Some more precincts heard from in the college football playoff debate

Last Friday, Terence Moore provided an opinion piece for cnn.com to voice his position that a college football playoff is bad, bad, and more bad. Many of his statements concern academics, and I cannot condemn anyone who values education. But I will examine his points also in light of a survey of 121 NFL players who supported a playoff by a margin of 70% to 27% over the current system.

Mr. Moore's argument is that everyone (fans, coaches, media) wants a playoff without regard to the players' needs. He argues that extra games take away time from studies, which is certainly true. But did he protest when college football went from eleven to twelve regular season games? Or when conferences added conference championship games? The former change affected every major college football team, whereas my college tourney proposal extends the season for four teams. Which had more impact? Of course, I noticed these increases in regular season games because it is starting to increase the total number of games under my tourney scenario, yet I heard no substantial outrage at the time.

And my proposal for the four teams that have extended seasons in my tournament is that: 1) spring football is defined across the board for a specified period of time; 2) any team that makes the semi-finals of my tourney reduces spring football by two weeks, and 3) any team that makes the finals of my tourney reduces spring football by four weeks.

Also, Moore makes the assertion that a playoff would occur at the stressful academic time of year. For one thing, there is no standard academic schedule. Schools on quarters will have very different finals weeks than those on semesters, so it is impossible to say definitively that a playoff would occur during those times. When I attended a Division II school that went to the national championship game in football, yes, it probably was a hectic schedule. They played basically 15 games over the 16 week semester, stretching from the start of the semester to finals week. In contrast, my tourney which tries to preserve the key New Year's bowls, would utilize more of the inter-session time than the Division II schedule does.

Also, as I noted last February, the fact that several Iowa players were hospitalized due to strenuous POST-season workouts (the strenuousness perhaps due to their poor bowl performance) does not indicate that the current system puts books in the hands of players when the bowl season stops.

Mr. Moore asks questions about playoffs like, "Where would you play these games? The site of current bowl games, you say, or maybe NFL stadiums, neutral sites or various places on the dark side of the moon? How many -- if any -- of these locations would be available?" Um, have you seen the college basketball tournament? Seems like there is no shortage of places to play for hoops, and football stadia, many used less than a dozen times a year, shouldn't really have any scheduling problems. Terrence, after the academic stuff, did you run out of material for you opinion piece?

Moore also asks, "If you use bowls, which ones? And since the bulk of the TV and advertising revenue would flow to playoff games, what would happen financially to the bulk of the bowls without playoff games?" Again, didn't the BCS bowls pretty much do this also, elevating four bowls and then four bowls plus a championship game? Yes, some bowls seem lacking of interest in the current system, yet they continue, and others seem to be doing quite well. I think the bowls would be doing just as well in a playoff scenario. Some with a sea of empty seats, some with nice attendance, just like it is now.

Next, Moore queries, "How would you choose the participants for a playoff system, and wouldn't that create more controversy?" Again, I am sure the same thing happens at other football levels of playoffs (e.g., Division II and III), and probably every other college team sport, but does anyone want to stop all college tournaments because there is a cutoff of those in and out?

Moore continues that March Madness is an academic disaster for hoops and so therefore would be bad for football. But I think the problem is more deep seeded than playoff sports versus non-playoff sports. After I attended a Division II school, I went to a Big Ten school, and I used to make extra money as a proctor for exams for a class that enrolled 1,000 students per semester. The class had a TA for a special discussion section for athletes, among other discussion sections. The TA told me that athletes from every other sport were serious attendees of the section, and hard working students, except for the men's hoops and football players. So, for the other sports that we had with nationally ranked teams in playoffs, like baseball and volleyball, the student athletes were student AND athletes, wheres the revenue guys tended to be, well, slackers. This is a bigger issue than playoffs versus no-playoffs, and can be addressed no matter how champions are determined.

Terrence also goes into attendance issues for Division I-AA tourney is less than their regular season games. Well, again, let me tell you my personal experience when my school went to the Division II championship game. I went to every home game that season except one, the first tournament game at home. Why? It was Thanksgiving, and I was at home. I am sure that students leave during the period of many of the college playoff games, plus it is getting darn cold too. In general, the majority of students at schools like this will not change their plans to attend a game, but when I went to a Big Ten school, I did not go home one Thanksgiving because I would miss two basketball home games when my season tickets were finally down in a prime location. The fanaticism of the fans is just different between these types of schools. When I was at the Division II school, a professor asked a friend's class during the time we were having a big rivalry game if the students would take two free tickets for our school's game or two free tickets for the Big Ten school 60 miles away (who were unranked but bowl bound), every hand indicated that students would take the tix for the Big Ten school.

Mr. Moore finishes with the question, "How many folks would travel multiple times to see their team during a playoff system involving the big boys?"For one thing, I recognize this and try to minimize travel expectations, for instance having the First Round in cities near one of the participating schools, and a single semi-final site in cities where I hope the locals would be excited to have the Final Four coming in to play and help buy up tix, and that the most devoted of the four schools will also show interest. This year, my semi's are in Saint Louis, and I hope after the Rams season, some local fans would like to take in a couple intriguing games of the college variety. And does the bowl season now seem a little sparsely attended? What better match-up as far as fan-hood than Oklahoma and Iowa, but I saw lots of empty seats for that one.

Mr. Moore, there are issues with the academics of many of the students playing football and men's hoops, and those issues are real and deep-seeded. But they are not related to playoffs. Come on Terrence, follow my tournament, check out the results of Oklahoma State versus Oregon after the January 2nd games are over. You'll get college football tourney fever, you know you will.....