CJHawkeyes
06-02-2007, 01:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that the lack of transparent equitable objective rules to determine I-A’s national champion is deliberate. Regardless of any arguments against a particular set of rules, I believe BCS schools know that equitable objective rules would undermine their ability control major college football. The free market bowl system has not prevented nonBCS schools from competing anywhere near as much as polls have. Polls are institutionally biased in favor of BCS schools for reasons that have nothing to do with determining the winner of a competition. The lack of accountability of polls and the resulting unwritten rules which all but guarantee unbeaten BCS schools a national title and eliminate nonBCS schools from contention before a single game is played has predetermined the value of each group in the free market bowl system. However, imagine, for example, that the NCAA determined I-A’s national title by ranking teams best to worst record, opponents’ record, and so on, since the classification was created in 1978. Although I favor rules that demand stronger schedules, I believe the case against ranking teams by records is weak and any objections by BCS schools against doing so would not only be hypocritical but would actually serve as a gigantic smokescreen.
Think about it. What would have happened if these rules were embraced from the beginning of I-A? First of all, nonBCS schools would be significantly more viable options for recruits. The difference between knowing that an unbeaten season equals a probable national title versus knowing that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than a poll/BCS title at a nonBCS school is huge. While brand names may remain the more popular choice, the fact that they would not remain the only choice for those with national title aspirations would lead to better nonBCS teams and more parity between the two groups . Even better for nonBCS schools is that their value in the free market bowl system would have been much greater. How much more interest would there be in signing nonBCS conferences to bowl tie-ins if an unbeaten team is definitely in contention for the national title? And how much more would those tie-ins be worth financially if a then minor bowl served as the de facto national title game? Furthermore, nonBCS schools would no longer be at the mercy of BCS schools where scheduling is concerned. With an unbeaten season having the same value everywhere, nonBCS schools would no longer need to play an undefined "legitimate" schedule filled with road games against teams that gain nothing by playing such games themselves and can afford to play I-AA opponents instead.
The bottom line for me is that nonBCS schools do not actually have to start their own playoff to get the ball rolling towards a more equitable system. They would actually be better off demanding the NCAA formally recognize a national champion within the bowl system according to agreed upon objective rules. I guarantee BCS schools would stand in opposition and further expose themselves for the greedy and anti-competitive cartel that they are. I bet even if nonBCS schools agreed to remove themselves from BCS consideration with the stipulation that the official NCAA champion be determined by records, BCS schools would oppose it. And they wouldn’t oppose it because such rules would encourage and reward weak schedules, but rather because any equitable objective rules would undermine their authority. Without the pretense of being all-inclusive to I-A, the BCS product becomes less valuable, especially if any nonBCS bowl serves as a potential national title game. Imagine two separate but equal I-As last year, each with its own bowl system . You have Ohio State-Florida for the BCS title and Boise State-BYU for the nonBCS title with Ohio State, Boise State, and Florida controlling their national title destinies in that order. Imagine the Broncos ultimately hoisting the NCAA championship trophy and try telling me that BCS schools would only oppose ranking teams by records because of the schedule argument. They would oppose such rules because such equitable rules would give nonBCS schools power they have never had.
I also have no doubt that BCS schools would oppose the rules I do favor. Despite results quite comparable to polls, BCS schools would oppose these rules because the rules show nonBCS schools more respect than unaccountable polls, are themselves accountable, provide nonBCS schools a blueprint for competing for the national title, and do not place nonBCS schools at the mercy of BCS schools where scheduling is concerned. Ultimately, BCS schools would oppose any transparent equitable objective rules because they would be accountable to such rules and this would diminish their control over major college football. So long as college football is governed by institutionally biased “rules” installed by BCS schools, BCS schools are accountable to no one but themselves. As such, they can’t lose. The rules are designed that way.
Think about it. What would have happened if these rules were embraced from the beginning of I-A? First of all, nonBCS schools would be significantly more viable options for recruits. The difference between knowing that an unbeaten season equals a probable national title versus knowing that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than a poll/BCS title at a nonBCS school is huge. While brand names may remain the more popular choice, the fact that they would not remain the only choice for those with national title aspirations would lead to better nonBCS teams and more parity between the two groups . Even better for nonBCS schools is that their value in the free market bowl system would have been much greater. How much more interest would there be in signing nonBCS conferences to bowl tie-ins if an unbeaten team is definitely in contention for the national title? And how much more would those tie-ins be worth financially if a then minor bowl served as the de facto national title game? Furthermore, nonBCS schools would no longer be at the mercy of BCS schools where scheduling is concerned. With an unbeaten season having the same value everywhere, nonBCS schools would no longer need to play an undefined "legitimate" schedule filled with road games against teams that gain nothing by playing such games themselves and can afford to play I-AA opponents instead.
The bottom line for me is that nonBCS schools do not actually have to start their own playoff to get the ball rolling towards a more equitable system. They would actually be better off demanding the NCAA formally recognize a national champion within the bowl system according to agreed upon objective rules. I guarantee BCS schools would stand in opposition and further expose themselves for the greedy and anti-competitive cartel that they are. I bet even if nonBCS schools agreed to remove themselves from BCS consideration with the stipulation that the official NCAA champion be determined by records, BCS schools would oppose it. And they wouldn’t oppose it because such rules would encourage and reward weak schedules, but rather because any equitable objective rules would undermine their authority. Without the pretense of being all-inclusive to I-A, the BCS product becomes less valuable, especially if any nonBCS bowl serves as a potential national title game. Imagine two separate but equal I-As last year, each with its own bowl system . You have Ohio State-Florida for the BCS title and Boise State-BYU for the nonBCS title with Ohio State, Boise State, and Florida controlling their national title destinies in that order. Imagine the Broncos ultimately hoisting the NCAA championship trophy and try telling me that BCS schools would only oppose ranking teams by records because of the schedule argument. They would oppose such rules because such equitable rules would give nonBCS schools power they have never had.
I also have no doubt that BCS schools would oppose the rules I do favor. Despite results quite comparable to polls, BCS schools would oppose these rules because the rules show nonBCS schools more respect than unaccountable polls, are themselves accountable, provide nonBCS schools a blueprint for competing for the national title, and do not place nonBCS schools at the mercy of BCS schools where scheduling is concerned. Ultimately, BCS schools would oppose any transparent equitable objective rules because they would be accountable to such rules and this would diminish their control over major college football. So long as college football is governed by institutionally biased “rules” installed by BCS schools, BCS schools are accountable to no one but themselves. As such, they can’t lose. The rules are designed that way.