Keep BCS Or Playoff?

Tuesday's showdown for the national championship between Florida State and Virginia Tech marked the midway point of the four-year Bowl Championship Series package that currently decides college football's national champion.

Even the most strident critic of the BCS format would have to admit the first two so-called "National Championship Games" have pitted the two best teams in the land against one another. Last year undefeated Tennessee and Florida State tangled in an exciting Fiesta Bowl. This year it was undefeated Florida State facing undefeated Virginia Tech.

Yet there is a strong undercurrent of support for a college football playoff "tournament" to be adopted after the current BCS agreement expires. Among the playoff backers are a great many athletic directors who represent some major football programs around the country.

Perhaps foremost among that group is Florida State AD Dave Hart, who is the current president of the Div. I-A Athletic Directors Association and who has long been a proponent of some kind of playoff system. Hart advocates the BCS running it's course but suggests that as the series winds down, a debate should be opened to discuss the possibility of adopting a playoff format.

So, what lies on both sides of the expected debate? As in most contentious discussions, there are valid arguments for both a continuation of a BCS-like system and for a playoff.

Adopting a principle of boxing, let's introduce the challenger - a playoff.

AP

Florida State's Peter Warrick led the Seminoles to victory in the Sugar Bowl.

That also could mean a lot of money for the NCAA and its member institutions. A 16-team plan being pitched by a Swiss marketing firm last year put the estimated revenue of their proposal at $2.4 billion over eight years.

That averages out to $300 million-a-year going to the NCAA and the schools as opposed to the current bowls' combined pay out of between $140 - $150 million.

Playoff detractors point out that while the BCS has two more years remaining, the Big Ten and Pac-10 have a commitment to the Rose Bowl for three years after that No playoff would be credible without the top teams from those conferences participating.

It is believed that scheduling a playoff series in December would be problematic because of the difficulties of going head-to-head against the NFL.

A stumbling block that has existed all along has been school administrator's concerns over the effects the prolonged playoff process will have on the student-athletes. The Swiss firm's plan, for example, proposed a championship game be played the week prior to the Super Bowl.

Other purists feel that a playoff will cheapen the significance of the regular season and encourage teams to load up on "soft" non-conference opponents. The NCAA basketball regular-season's "second-fiddle" status is used by some playoff opponents as evidence of how this can happen.

They argue that under the current system each and every game is significant and programs are encouraged to find competitive non-conference foes to fill out their schedules.

AP

Tennessee won the first BCS National Championship Game, the Fiesta Bowl, last season.

It does still remain possible under the current format that an undefeated power from a major conference could be left out of the "National Championship Game" mix. But a similar situation will arise in a playoff system when it comes to determining that eighth, or 16th, or 32nd team.

The current system also leaves the tradition-rich bowl system intact.

Remember, in many cases the bowls are as much about the bowl communities exhibiting their civic pride, being good hosts and generating some revenue as they are about a football game.

To their credit, playoff system supporters like Florida State's Dave Hart are keeping an open mind about all this. Hart has said he just wants to see an open-minded debate on the subject conducted. If the consensus winds up being against a playoff system after that debate, then so be it.

Since the financial and administrative complexities of either system are beyond the average fan's control, the question becomes this:

Do you like the idea of at least a few key, contentious, national championship-implication games each week beginning with Week 1 of the season and culminating with what has proven to be the desired national championship matchup?

Or are you more partial to a sysem that emphasizes a select number of teams in a concentrated tournament atmosphere resembling the NCAA basketball tournament, in which the eventual champion survives the month-long process, and by attrition, is crowned the undisputed king?

Written and produced by John Esterbrook