MARASCO: Cautious optimism

With the college football season currently kicking off, the big story — seemingly overshadowing early season games themselves — is the implementation of a four-team playoff system, set to start in 2014.

For years, you’ve heard the clamoring for a playoff system, and rightfully so. There is an imminent need for a perfected postseason in the ever-growing conglomerate that is collegiate football.

So, we were the squeaky wheel, and we’ve gotten our grease. Cause for celebration. Right?

Let’s not dance in the streets just yet.

The new, four-team playoff model is an improvement from the current system — I am not arguing that — but be careful about thinking that college football’s postseason issues have been solved.

What is the biggest problem with the BCS? Elite teams, occasionally even undefeated ones, are at risk of getting left out of the national championship picture without a chance to settle it on a football field.

In 2004, USC, Oklahoma University and Auburn all sat with perfect 12–0 records on the eve of bowl season. Since the BCS’s job is to select two teams, and only two teams, Auburn was left out in the cold. Going undefeated in the SEC and not even getting a shot at the national title is very hard to stomach.

TCU was undefeated in back-to-back years, 2009 and 2010, and was ignored from title contention. Cincinnati went undefeated in 2009 and got no love. Boise State and Hawaii have suffered the same frustrating fate.

So, the BCS picked two darn good teams, but left us with one or two teams every now and then that we pity — we wonder what could’ve been if they’d gotten their shot. We’re left with cravings for these head-to-head matchups that never come to be.

Head-to-head combat is indisputable evidence in the sporting realm.  If I beat you, I’m better than you. It’s simple. It’s beautiful.

College football doesn’t give us enough of this fundamental principle, and at the most critical possible time — the postseason.

Therefore, we are often left with a mess of controversy and doubt heading into the championship game — “How can Auburn run the table in the SEC and not get a chance at the title?”

You don’t get that ugly controversy from the NFL postseason because everything is settled mono e mono. Teams get to the Super Bowl by directly vanquishing the other top dogs.

A four-team playoff is a step in the right direction, but it’s a baby step.

It will be nice to include two more teams in the championship picture, but the four-team system will bring with it a brand new set of arguments, controversy and hair-loss — you still have to whittle the elites down to just four teams.

It’s harder than you may think.

What if we’d had this four-team playoff as recently 2010? Auburn went 13–0 in the SEC. That’s a no-brainer. They’re in. Oregon, 12–0 — they’re in.

Ok, then what? You can only pick two more teams. You’ve got TCU at 12–0 (but the weakest strength of schedule), Stanford at 11–1, 11–1 Wisconsin, 11–1 Ohio State, and 11–1 Michigan State.

There’s also 11–2 Oklahoma, 10–2 Arkansas and LSU (with the toughest schedules). Missouri and Oklahoma State went 10–2.  Virginia Tech was 11–2.  Boise State went 11–1. Nevada was 12–1.

So, who do you take? TCU is undefeated, but if you put them in the playoff, you’re left with one slot to fill, 11–1 Stanford from the Pac-12 and three 11–1 teams from the Big-10.

Oh, by the way, is it even clear that TCU is more deserving than the 10–win SEC teams or an 11–2 Big-12 team? But you can’t leave out an undefeated team, can you? And do you put Stanford in or a Big-10 team? And how would you pick one team out of three 11–1 teams from the same conference?

Boom. Your head exploded.

In 2009 there were five, yes five, undefeated teams — Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU and Boise State.  Florida was 12–1 (in the SEC).

The BCS occasionally left a lonely team cursing the night sky with a bottle of bourbon in one hand.  The four-team playoff will leave a gaggle of bitter one and two-loss teams picketing in the streets every year. Heck, some years we’ll see undefeated teams not even make the cut.

When only two teams were being chosen, fewer schools had an argument.  Looking back at 2010 again, we had Auburn and Oregon as the clear choices to battle for the title.  TCU was the only team who had any real right to complain, and even they would admit their schedule had been much less impressive than the other candidates.

If you expand it to four teams (as we just tried), all of a sudden you’ve got a line of guys outside the nightclub yelling at the bouncer, “Hey! How come he gets to go in? If he gets to go in, I should too!” and they kind of have a point.

And who’s deciding this? Who’s the bouncer?

A selection committee – that won’t lead to more controversy?

There are already fistfights going on over where the championship game is going to be played.  No, the controversy is not going anywhere.

A four-team playoff is progress, so be optimistic.

Just don’t be satisfied.

(Data courtesy of collegefootballpoll.com.)