Bill Footpenis I'm sorry, Hancock, is the executive director of the BCS right now, a revolving door role that different BCS stooges take on for a couple years at a time. Basically, it's their agreement -- each of us takes the bullets and pretends we're right and everybody else is stupid for a couple years, then you hand the target and manual for being an ignorant imbecile over to someone else.
Oh, and all the while you collect bags of cash.
He posted a story this afternoon on something called "The American Chronicle," I guess the subtext here being that if you don't like what he has to say about our awesome bowl system, then you're un-American or something.
Well, guess what? It's the same old tired arguments. Same nonsense, different day. And eventually he'll win. People like me will get tired of it and wander off to do something else. But you know what we won't be doing? Watching his sport. At a time when they could own sports for a month. But whatever. For now, I'm still punchy, and so we're going to stampede Bill Footpenis' (I'm sorry -- Hancock's) article. Ready? Me, too.
Like millions of other fans, I love college football.
I don't think you really do. This is like saying starting off an argument against capital punishment by saying, "I love putting people to death." You know what else "millions of other fans" love? A resolution. A champion. Fairness. An attempt at fairness.
Its passion, traditions and pageantry are truly cherished.
By whom? Who "cherishes" such a whimpering end to a sports season? And what tradition is left at this point? The Rose Bowl, where the Pac Ten and Big Ten play... okay. And what else? Nothing. This argument is weak.
Fans will be watching intently on Jan. 7, when the top two teams meet in a bowl game.
Maybe. But there are 32 other bowl games that the only people watching will be the fans of those schools, bored people and gamblers. Meanwhile, I bet you everyone who loves football will watch as many NFL playoff games as they possibly can, regardless of whether their team is playing. You know what else dominates TV ratings? Regular season NFL games. And they have a playoff that, I guess, "dilutes" the regular season. Yeah, makes it downright awful. Nobody watches the NFL. Stupid playoffs.
Such showdowns [1 versus 2] took place only eight times in 56 seasons previously, while they have occurred nine times in the last 12 years
This is called "misdirection," kids. Bill is making an argument against something nobody is arguing about. Nobody is claiming the BCS doesn't pretty much get #1 versus #2 (although only getting it right 75% of the time is hardly an argument for it being awesome). People are saying that, like, if you're Florida and you've been #1 all season and you lose one game, you probably are still pretty good and should play in a game that means something after a 12-1 season.
It will be another exciting finish to the most important regular season in sports.
No, it won't.
Now, to Bill's four repeated bullet points.
First, playoffs diminish the regular season.
How so, Bill? I mean, really, because college basketball has a gazillion-dollar-generating tournament with probably more teams than it needs and I don't recall anyone ever saying the basketball regular season is diminished. In fact, I'd say it diminishes everything that if you lose a flukey game your season is over. Or, you know, if you're Cincinnati and you go undefeated but, well, what didn't they do right again, Bill? Bill? Hello?
The interest of fans, sponsors and others is redirected into the playoff. Now, from August to December, fans nationwide shift their attention from game to game and conference to conference weekly, as teams move up and down the ladder toward the title game. Why would we want to dilute that?
Wh...what? I don't even understand that paragraph. I guess it's hard to argue when you are confused by nonsensical sentences. So, if we had a playoff, nobody would care about college football until the playoff rolled around? Seriously? Is that f-cking SERIOUSLY what he's saying here? The only league where I think that might be a legit argument is the NBA. But the NBA sucks for lots of other reasons, too, so who cares?
Second, playoffs burden the fans. It's unrealistic to ask thousands of college students and fans to travel to faraway places week after week, to follow their teams through a playoff.
Asinine. Simply asinine. You know what else "burdens" fans? Being a fan of Cinci or Boise or TCU and knowing no matter what your beloved school does, it won't matter, because some of you (or all of you) will get screwed out of playing for the title. You know what else is a "burden"? The asinine prices and exclusivity of BCS bowl games. Try getting a ticket, Average Fan. Go for it. Let me know how far that gets you. What if teams hosted playoff games for one or two rounds and then played the bowls? Huh, interesting. Or how about this? You guys already champion conference title games played in neutral site cities. How come it's okay to ask Florida fans to travel to Atlanta for the SEC title game and then to another city for a bowl game, but it's not okay to ask them to go to maybe one more game -- if Florida advanced that far? Because that's what we're talking about. Most people want a simple, small playoff. Top 8 teams, max.
Third, a playoff would fuel even more controversy, as more teams with similar records are left out.
You're an idiot, Footpenis. Controversy will always exist, yes. But it's easy to say "too bad" to the teams left on the outside of larger groupings than, say, TWO teams, because once you get past the top 5, it's hard to have an argument that you deserve to be the best.
Think it's tough picking the top two?
No. Nobody does. You yourself bragged that the BCS has gotten it right a whole 9 out of 12 times.
Try selecting eight or sixteen.
Okay. Top 8 in the BCS. That took me .33 seconds.
Or take the 11 conferences and say they all get in plus five "at-large" teams. Presto, 16 teams.
This would guarantee additional pressure to expand brackets to uncontrollable levels.
No, it wouldn't. This is just silly.
Historical note: The NCAA men's basketball tournament began with just eight teams.
Indeed. And the forward pass used to be illegal, too. What's your point?
Fourth, the vast majority of college athletes will succeed in life because of their classroom -- not football -- performance. These are college students, not NFL pros.
Yes, I forgot. You're concerned about academics. That's laughable. Again, as I said, conference title games in faraway cities in December are fine, but then suddenly when it comes to a playoff we all care about academics. Because lots of schools have classes and finals between Christmas and the first week of January. Putz.
Bill Footpenis then leaves us with this wonderful gem:
In conclusion, with all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than dictating how college football is played.
Wait, who said anything about Congress? It's almost like when the Law & Order cops are interrogating someone about a murder and they start off with, "Hey, do you know this girl?" And the perp says, "I'm telling you, I didn't kill anyone!" "Who said anything about killing anyone?" replies the streetwise cop.
You're right, Bill. Congress shouldn't have to get involved. But jerkwads like you continue to make a mockery of a sport many of us love, so maybe there's no choice. There are very real and possible and reasonable solutions. Solutions that would still allow gobs of money to be made. Solutions that would not "ruin" or "dilute" the regular season. Solutions that would not be set in stone. You've tweaked your precious BCS before -- why couldn't we tweak the playoff if there was a problem?
And please stop with the "nobody can come up with a perfect system" argument. The New England Patriots missed the NFL playoffs last year with an 11-5 record. Think they felt it was "fair"? Of course not. Everyone agrees -- there is no perfect solution. But there are better solutions than this joke we have now.