The BCS is awesome. There, I said it. Playoffs are great, but they’re not the only answer. And anyone who says, “Oh, it’s not fair to the team that plays better in December after losing in September,” doesn’t get it. It’s about who played the best throughout the whole year. Teams who sucked wind early on do not get consequence mulligans for getting better. No do-overs. You don't look at a game that you lost and say, "Well that's not fair. We were down by 10 after the first quarter and we only lost by 3, so we should have won." No, you lost.
One out of 120 teams becomes the champion. That’s it. If you don’t get a shot at the championship, then you can get in line with the other 118 teams who are just like you and go cry in your Wheaties, which by the way you should have eaten in September, when you were losing.
Actually, there is one thing wrong with the BCS: poor revenue sharing. The heads of the BCS conferences don’t understand that sharing that revenue across all teams who compete for a spot in the BCS (all 120 teams, so we’re clear) is better for college football than hoarding it amongst themselves. When they did that, they said “Our mission is financial in nature, and is in no way tied to the mission of the institutions that we ‘represent.’” At that point, they had to look at themselves in the same way that the NFL does, and understand that competitive balance is a good thing for profits.
The irony is that they have made the thing so lucrative now that it will eventually collapse on them when the NFL comes to its senses and starts the league that I believe is inevitable.
So, why not kill the conference tie-in and open the BCS games to every team, while sharing the revenue among every team? If they want to build something in that skews it a bit towards a conference that has two teams in the mix instead of one or none, then great (the NCAA does this for basketball tourney payouts). Make it two different pools. Whatever. Get creative. Just do what's best for the game.
And no playoffs.
No comments:
Post a Comment