Proposed_Changeover_from_the_Current_Bcs_Format_to_a_Playoff_System_in_Professional_Grade_Football

Changing to a Playoff Format from the BCS in College Football  Name of Author Author’s Affiliation Author Note Author note with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact Proposed Changeover from the current BCS format to a playoff system in professional grade football The following is a Report on proposed change in College Football from a BCS format to playoff system which may be placed on the anvil for implementation from the next football season onwards. Introduction: There have been rankling from certain quarters for the NCAA to move from the current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) format to a 16 Game Playoff mechanism. Under the present BCS system, the awarding of the final championship title is done, inter alia, through computer rankings and does not enforce end-of-series tournaments, or play-offs. Thus, speculations are rife as to whether the final winner thoroughly deserves to win the title or could have gained it over the passage of individual games through arbitrary decisions in its favour. Under the present BCS system, the final championship decider is a game off between the top two teams who have reached the top rankings. The teams reach these positions through a number of crucial deciding factors like computer rankings, media and sponsor polls, number of games lost, strength of team schedule, etc. While the propriety or otherwise of these extraneous factors cannot be questioned, there are reasons to believe that these factors are not really performance- based and could be based on personal or institutional bias or discrimination, especially when big money is involved in these Bowl fixtures. Proposals have been mooted time and again, especially by disgruntled players and dissatisfied teams, to bring about institutionalised changes within the College Football fixtures so as to make it more dominant on team performance and nothing else. These suggestions have gained momentum over the years such that there is every possibility that the next year round could probably see lesser number of team providing a better brand of football and enthralling the spectators with splendid all round performance worth of their stature and ranking in the arena of college football. But there are both sides of the coin to be viewed. In this draft essay, it is proposed to consider both the pros and cons of the present system, and also dwell upon whether the pundits could predict stability in the economic and non economic aspects of the game, if not added revenues streams for all sections of people and agencies involved in event managing mega football attractions of this kind. While the playoff system looks good on paper, its practical utility and effectiveness is definitely speculative in nature, and one would not need to be surprised if things do not turn up the way one visualises it in totality. Change seems to be imminent but how far this could carry remains to be seen. Overview: Thus, it transpires that there is an urgent need to change the present BCS system due to its apparent flaws and introduce a performance based system that would consider team performance as the main criteria for awarding the final championship in College Football. Thus, it would be indeed be in true football sporting spirit if a playoff system is introduced which would facilitate a procedure by which each team would have to contest with other teams, in pools, on points basis. The teams that accrue the highest points in their league matches would clash against each other in subsequent matches, which could perhaps be based on knockout basis. Finally, the top teams that remain at the top of their respective tables play the finals, in order to decide the ultimate College Football Champion. Under this system, the main aspect, indeed its onus is that individual performance of various players, and more appreciably, the collective performance of teams, vying for top honours in the game and nothing, nothing is left to chance occurrences or vagaries of the glorious game called football. Thus there is no doubt about the fact that this could be more fair and honourable for the fighting teams as each team, however lowly placed, has equal chances, of taking home the coveted Champions trophy, without raising a storm of controversy and dissension, which seems to have become an major issue in this brand of college football. While controversies are always seen as part and parcel of mega events, especially of the kind of response that the BCS invokes, there seems to be a measure of truth in the fact that things need to change for the better, in as far as team handling and participation in BCS, is concerned, A team which works hard to consistently gain every single point may find itself huddled in a corner, with not even slim chances of proceeding into the next round, while a team which has performed below average is very much in the reckoning for the final decider. All this is, thanks to a medley of elements, which continue to exercise domination and influence over this genre of football, given a plethora of institutional and individual forces that govern this game. But all this definitely needs to change if the quality standards of College Football are to move in terms of quality standards and better display of football prowess. Due emphasis needs to be provided to key factors which are not presently being given the importance that is due, in terms of evolving better football standards and better team display. Economic considerations are no doubt important, but they need not cloud every aspect of the game as is being seen in the present milieu Shortcomings and deficiencies of the present format: Team Rankings are not based on sheer performance of teams: That said, it is necessary to state that the present format for the NCCA Bowl Championship series does not base selection of the best teams in the tournament on performance of the playing teams but considers other subjective factors like sponsors and media poll results, computer rankings, etc. For instance, a team which has worked hard and performed well, absorbing the intense pressures of the game, both inside and outside the field, may find it left out for the remaining crucial fixtures. Instead, some low ranking team with a string of defeats and low performance may enter the arena, thanks to media and sponsor promotion and some uncanny computer jugglery. This could definitely demotivate performing teams who may be ignored in favour of teams that have gained selection through non performance methods, or methods that have very little to do with football performance of the teams or individual players constituting key constituents of their teams. Under such bizarre circumstances, the very concept of football as a team event harbouring team spirit and competitive abilities begins to be questioned, thereby introducing heavy doses of gamesmanship and unethical practices through the use of money, muscle power and influence. The concept of ‘may the best team win’ is more of a misnomer than a fact and often a particularly unimpressive team is able to win the contest through factors other than football prowess and mastery on the field. It is also possible that through selection by wildcard system, a comparatively low performing team could reach a high level in the game ranking, while more deserving and competing teams may be sent home, crestfallen. The element of luck that is evident in every kind of sports is also manifest in the BCS, and this element could upset all calculations and scientific judgment, given the kind of ranking determination that is currently in vogue. Thus, there is need to adopt more scientific and rational thinking in the game of football not only to enhance the stature of the game but also to make it more sporting and competitive at every level, so as to draw huge masses who could enjoy watching the game as much as the players enjoy playing it in true competitive and disciplined fashion. There is also the need to ensure that only the top best competing teams enter the final leg of such fixtures so that the spectators and viewers could be entertained with the best that college football has to offer Under present system final winner may not be the best team Besides, in mega events like these, it is necessary not only to consider commercial interests but also that the games are carried out in true and fair competing spirit, for which the game of football is played and enjoyed throughout the world. A change over from the present format of BCS to 16 Game Format will ensure that the performance of the teams concerned will be recognized as the criteria for the final award of the championship. This will provide high motivation for the teams to improve their performance and not depend on other elements that influence their selection for the championship. Thus, by playing the game strictly by the rules would ensure that not only are extraneous factors progressively removed from the main count, but this would also ensure free and fair play when it matters most. Under the present system, that is major causes to doubt whether the final champion is indeed the best team in terms of all performance parameters and deserves to win the final title, other factors apart. Under the present system, unfortunately, factors outside the scope of performance do play major role in determining the numero uno of the tournament. These could lead to a great deal of bickering and the true playing spirit of the game is indeed lost in a cacophony of mistrust and cantankerous argument. Besides, there are also factors that could bring about greater harm than good for College football since there are many extraneous factors that control the game both from the outside and the inside. College football needs to evolve and improve over time but it is indeed a matter of circumspection whether it could be done under the present bowl system, given its frailties and shortcomings Role of money and influence in the promotion of such events: Coming to the second aspect of shortcoming in the current system, money does play a major role in the existing BCS Tournament Model. It has been experienced that big time sponsors are often able to use their influence to gain a spot for their favourite teams in the tournament. These sponsors have their vested interests and team performance is the last among them. Thus, while the question of money and local influence is naturally significant, it is also necessary to consider team performance and the fact that the title of being awarded goes to the most deserving and consistently performing team. This will persuade the team as well as the individual players to put up their best in improving their performance in the field. Such an endeavour, in turn, will definitely augur well to the quality of matches as well as the overall appeal of the game. Ultimately, it is a given fact that improving the quality of the game is the main purpose of organizing collegiate level or any other national or international championships. Thus, a change in the system will make sure that “eventually, these games will wind up being part of a playoff system that gives us a true college football champion instead of our current system that uses computers to determine who plays for the crystal egg” (Taylor, 2011). Computer rankings may be arbitrary and not without discrimination Since computer rankings are only as good (or bad) as the inputs that are entered into them, there are strong possibilities that computer ratings could be manipulated to serve vested interests, or even upgrade the performance on one team at the expense of others. Again media polls could also be rendered biased and arbitrary through statistical manipulation and mathematically jugglery which could go unnoticed and undetected unless it were blatant and obviously tampered with. In an age where almost everything could be disguised or distorted to suit commercial interests, it would be rather amazing if the game of football were to come out unscathed from such influences and impacts, political or otherwise. Whether finally, the playoff system becomes a reality or not, it is indeed important that there needs to be honest and determined attempts to improve the system for the betterment of all facets of the game and its administrators and officiating agencies. If things were allowed to continue status quo, it is quite possible that the game would lose much of the innate charm and competitive strengths which are the hallmarks of competitive performance based football and its many ramifications from all sides. Every team should be given a fair chance to participate and win the Cup: Another significant aspect that warrants the proposed playoff system is that every team should been given a free and fair opportunity to win the tournament. This way, even teams who rank low on the basis of computer ratings but perform exceptionally well on the field, stand a good chance of making it to the Big League. In other words, a change in the present system to one that is performance based, will ensure that “every eligible team was given a fair opportunity to win it...: When you have a true playoff, the underdogs do stand up and bite every now and then ... It would be more fun and exciting, and now we know for sure that it would also generate a lot more money” (Congressman says television money makes college football playoffs a possibility, 2010). Besides, the playoff system would eliminate the uncertainty and ambiguity associated with other paradigms, and could define clear cut and honest methods of determining the final winner, and put to rest a great deal of controversies that mire big money events of this kind. Moreover, it could also lend an aura of credence and authority on the proceedings, without rendering it too complex and abstruse with a lot of extraneous aspects put in for good effect, as in the present BCS system. Thus, it will eliminate the present flaws that put team performance on the back burner. For instance, it is believed that “26 of the 72 bowl teams were not qualified to play in a bowl game under even a reasonable standard” (Misthaufen, 2011). Thus, the main factor that would be considered in a playoff would be in terms of ensuring as fair and democratic football game plan, besides ensuring that the best team wins. There would be very little scope left for any extraneous aspects taking control over the game and twisting it to suit arbitrary needs and demands. Besides, the need for gaining consensus and common thinking in the administration and strategic management of these games, keeping in views its major aims and objectives. Perhaps, the main crux of the issue lies in being able to balance the interests of football fans and football loving fraternity with the commercial interests of several sponsors and business houses who have major stakes in such events. Advantages’ and disadvantages of the proposed system: Proponents of the current system point out that it has several advantages and, therefore, there is no need to make any amends in the same. Their main argument concerns the apprehension that there exists the need to explore the possibilities of creating a playoff format to increase revenue for the NCAA, schools, and media outlets. There is also a need to consider the explicit and implicit impacts of such a proposed change and whether this could augur well for all stakeholders- players, fans, media and sponsors. A question does arise whether present sponsors and media would agree to and what kind of response such a proposal would evoke in them, especially the impact of any potential lawsuits that may be enforced by disgruntled persons or institutions. Any system that compromises on any stakeholder interest could also create contingent issues. However, it is believed that BCS system has reached the end of the football road and is considered an antiquated and outmoded system. The Football Bowl Series now gains its ultimate champion premised on a subjective and outmoded system of bowl games. With the institution of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), the artificial playoff system has left many fans, media, and teams raring to see a true playoff format being instituted and implemented. As the games proliferate into mega events and conferences, they are making deals with bowl games and the game’s sponsors to have their specific conference play in that game, keeping in lines the baseline that they have minimum six wins per team. These conferences tie ins to bowl games keeps revenue flowing to their teams rather than having the best team play in a post-season game. The money aspect thus reigns supreme and heavily compromises on the fundamental ideology of football that- ‘‘May the best team win- and in style.’’ If one examines the pros and cons of the existing versus proposed formats, it can be seen that “While there may be room for improvement in the system and a playoff system would have many advantages, the BCS is still an outstanding method for finding a national champion. The BCS incorporates a number of important factors, including strength of schedule, quality wins and of course major poll ranking.... Hopefully, the BCS will eventually become a system that can determine the top four or eight teams who then meet in a playoff to determine the national champion, but until then let's enjoy the current thrill of bowl season.” (BCS system works well, could use tweaks, 2003). Again, there could be need for more time and strategy decision making involved in a major transition to the play off systems. The argument that there is big money involved in BCS does not seem plausible since even the playoff formats are themselves capable of generating massive doses of funds, perhaps even more than that generated by the current BCS Model. However, it may not be able to offer the kind of guaranteed money which the BCS Model is able to offer Bowls are autonomous and like the current system, large conferences have permanent financial nexus with certain bowls and the guaranteed money for 34 games and 68 teams vs. the doubts, whether eight or 16 teams, who may or may not bring the same financial bonanzas, could be indeed daunting and awesome. Besides, the differences between the kinds of money that could be raked from well established BCS system visa-a-vis a newborn Playoff system could indeed be challenging. While a playoff system would indeed be viable, there is indeed a lurking fear whether it could financially compete with the BCS format, given the kind of sponsorships and advertising budgets that the present system carries. Another major factor to consider is that commercial interests would not spend sleepless nights, worrying about the ethical or moral issues involved in the game, much less the concept of sporting spirit or whether the best team wins or not. Their main interests would be financial and advertising mileage and the deemed returns for their advertising dollars. Their choice of backing or not backing a particular team could be well seen in terms of how best this could serve their business interest, especially in high voltage competitive environment that such games are able to generate. Moreover, business houses themselves compete on gaining publicity rights during such events, including the logos which players sport while competing in such football sports. Other crucial factors that need to be taken up before the changeover would be how major sponsors and the media could react to such changes having wide ranging impacts on their business and bottom- lines. Sponsors have been enjoying good revenue spinoffs since the time BCS came into the football arena, and they would not be prepared to change over to an untested and unheard system easily. Under such circumstances, the proposed changes could be put