Say you've got two guys and they are both pursuing the same woman. They are, for all practical purposes, identical in their good looks, their pleasant personalities, their stable mental and physical health, their interests, their political and religious beliefs. In fact they could be twins except for one factor: One of the guys makes around $1 million a year and the other makes $30,000. Now I'm not saying this woman they are pusuing is a golddigger--she is in fact a rather independent young lady who, if she decides to be one half of a romantic couple--simply wants to make sure she is going to be happy in that relationship. Still, the guy making the mil has a distinct competitive adantage over the guy making thirty thou.
And that, dear friends, is why were are not going to have a college football playoff in the Bowl Championship Division anytime soon, regardless of what sports columnists like Kevin Sherrington have to say on the subject. These guys just don't get it.
The argument is not about the two, four, eight or even 16 teams that would make it into a playoff. The argument involves the unfair adantage it puts the 100 or so teams that don't make it and even the sacrifices that might have to be made by some that do.
Let's look at Hawaii, for example. It's recruiting budget, according to the guys who were announcing the Hawaii-Washington thriller last Saturday night, is $500,000, probably on a par with many of the other schools in the Western Athletic Conference. This year Hawaii is going to the Sugar Bowl. Its payout for that trip is estimated at $4 million. Think what that does for the recruiting budget.
But that's OK. Hawaii earned that. It finished the season undefeated. Last year Boise State did the same thing and wound up in the Fiesta Bowl. Who knows, next year it might be Fresno State from the WAC or maybe even Central Florida from Conference USA. However, it probably won't be New Mexico State from the WAC, UNLV from the Mountain West or even our own SMU from Conference USA.
And therein lies the rub.
Because let's say there is a playoff system--a 16-team playoff like the one Sherrington envisions--and let's say a team like Hawaii gets this nice payday for every game it plays. One bowl appearance is one thing but that kind of payout in a playoff system is going to give Hawaii a huge monetary advantage over its other WAC revivals and it's the New Mexico States and SMUs of the world that will need to give their OK for a playoff for it ever to happen. Do you for one second think they are going to vote in favor of putting themselves at such a disadvantage?
Now lets assume the payout for a first round playoff game in this 16-team format is a fourth or even less than what it would be for a BCS bowl appearance. So now Hawaii is going to get $1 million or less for its appearance and because of its lower BCS ranking, it draws a tough first round opponent and loses. Now a playoff has just cost Hawaii at least $3 million in potential revenue. Do you think it's going to support a system that will slices their paycheck like this.
A college football playoff makes as much sense as trickle-down economics. It rewards the rich at the expense of the poorer schools. And until someone comes up with a plan to solve this dilemma, university officials are simply not going to approve a playoff system.
Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, if I understand his idea, may have come the closest to solving it. His concept is to limit the regular season to 10 games and then have a playoff involving 64 teams, identical to what we have in basketball. Then, he said, you take the teams that didn't make the elite 64, and have them play each other in some kind of format that's comparable to basketball's post-season NIT tournament. Depending how it's structured for the non-64, that idea just might work. It is worth exploring.
But until someone comes up with a playoff plan that doesn't put non-playoff teams at a severe financial disadvantage, there is not going to be one. After all, these guys should have the opportunity to win the girl, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment