BCS Championship Game: SEC Wins Because Other Conferences Choose to Lose
Somehow the SEC has received a majority of fan criticism for being the only conference represented in the national championship game tonight.
The leading voice of fan disapproval of the championship matchup is ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, who lamented the fact that the game is a rematch of a game already played in the regular season:
"The first LSU-Alabama game was more boring than Tim Tebow’s porn stash. To play another one will be like remaking “J. Edgar” or attending a goiter convention."
While witty, Reilly’s commentary merely panders to fans who demand high-scoring offenses and does not show any understanding of the numerous nuances of the game of football. For people who understand individual matchups and battles at the line of scrimmage, a game doesn’t have to be high-scoring to be exciting. For people who need real-life football to look like a game of Madden, the frustration with college football teams that actually play solid defense is understandable.
Of course, no anti-SEC argument is complete without invoking the false belief that all conferences are created equally:
"Sorry. Alabama playing in the title game is bonkers. A team that didn’t even make its conference title game will be playing in the national title game? It’s like Rick Perry withdrawing from the primaries and then going up against President Obama."
Reilly’s comparison is mildly amusing but incorrect. The BCS resembles a North Korea election more closely than it resembles a fair democratic election. After winning his or her party’s presidential primaries in the United States, a candidate then moves up to the next level of the election. If the American political system resembled the BCS, the winner of one party’s primary would get a consolation prize, but wouldn’t actually get a chance to become President. Such a candidate would be wearing orange and black this year.
One type of sports championship system does represent the American election system. Winners of one round advance to the next. Such a system is referred to by the name of…
Playoffs.
If playoffs were in place, the annual debate over who belongs in the title game would cease to exist, because the debate would have been proven on the field. Reilly’s article pointed out why he thought other teams were more deserving of playing in the championship game, but replacing Alabama with Oklahoma State or Stanford would have only been putting a Band-aid on a flesh wound. The system would still have been part of the most exploitative industry in the nation. Playoffs would have given a fair chance for each of the top teams to advance, and according to Yahoo!’s Dan Wetzel, the SEC, whose best two teams benefited from the BCS this year, was the only league in favor of playoffs a few years ago:
"If it were up to the SEC, though, it never would’ve happened. At least not without giving teams from two other leagues a chance to prove themselves on the field.In 2008, commissioner Mike Slive pitched a so-called “plus-one” plan that essentially was a four-team playoff using existing bowl games. Other than the ACC, the other conferences not only summarily rejected the plan, they refused to even discuss its details.“I remember it being a lonely meeting,” Slive said Saturday. “That’s all I want to say about it.”So don’t hate on the SEC for this, correct?“That’s for you to conclude,” Slive said, with a smile. “That’s not me saying it.”"
Instead of a playoff system that gave teams from all conferences a chance, the other conferences stuck with the BCS, which the SEC has dominated. With tonight’s matchup bound to give the SEC its sixth national championship in a row, the SEC has used its name recognition to lure Texas A&M and Missouri into the conference, helping to contribute to other conferences’ instability in the realignment craze.
The Big 12, Pac 12 and every conference other than the ACC helped make their beds by supporting the deeply flawed BCS system. Now they have to watch the SEC lie in it.