to test next year round. “The BCS Bowl contract goes through this season. Maybe, next season there could be the start of a playoff system in place or at least working towards the implementation of having one in the future” (Ron G Anselm, 2011). There are a plethora of factors including fan and media reactions, which need to be taken cognisance of before a changeover decision could be enforced and implemented. Besides, how long would it take for a format involving playoffs rather than BCS to be really popular and crowd pulling is also a matter of circumspect thoughts and beliefs. For one thing, BCS, with all its troubles, has indeed provided value for money to all segments, commercial or otherwise. Besides, sponsors and event management agencies have also raked rich bounties and perhaps have little or no complaints; it is perhaps the fans and players who may have ground for complaints, given the arbitrary kind of selections under the present format with the aspects of media and computer rankings playing important role in determining who the ultimate winner is. However, one cannot ignore the two main rewards in introducing a college football playoff system into the BCS championship. The first reward is there would be more revenue coming in for college football and the second would be that there would be more passion not only in the customary college football season but the college football post season. “Since there would be more games played and the college football season would be longer with a playoff system in place, more fans would be attending more games and spending their hard earned money on expensive college football tickets. This would generate more revenue for the sport” (Ron G Anselm, 2011). Yet the question of guaranteed money cannot be assured in the case of a playoff system. Yet another question that would arise is the number of venues in which these playoffs could be played. If neutrality is to be valued, these games need to be played in at least three different venues spanning the country- fans would have to do a great deal of travelling which may be a bit difficult and sales may slump. Therefore, consideration would also have to be made paid to the conveniences of fans and their easy access to watch these play off matches. Conclusions : Finally, to round it all up, it could be discerned that under a playoff system, each of the major team does have a good chance of winning the competition and thus not only would the quality of matches be high grade, but also that all of the top teams can give it all they have to win the title though football prowess and playing an excellent brand of football. They would need to give all their very best on the field, not having to worry about computer rankings, what survey reports have to say about them or even whether they are able to retain the confidence and patronage of their sponsors. With a playoff system firmly in place, it is believed that games could run in packed houses, not only because of the massive interest these games draw, but also because it inculcates each and every value that a high grade game of football needs to inculcate on the field. Thus there arguments on both sides are indeed strong and formidable and it would indeed be interesting to consider what would happen if the new format is introduced next season, despite all odds and challenges. While major gains cannot be envisages at this incipient stages, it would be indeed interesting to contemplate whether the playoffs could draw the same kinds of awesome crowds and feverish interest in the game that has been characteristic of the BCS format Recommendations: As it stands now, the BCS system is indeed on a firm footing, but the possibility of future reforms needs to be explored, especially when the criteria for having only the best two teams to clash in the final game is felt all over the football fraternity. It would be interesting to keep tabs of the future events that would evolve in the fantastic game of football, and more so in the matters concerning the BCS Championships. The fact that there are a number of aspects involved in the final fate of BCS football presents interesting challenges as well as raises more absorbing options and alternatives for this glorious game. However, there is a need to take a comprehensive and holistic view of how a changeover in system could not only reform the present system but could also lend credibility and authenticity, beside avoiding the aspect of computer rankings in the final say of this major tournament. Most significant, again, is the fact that a performance based system will make the championship more competitive, calling for the involvement of team as well as individuals in a more focused manner in the game, and chance its quality. Performance to be the main criteria for rankings Thus, there is urgent need for some kind of playoff arrangement system that could place things out on a more firm, rational and non arbitrary manner, which could also consider potential impact on stakeholders like players, teams and student bodies. This not only augurs well for the college football sports as such, but also introduces performance-based and deserving elements in the choice of the teams who would be the final BCS Championship, having played consistently well throughout the tournament and have gained points through sheer hard work and merit and not through other indirect considerations. This will facilitate an overall improvement in the quality and appeal of the game, which is the ultimate aim of organizing championships and other competitions. Reference List BCS system works well, could use tweaks. (2003). TheTigerNews. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://www.thetigernews.com/news.php'aid=2636&sid= Congressman says television money makes college football playoffs a possibility. (2010). Missourian. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/06/19/congressman-says-television-money-makes-college-football-playoffs-possibility/ Misthaufen, P. (2011). BCS Head: Playoff Makes More Money. Bleacher report. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/216671-bcs-head-says-playoff-makes-more-money Ron G Anselm. (2011). There a Need for a College Football Playoff System' The SOP. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://thesop.org/story/sports/2010/08/18/is-there-a-need-for-a-college-football-playoff-system.php Taylor, JJ. (2011). Taylor: Change all about money, but also means playoff on the way. The Dallas Morning News, Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/jean-jacques-taylor/20100613-Taylor-Change-all-about-money-112.ece