If Steve Jobs (rather than Perlman et. al) ran college football, any minor academic or logistical hurdles would be overcome in nanoseconds. 

Now is the time for college football’s true shareholders to throw out the bums who needlessly run our beautiful game on only two cylinders. Ultimately, Playoff PAC hopes to advance a process of public deliberative discussion, without the false dilemmas presented by biased protectionists. Through this process, we believe that the public voice will likely conclude that college football is a healthier sport, both culturally and financially, if its “championship” is a competitively earned honor rather than a beauty and reputation pageant. A first step in this process is for the public to demand that BCS officials cease “hiding the ball” by consistently presenting false choices and irrelevant comparisons. In short, we call upon the BCS to justify their obstructionism via honest and on-point argument.