Maybe Obama isn't the Anti-Christ after all...

You have to give Obama credit. Politicians have long attacked unpopular ideas in order to build their support. What better way to bring the country together after a divisive election than by attacking the wildly unpopular BCS? Even though the idea of the (future) most powerful man in the world stooping down to meddle in the world of college athletics is a little absurd, it is definitely a smart play.

The common man may not understand the reasons for the mortgage crisis (which is probably why we have the crisis in the first place), whether or not the domestic auto manufacturers are worth saving, or how to simultaneously reduce the federal deficit and lower taxes, but he does know one thing: the BCS sucks.

College football is the only major team sport that does not have an inclusive post-season tournament, and as long as the networks continue to sign decade-long deals with BCS bigwigs, we’ll never see any change. Whether the future President himself could force the BCS power-brokers to institute a playoff is debatable, but he will certainly earn himself a few more favorable opinions by at least pretending to try to do something about it.

I have supported a playoff system in the past, but one of the problems is that while everyone seems to want a playoff, no one can agree on the structure. At the moment, an eight team playoff seems to be the most popular, but some are arguing for a four or sixteen team playoff. Four teams is clearly not enough to have a true playoff, and sixteen would dilute the value of the regular season. For example, Oklahoma and USC are ranked fifth and sixth in the BCS, but most people would concede that those two teams are just as deserving as number three Texas. Well, at least USC is, since Texas already beat Oklahoma. As far as having sixteen teams, just consider that Michigan State and TCU are ranked 15th and 16th, respectively. While both are solid teams, most would agree that including three teams each from the Big Ten (also: Penn State, Ohio State) and MWC (also: Utah, BYU) is a little excessive.

Location also seems to be a concern. Where would these playoff games be held? Would the fans be able to travel with such short notice? It doesn’t seem to be an issue in other sports, but for some reason it keeps coming up in this debate. The NFL and NCAA Final Four fans seem to manage with the uncertainty, and I don’t see why it would be a problem for a college football playoff. As long as a clear bracket was established, fans would know in advance where their team might end up.

Other concerns such as “hurting student athletes” by extending the season are ludicrous. All other divisions of college football have a playoff, and most of those schools have more of an emphasis on academics than the college football factories.

Perhaps the BCS proponents’ strongest argument is the most basic one: it’s all about money. Since the inception of the BCS, college football has never been more popular. Television networks are falling over themselves trying to secure the rights to televise games. More and more schools are expanding their stadiums and adding luxury suites. College football is bringing in more money than ever. With a playoff, would people still tune in to the regular season?

First of all, I don’t believe that an eight team playoff would be all that dilutive to the regular season. Winning a conference title is still a major accomplishment, and fans will continue to tune in to see those games. Most big-time programs have several heated rivalries, and with the small number of games per year, each individual game carries huge importance. One argument against a playoff system is that fans will lose interest in these late-season games (such as Penn State losing to Iowa) because they will lack the drama of an elimination-type game. However, I could argue that the BCS makes virtually every game meaningless. Once your team loses, it is basically eliminated from contention. What reason do you have to watch the games of other teams after your team loses?

Of course, that is not true. Michigan and Tennessee still have packed houses for their games despite horrific seasons. Fans will continue to watch games like Penn State-Iowa because they love college football and the game has a significant factor in deciding the conference championship.

The biggest reason for a playoff goes beyond money (and the millions a playoff would generate) because college football (and sports in general) is about more than that. Players play to win. This isn’t gymnastics. Style points shouldn’t matter. Decide the outcome on the field. How can you tell a 12-0 Utah or Ball State “congrats on winning all your games, now enjoy the Humanitarian Bowl”? Don’t they deserve a chance to play for it all? How do you tell an 11-1 USC that their 11-1 isn’t as good as Florida or Oklahoma’s?

At some point you have to look past all the fluff to see the truth, and truth is that college football needs a playoff.