Play off? Play on?

I feel like the last guy on college football Earth not to want to see a playoff. It is a lonely planet over here when even female casual football fan friends are making comments about needing a playoff. There are only so many ways it can play out, and I don't think any of them are good. The NFL model breeds a particular brand of football that, as a college fan, I do not want to see replicated in the ranks of the NCAA. The analogy frequently drawn to basketball is not appropriate because the number of games to reach a similar model to that simply cannot be played. Quite frankly, the criticism that the system "gets it wrong" is a little overstated, as well.

Looking at the NFL, the regular season gives a more representative schedule during the regular season in order to identify quality of teams, because they play more games in a smaller league. Upscaling the number of games is not realistic; downscaling the number of teams (to include just BCS teams, or something similar) is probably equally unpalatable. However, structurally, the biggest weakness for college in this model is that non-divisional games are equally weighted. The divisional games are equally weighted in college, but non-conference ones definitely are not. The NFL also creates a strange situation towards the end of the regular season when teams have clinced the best available playoff berths or have been mathematically eliminated from contention. Starters getrested, games become less meaningful, and backups see substantial playing time.

This doesn't happen quite so much in NCAA basketball, and I doubt it would be a huge issue in any iteration of an NCAA football tournament arrangment, either. The field is big enough and common opponents limited enough in basketball that it is less common to see Kentucky or Michigan State not play their starters at all against Alabama or Northwestern, but they definitely see less playing time once their resumes have been established. The other half is that football is a lot more expensive and location driven that the NCAA basketball tournament model doesn't fit so well. Games are played at least a week apart at every level of football, and so the baseball model of NCAA tournaments would be challenging as well. But what if Wake Forest earned the right to host a tournament game? Their stadium is illsized for tournament play (which is certainly a factor in both baseball and basketball location assignments). Sure, Charlotte and BoA Stadium is not too far away, but that wouldn't be homefield advantage. Or if it follows the basketball model and places a low ranking 1 seed somewhere like Detroit -- would a Wake -- Boise State game be profitable in Detroit? DC? Nashville? How close would it have to be and how big a fan base would the other team need to be for a team with a smaller following? If this lost money for the participating schools, this would unquestionably impair the product on the
field, which is to be avoided at all costs.

The argument about the lower divisions of football is legitimate. Div I-AA plays a 16 team tournament with higher seed hosting with considerations to minimize travel, until the championship game, which is held in Chattanooga. Those travel issues, however, are substantial and mean big money and cannot be simply sidestepped "to minimize travel." The fan experience is a big part of the DI experience, and while I cannot speak for DI-AA or DII, but I can speak for DIII and it's not the same. The hardship on the potentially 3 or 4 games in a tournament is something that has not been figured out. The old Bowls and Polls system was partway there, where the conference champs played other conference champs according to conference tie-ins and at large picks. This system birthed the current system, because of its inability to guarantee a clear winner. The loudest complaint of the current BCS is that it has not bee nable to achieve that either.

While there have been a few concerns about non-BCS conference teams making the BCS bowls, the title winner has been pretty well done. There are really only two years of questionable performance: 2003 and 2004. In 2003, LSU got the nod over USC and they beat an undefeated Oklahoma. In 2004, Auburn missed out on the opportunity to get trounced by Southern Cal. LSU should not get penalized for the Pac10 not having conference title game and it seems a bit of a stretch to think that Auburn was 40 points better than Oklahoma when they barely squeaked by a Virginia Tech team that USC also beat. Is there really compelling evidence that the wrong champion was crowned in either year? If there was a playoff, would we have a better explanation than that? Look at the 2008 Patriots. The NFL playoff crowned the Giants the winner, a team they beat in the regular season. One is more legitimate only because they agreed to it beforehand, and the regular season matchup had less meaning. That never occurs in the current college football construction.

A bigger problem is that there are too many bowl games, especially the 5th BCS bowl. Sure, this allows non-BCS teams more access, but there should be a priority on quality wins, not just avoiding losses. Auburn was penalized in 2004 largely because its schedule was weak; it is undeniable that in an average year non-BCS teams play lesser competition. An improvement would be to extend the season and add a conference game (pressure the Big Ten, Big East and Pac 10 to add a conference championship) or add BCS caliber opponents. Fewer bowl games would make it meaningful again, 0.500 records should not be sufficient to make a bowl game. Also, from a traditional point of view, the title game ought to be played over New Year's weekend and not on a Monday night afterwards.

There needs to be more encouragement to play out of conference games. The financial advantage of hiring an instate cupcake needs to be alleviated somehow. If neutral site games like the ones Alabama has pursued against ACC opponents in recent years work better than home-and-homes, then fine; the college road trip, though, is more traditional for the sport and all teams involved so far (Bama, FSU, Clemson and soon to be VT) have home stadiums comparably sized (or bigger than) the Georgia Dome (or Jacksonville Stadium, in FSU's case). Something that would be great to borrow from college basketball to this end would be matchups akin to the ACC-Big Ten Challenge, particularly against non-traditional matchups. Big East-Pac10? Big Ten-SEC? ACC-Big XII? Yes please.

Ultimately, I think all college football fans want the same kinds of things: an elevated level of competition, a quality product on the field, and the evasion of boredom that comes with some stale NFL games (although the NFL experience is primarily limited by the tv market restrictions more than the gameday experience). Adding a playoff will not solve the problems that the sport is faced with, but will simply change them to another issue.