There seem to be four major arguments in favor of a playoff system. I don't think any of those arguments are persuasive.
First, there's the argument that "other sports have a playoff."
This argument uncritically assumes that major college football is just like every other sport. But it's not. Major college football is different from any other sport because major college football has a great, unique tradition: the bowl system. The bowl system is a well-established, longstanding, successful, post-season structure. No other sport has anything like the bowls. Yes, "other sports have a playoff," but they didn't have a strong, viable, established alternative, as college football does.
In fact, I think the "other sports have a playoff" argument cuts the other way. That's a good reason for college football NOT to have a playoff. College football should not try to be just like college basketball, or college water polo, or any other sport. College football certainly should not try to be like the NFL. College football's bowl system is a unique tradition. Dumping a great tradition so that college football can be like other sports would be like tearing down a beautiful old historic building and putting up a Walmart just because the other towns have Walmarts. College football should cherish and cultivate the traditions that make it unique, instead of dumping them so the college game can resemble every other sport.
The bowl system is part of the fabric and tradition of college football, part of the "brand." There's value in knowing and celebrating what you are and what makes you unique, rather than just assuming you should imitate others. Did Steve Jobs say "Apple should dump its approach and focus on Windows-compatible products" just because everyone else was doing it?
The relevant question isn't "why should college football be different." College football has been tremendously successful while following its own path. Rather, the relevant question is "why should college football change its unique, successful, post-season tradition for the sake of being like all the other sports?"
A second argument in favor of a playoff is that it would make more money than the bowl system.
OutsiderFan asserts that the goal of college football -- the "imperative" in his words -- is to bring in revenue. No, no, no. The goal of college sports most certainly is NOT to bring in revenue. If revenue were the goal of college sports, almost all colleges would have just two sports teams, football and men's basketball. The other sports don't make money. But colleges participate in other sports anyway. Obviously, revenue is not the goal of college sports programs. Bringing in revenue to fund the athletic program is a good thing. But it shouldn't be the most important thing.
We're talking about colleges. Their goal is education, not profit. Shouldn't we think about college football in the context of the university's educational goals? Shouldn't we adopt the structure that is most consistent with those goals?
It seems to me that the goal of college sports is to provide an activity that has educational value for the student-athletes, that enhances the experience of the student body as a whole, and that enhances the life of the broader university community. Most sports have post-season tournaments that contribute to these goals. College football has a bowl system that contributes to these goals. Before scrapping the bowl system in favor of a playoff, we should ask whether the goals of college sports are better served by the bowls or by a playoff.
I think the educational goals of the university are better served better by the bowl system than by a playoff. A bowl provides a travel opportunity with plenty of advance notice and usually to a nice destination, and it allows students to earn a reward for their efforts. A bowl provides a valuable unifying experience for the student-athletes, students, and alumni at a number of schools, who can rally around a single game. A playoff probably will bring more of the worst aspects of college football -- more lost class time, more pressure to win at any cost, more incentive to cheat, probably more risk of injury. A playoff would reduce the opportunity for the students and alumni to have a unifying shared experience, as some people would attend earlier round games, while others would pass on the early games and hope to attend later round games if the team advances. I have trouble thinking of educational benefits to the students and the university community that require a playoff rather than a bowl.
A third argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff supposedly is a better way of determining a champion.
In my view, a playoff wouldn't be any more likely than the current system to identify the "best team." All we would know was which team won the playoff -- which may or may not be the best team in the nation. Playoff systems in other sports often result in a champion that clearly is not the "best team." Rather, playoff systems reward the team that gets hot at the right time. The current BCS system, in which the top two teams are matched, probably is better than a playoff system as a method of identifying the best team, because it restricts the possible champion to the top two teams. In an 8-team or 16-team playoff, you inevitably will get champions who clearly weren't one of the top two or three or four teams, but merely happened to get hot at the right time. (OutsiderFan argues that the possibility of having an inferior team win the championship is an advantage of a playoff. I think that's just silly.)
Those who advocate a playoff tend to fall back on the idea that the team that wins a playoff is by definition the "best team" because it won the playoff. But that's a circular argument.
A fourth argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff system is needed to end controversy, such as controversy about which teams are selected for the BCS championship game, or controversy when there's a split championship.
But there always will be controversy over the selection process, regardless of whether teams are being selected for the BCS championship or for a playoff field. The posts in this thread show some of the issues that will arise in trying to select a field. A playoff wouldn't end the controversy.
More generally, I don't think controversy over a national champion in football is a bad thing. I think it can be good for the game. The controversy may even increase interest in college football.
The premise of a playoff system is that we need a system in which we can guarantee season-ending losses for all the best teams except one, so that only one team is left standing. But it seems to me that there are advantages to having half of the top teams end their seasons with a win. That can be a good thing for the student-athletes, the student body, and the alumni. Think of Stanford's Orange Bowl win a year ago. That was a very satisfying conclusion. Four other teams also ended their seasons with BCS wins. Would the collective experience of those teams and those universities have been better if they had kept playing until all but one of them finished their seasons with a loss? I don't think so.
College football has thrived without a playoff system for years. The bowl system has a lot of virtues. Being the Orange Bowl champion is terrific thing in itself. It's unique to college football, and I think it's a good thing. I don't see why it would be an improvement to have a system in which being the Orange Bowl champion just means you get to keep playing until you lose.
I'd hate to throw away something as unique and successful as the bowl system in the dubious interest of crowning a champion through a system that doesn't provide a superior result and doesn't serve the goals of the university as well.
