Advertising
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 By Kyle Glickson
Advertising
On the day before Election Day, Barack Obama, newly elected U.S. President, appeared on Monday-night football and spoke about how he would like to see the college football bowl format resemble that of the playoff format of professional sports.
"I think it's about time we had playoffs in college football,’’ Mr. Obama said. “I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this that and the other. Get eight teams -- the top eight teams -- right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion."
What President Obama was referring to is the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), which is a system that was created in 1998 to make sure that the No.1 and No.2 teams played each other for the national championship. It is a complicated system that uses writers, coaches, and computerized polls, based on strength of schedule, to determine which two teams make the championship.
The problem with this system is that the national champion should be determined on the field rather than by the pollsters. Every champion in every other professional sport is determined by a playoff format. Playoff matchups are based on teams’ records during the regular season. If a team had the best record, for instance, then they would become the #1 seed and so on and so forth. This is how playoff matchups are determined. It is done this way in the National Football League, the National Hockey League, National Basketball League, Major League Baseball and United States Tennis Association. Without a playoff system, there is no clear champion.
The people against the playoff format argue that college football is unique in the way they do things based on polls, which gives the sport more attention since there are reasons to debate which team is No.1 and which teams should earn top Bowl seeds. But this argument doesn’t make sense since there will still be room for college football fans to debate the issue in that the top eight teams will probably be disputed as well. There will be plenty of arguments for fans to debate about the lower seeds. However, there is nothing to prevent using a playoff format and keep Bowl games for teams that don’t make it to the playoffs.
Oregon President David Frohnmayer, chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, disagreed with Obama’s suggestion. "We deeply respect the president-elect and we are glad that he is a fan of college football," Frohnmayer said in an e-mail response to ESPN. "We have the most compelling regular season in all of sports, and I'm sure that contributes to Senator Obama's enjoyment of our great game."
Many college football fans don’t want to change the bowl format since this is the way it’s been done for years and why change something that works? They claim that the regular season wouldn’t be as important if every loss could cost them a bowl appearance.
But as we all learned during President Obama’s campaign, change is how he won the election, and it is what is needed to improve a system that doesn’t work.
|
Back to the articles list
|
|
|
ADD YOUR COMMENT
|
|
|
AAleksandrova
Reporter
MBadamo
Reporter
SarahBarrena
Reporter
SydneyBarrena
Reporter
ACavanaugh
Reporter
LChaudhry
Reporter
AudreyChu
Reporter
EDeFuria
Reporter
RDepalma
Reporter
BElgart
Reporter
SFragale
Reporter
JGoldblatt
Student Editor
SGovindaswaami
Reporter
JGutcho
Reporter
EKaplan
Reporter
LKatz
Reporter
MMallamaci
Reporter
LMassaro
Reporter
KNealon
Reporter
APostorino
Reporter
JPowers
Reporter
RPrasad
Reporter
SRollins
Reporter
JRosenthal
Reporter
ISchaffer
Reporter
PSodhani
Reporter
JViti
Student Editor
SVolkov
Reporter
SWinnegrad
Reporter
CWraback
Reporter
AZhang
Reporter
THirschman
Reporter
GNaletilic
Reporter
ATantum
Reporter
MKhan
Reporter
HFidlow
Reporter
HMartin
Reporter
LSpiezia
Reporter
There are currently 37 editions on-line. Click on edition name to view articles.
- Fri, Feb 01, 2013
Volume 16; Edition 2
- Sat, Dec 01, 2012
Volume 16; Edition 1
- Mon, Jun 04, 2012
Volume 15; Edition 4
- Sun, Apr 01, 2012
Volume 15, Edition 3
- Wed, Feb 01, 2012
Volume 15, Edition 2
- Thu, Dec 01, 2011
Volume 15, Edition 1
- Wed, Jun 01, 2011
Volume 14, Edition 4
- Fri, Apr 01, 2011
Volume 14, Edition 3
- Tue, Feb 01, 2011
Volume 14, Edition 2
- Wed, Dec 01, 2010
Volume 14, Edition 1
- Tue, Jun 01, 2010
Volume 13, Edition 4
- Thu, Apr 01, 2010
Volume 13, Edition 3
- Mon, Feb 01, 2010
Volume 13, Edition 2
- Fri, Dec 04, 2009
Volume 13, Edition 1
- Mon, Jun 01, 2009
Volume 12, Edition 4
- Wed, Apr 01, 2009
Volume 12, Edition 3
- Mon, Feb 02, 2009
Volume 12, Edition 2
- Mon, Dec 01, 2008
Volume 12, Edition 1
- Sun, Jun 01, 2008
Volume 11, Edition 4
- Tue, Apr 01, 2008
Volume 11, Edition 3
- Fri, Feb 01, 2008
Volume 11, Edition 2
- Sat, Dec 01, 2007
Volume 11, Edition 1
- Fri, Jun 01, 2007
Volume 10, Edition 4
- Sun, Apr 15, 2007
Volume 10; Edition 3
- Mon, Feb 12, 2007
VOLUME 10, Edition 2
- Fri, Dec 01, 2006
VOLUME 10, EDITION 1
- Sat, Jun 10, 2006
Volume 9, Edition 4
- Fri, Mar 31, 2006
VOLUME 9, Edition 3
- Mon, Jan 30, 2006
Volume 9, Edition 2
- Tue, Nov 01, 2005
VOLUME 9, EDITION 1
- Wed, Jun 01, 2005
Volume 8, Edition 4
- Fri, Apr 01, 2005
Volume 8, Edition 3
- Mon, Feb 07, 2005
Volume 8, Edition 2
- Mon, Nov 01, 2004
Volume 8, Issue 1
- Tue, Jun 15, 2004
Volume 7, Issue 4
- Mon, Mar 01, 2004
Volume 7, Issue 2
- Thu, Feb 19, 2004
Volume 7, Issue 3
|
|