Since Obama considers it important enough to discuss, I am taking the liberty of raging against the BCS in this blog.
I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why the BCS is a better system than a playoff for determining a national champion in college football. Can someone please explain this to me?
The argument I've heard most often for keeping the BCS is that financially it is most beneficial to the big conferences from a financial perspective. Here's my argument against this:
This year, I watched two out of the five BCS games. And even those two, I only watched portions of the games. Most years, the National Championship game is the only game I care to watch. The rest of the BCS games are pretty meaningless to me, as they really prove nothing. The exception this year is the Sugar Bowl, where I wanted to see my pick for this year's National Champion, Utah, thrash an overrated Alabama team and show just how bogus it is that the BCS does not allow a team like Utah to have an equal opportunity to be the National Champion.
Compare that to the NFL playoffs. I will generally watch about 8 out of 11 of the NFL playoff games each year. I would watch all 11 each year if I had the time and I wasn't busy with other commitments. The reason for my interest in the playoffs is that every win leads each team closer to the Super Bowl. Every team in the playoffs has a shot at winning. That's what makes it fun.
If the BCS moves to playoff system of some sort, it will certainly expand the number of games I, as an average football fan, would be interested in watching. More viewers for more games would certainly boost the television revenues the NCAA would generate over what they currently rake in. This would be good for the big conferences and would be huge for the small conferences.
I challenge anyone to come up with a good reason for not implementing a playoff system in college football.