First, there's the argument that "other sports have a playoff."
This argument uncritically assumes that major college football is just like every other sport. But it's not. Major college football is different from any other sport because major college football has a great, unique tradition: the bowl system. The bowl system is a well-established, longstanding, successful, post-season structure. No other sport has anything like the bowls. Yes, "other sports have a playoff," but they didn't have a strong, viable, established alternative, as college football does.
In fact, I think the "other sports have a playoff" argument cuts the other way. That's a good reason for college football NOT to have a playoff. College football should not try to be just like college basketball, or college water polo, or any other sport. College football certainly should not try to be like the NFL. College football's bowl system is a unique tradition. Dumping a great tradition so that college football can be like other sports would be like tearing down a beautiful old historic building and putting up a Walmart just because the other towns have Walmarts. College football should cherish and cultivate the traditions that make it unique, instead of dumping them so the college game can resemble every other sport.
The bowl system is part of the fabric and tradition of college football, part of the "brand." There's value in knowing and celebrating what you are and what makes you unique, rather than just assuming you should imitate others. Did Steve Jobs say "Apple should dump its approach and focus on Windows-compatible products" just because everyone else was doing it?
The relevant question isn't "why should college football be different." College football has been tremendously successful while following its own path. Rather, the relevant question is "why should college football change its unique, successful, post-season tradition for the sake of being like all the other sports?"
A second argument in favor of a playoff is that it would make more money than the bowl system.
OutsiderFan asserts that the goal of college football -- the "imperative" in his words -- is to bring in revenue. No, no, no. The goal of college sports most certainly is NOT to bring in revenue. If revenue were the goal of college sports, almost all colleges would have just two sports teams, football and men's basketball. The other sports don't make money. But colleges participate in other sports anyway. Obviously, revenue is not the goal of college sports programs. Bringing in revenue to fund the athletic program is a good thing. But it shouldn't be the most important thing.
We're talking about colleges. Their goal is education, not profit. Shouldn't we think about college football in the context of the university's educational goals? Shouldn't we adopt the structure that is most consistent with those goals?
It seems to me that the goal of college sports is to provide an activity that has educational value for the student-athletes, that enhances the experience of the student body as a whole, and that enhances the life of the broader university community. Most sports have post-season tournaments that contribute to these goals. College football has a bowl system that contributes to these goals. Before scrapping the bowl system in favor of a playoff, we should ask whether the goals of college sports are better served by the bowls or by a playoff.
I think the educational goals of the university are better served better by the bowl system than by a playoff. A bowl provides a travel opportunity with plenty of advance notice and usually to a nice destination, and it allows students to earn a reward for their efforts. A bowl provides a valuable unifying experience for the student-athletes, students, and alumni at a number of schools, who can rally around a single game. A playoff probably will bring more of the worst aspects of college football -- more lost class time, more pressure to win at any cost, more incentive to cheat, probably more risk of injury. A playoff would reduce the opportunity for the students and alumni to have a unifying shared experience, as some people would attend earlier round games, while others would pass on the early games and hope to attend later round games if the team advances. I have trouble thinking of educational benefits to the students and the university community that require a playoff rather than a bowl.
A third argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff supposedly is a better way of determining a champion.
In my view, a playoff wouldn't be any more likely than the current system to identify the "best team." All we would know was which team won the playoff -- which may or may not be the best team in the nation. Playoff systems in other sports often result in a champion that clearly is not the "best team." Rather, playoff systems reward the team that gets hot at the right time. The current BCS system, in which the top two teams are matched, probably is better than a playoff system as a method of identifying the best team, because it restricts the possible champion to the top two teams. In an 8-team or 16-team playoff, you inevitably will get champions who clearly weren't one of the top two or three or four teams, but merely happened to get hot at the right time. (OutsiderFan argues that the possibility of having an inferior team win the championship is an advantage of a playoff. I think that's just silly.)
Those who advocate a playoff tend to fall back on the idea that the team that wins a playoff is by definition the "best team" because it won the playoff. But that's a circular argument.
A fourth argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff system is needed to end controversy, such as controversy about which teams are selected for the BCS championship game, or controversy when there's a split championship.
But there always will be controversy over the selection process, regardless of whether teams are being selected for the BCS championship or for a playoff field. The posts in this thread show some of the issues that will arise in trying to select a field. A playoff wouldn't end the controversy.
More generally, I don't think controversy over a national champion in football is a bad thing. I think it can be good for the game. The controversy may even increase interest in college football.
The premise of a playoff system is that we need a system in which we can guarantee season-ending losses for all the best teams except one, so that only one team is left standing. But it seems to me that there are advantages to having half of the top teams end their seasons with a win. That can be a good thing for the student-athletes, the student body, and the alumni. Think of Stanford's Orange Bowl win a year ago. That was a very satisfying conclusion. Four other teams also ended their seasons with BCS wins. Would the collective experience of those teams and those universities have been better if they had kept playing until all but one of them finished their seasons with a loss? I don't think so.
College football has thrived without a playoff system for years. The bowl system has a lot of virtues. Being the Orange Bowl champion is terrific thing in itself. It's unique to college football, and I think it's a good thing. I don't see why it would be an improvement to have a system in which being the Orange Bowl champion just means you get to keep playing until you lose.
I'd hate to throw away something as unique and successful as the bowl system in the dubious interest of crowning a champion through a system that doesn't provide a superior result and doesn't serve the goals of the university as well.