Well, at least the AP protest votes won’t be split with Cincy. The TCU-Boise winner will get them all. Could be quite a few of ’em, if TCU.
Well, at least the AP protest votes won’t be split with Cincy. The TCU-Boise winner will get them all. Could be quite a few of ’em, if TCU.
This is definitely a bad game for playoff advocates.
How so?
The argument for a playoff doesn’t depend on the notion that, say, Cincinnati is on par with Florida. The argument is that you can’t determine these things by speculation and conjecture — you need to let them play on the field. Only then can you find out whether a given team is, say, Boise ’07/Utah ’09 or Hawaii ’08/Cincinnati ’10.
In any event, TCU always had by far the better case for title-game inclusion than Cincy. The Bearcats’ defense was exposed several times during the regular season. There’s a reason I, and most other serious playoff advocates, spent most of our breath at season’s end arguing for TCU, not Cincy or Boise — the Horned Frogs pass the “eye test” much more than Cincy or Boise ever did.
I think it hurts the argument by giving fodder to people who will argue that this shows teams in some conferences, even undefeated, can’t compete with the Floridas of the world.
It will give those people fodder, yes, but it doesn’t objectively hurt the argument on its actual merits. Especially since, whenever a mid-major achieves something on a big stage, those same people invariably make excuses for the losing team (Oklahoma “didn’t want to be there” vs. Boise, Alabama had injuries vs. Utah, etc.), but when a mid-major or Big East team gets exposed, they ignore all extraneous circumstances (e.g., Cincy losing its freakin’ coach) and assume we can extrapolate some grand overarching theory of the universe based on a single game. It’s a completely inconsistent and hypocritical viewpoint.
But yes: it does some limited damage, due to the perceptions game, much as Georgia-Hawaii did. But for every Georgia-Hawaii or Florida-Cincy, there’s a Boise-Oklahoma or Utah-Alabama. In the end, these things balance out, and there will be more Boises and Utahs in future years. So I don’t think it’ll have much of an impact on the long term BCS vs. Playoff argument.
It will, however, have a huge impact on perceptions of the Big East specifically. Expect the “Mountain West deserves a BCS spot over the Big East” talking point to gain steam, especially if TCU beats Boise. And expect any undefeated Big East team to have serious trouble reaching the title game in future years, even if there are only 2 unbeatens in the country.
I think there’s an overlooked angle to the playoff idea: sure, it would give teams like Boise ’07 and Utah ’09 a chance to win the national title, but does anyone really believe that either of these teams would have survived a grueling playoff to the national title? I understand the argument that they deserve the opportunity, but these mid-major teams probably get more exposure and national prestige by ending the season with a bowl win over Oklahoma or Alabama than by getting tossed from a playoff in the national semi-final. George Mason didn’t exactly rise to the elite in college hoops because of their Final Four run.
I guess I just wonder if a playoff would actually do more to keep the Boises, TCUs and Utahs of the world down than the current BCS system. I’m not really against a playoff, but I’m not convinced that it would necessarily be a better thing for up-and-comers. That said, it’s ridiculous when Boise State has to worry about a Virginia Tech loss THIS season affecting their championship hopes for NEXT season.
Pending Monday night’s result, I think this year’s TCU team could make a serious run at the national title in a grueling playoff. With regard to Boise ’07 and Utah ’09, you’re probably right, but as the New York lottery says, hey, you never know.
Also, while George Mason didn’t rise to the elite, it was also a one-year wonder. A better example would be Gonzaga, which DID rise to the national elite based on, essentially, three straight Sweet Sixteen appearances (the first of which actually took them to the Elite Eight) and sustained success thereafter. I think a team like Boise could potentially pull something like that off in a playoff system.
In any event, for me personally, a playoff would be the best of both worlds: it would give teams like Boise a fair shot, while ultimately leading to most championships being won by either: a) the same teams that are winning them anyway, or b) teams like the various recent 1- and 2-loss USC teams that are “playing the best football in the country” at season’s end, but lost their chance at a title because of an early and/or flukey loss or two.
I agree it’s not necessarilly a fair criticism, I just think it’s one that will be used.