1. A post-season playoff leading up to the National Championship would replace the subjectivity of human and computer polls with the objective measure of winning or losing a game.
   
   
2. A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 85% of college football fans supported a change to a playoff system of some kind. 69% of fans surveyed preferred the idea of a playoff tournament involving the top four, eight, or 16 teams to replace bowl games while 16% preferred a one-game playoff between the top teams emerging from the post-season bowl games.
   
   
3. If a team loses one game it is probably out of contention for the National Championship; if it loses twice there is little chance the team will qualify for any BCS game. Therefore, if a team loses early in the season then the rest of its games lack excitement, and the claim by BCS proponents that every game counts does not hold true.
   
   
4. A playoff system would give each school an opportunity to earn a fair share of the revenue distributed to the 11 conferences in the FBS. Since the BCS conferences automatically qualify for BCS bowl games, they receive a disproportionate amount of the annual bowl revenue. Since football earnings fund other sports, this disparity affects athletes in all sports. [3]
   
   
5. The BCS human polls are subject to bias, which has been cited as one reason the University of Utah was kept out of the 2008 championship game. [4] One third of the standings are based on how the coaches rank the teams, which assumes that coaches have time to watch all of the games while also preparing their teams each week. A playoff system, used by most other sports, would eliminate the controversy.
   
   
6. The BCS rewards undefeated BCS teams, so schools sometimes try to schedule games against weaker opponents to protect their records. A playoff would remove the easy schedule and make the championship solely about performance.
   
   
7. A playoff system would not mean the end of the BCS rankings, which could still be used to determine the top 4, 8, 12, or 16 teams, depending on how many playoff games are feasible. Every game during the regular season would still be as important as under the current system, because a few losses would make it difficult for a team to qualify for the playoffs.
   
   
8. The national champions in other major college sports are determined by playoff systems. Even the 140 plus football teams of the NCAA's FCS (formerly known as Division I-AA) compete in a 16-team tournament. The only reason that the BCS is still controlling the football post-season is because the system has become entrenched.

1. A playoff system would extend the 13 week regular season by at least a month, which would interfere with athletes' college studies and which could potentially lead to more injuries from playing.
   
   
2. The BCS system makes every regular season game crucial for the teams in contention to finish in the top two. The importance of every game increases attendance and revenue, which is shared with other sports and non-athletic programs at each school.
   
   
3. Before 1998, bowl revenue was shared only by the conferences that had teams playing in the major bowl games, (2.3 MB) but the BCS changed the system to share the revenue with every conference.  Replacing the BCS would decrease the revenue to conferences without teams in the playoffs.
   
   
4. The BCS rankings are designed to favor consistency over the course of the entire season. It rewards teams that beat the opponents they are supposed to beat as well as underdogs that upset higher-ranked teams. Under a playoff system, a team could lose an entire season's worth of hard work by having one bad day.
   
   
5. The college football post-season bowl games are popular and profitable. Critics of BCS say that most people want a playoff system, but the bowl game attendance numbers contradict their argument. Attendance at the 2008 season bowl games was nearly equal to each stadium's capacity, in some cases exceeding it. For example, the Rose Bowl capacity is 91,000 and attendance was 93,293. [5]
   
   
6. The proposed playoff system alternatives are actually less fair than the BCS system in place. In a league of 120 teams, there is no way for every team to play each other in the course of the regular season, let alone in a playoff during the post-season.
   
   
7. The BCS conferences have stronger teams in them. An undefeated or one-loss record in a BCS conference should mean more than the same record in a weaker, non-BCS conference because the teams are not facing opponents of the same quality. The BCS rankings consider strength of schedule in the computer rating formulas, and the human voters account for it as well.
   
   
8. A playoff system would entail each team playing games in different cities during the holiday season in December and January, with no way to predict where any game besides the first one would take place. Students and alumni would be unable to make travel plans in advance to support their teams.

1. The earnings for the host cities of the five BCS games in Jan. 2010 is expected to exceed $1.2 billion.
   
   
2. 85% of college football fans support changing to a playoff system according to a 2007 Gallup Poll.
   
   
3. Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced the College Football Playoff Act of 2009, a bill that would make any national championship game illegal if it was not the result of a playoff system.
   
   
4. Princeton and Rutgers were both chosen as the first college football national champions in 1869.
   
   
5. The various polls and ratings used since 1869 have selected more than one team as the national champion in 110 of the last 140 years.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a self-described "five-game arrangement for post-season college football," is a system that ranks teams and matches the top two in the national championship game to determine the national champion. The annual controversy about whether the BCS should be replaced by a playoff system centers on the BCS rankings (also called standings). The BCS standings are calculated by averaging three elements: the Harris Intercollegiate Football Poll, the USA TODAY Coaches' Poll (which replaced the Associated Press Poll in 2005), and the average of six computer rankings. Proponents of the BCS say their rankings are as accurate as possible because the BCS incorporates human polls and computer ratings to calculate the standings, but critics counter that the BCS rankings often place teams in the wrong order and discriminate against smaller schools.

The number one and number two teams, selected by the various polls and ratings used over time, played each other in bowl games eight times out of 57 seasons (14%) between 1936 and 1992, when the first bowl coalition (a bowl agreement preceding the BCS) began. Since the creation of the Bowl Championship Series, the top two teams according to the AP poll have met eight out of 11 seasons (73%), a fact that the BCS proponents consider to be evidence that the system is working.

Fans nonetheless argue that the teams selected to play for the national championship are not always the two best teams. In 2003, for example, the top three teams finished the season with one loss each. The University of Southern California (USC) was ranked number one by the two human polls but the computer rating placed USC at number three and thereby excluded them from competing in the national championship. The AP poll chose USC as the national champion while the coaches' poll selected Louisiana State University, so the national championship was split in 2003. The various polls and ratings used since 1869 have selected more than one team as the national champion in 110 of the last 140 years.

Six conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC) plus the University of Notre Dame had existing bowl agreements before the BCS was formed in 1998, so the BCS rules were written to guarantee automatic entry into BCS bowl games for the champions of those six conference. Schools in those conferences are called BCS teams, while schools in the five conferences that are not guaranteed a BCS spot are referred to as non-BCS teams. A non-BCS team can earn a spot in a BCS bowl game by finishing in the top 12, or if it is ranked in the top 16 and ranked higher than at least one team from a BCS conference.

From 1998-2008, nine undefeated teams were excluded from the BCS National Championship game while teams with one or more losses were included. Eight of those nine teams were non-BCS schools; the one time an undefeated BCS school (Auburn University) was not selected for the national championship game was in 2004 when two other BCS schools (USC and University of Oklahoma) were also undefeated. A non-BCS team has never played in the national championship game in the history of the Bowl Championship Series, and out of the 47 BCS bowl games played since 1998, non-BCS teams have played four times. [6]

President Barack Obama stated his support for instituting a playoff system on the Nov. 16, 2008 CBS television program 60 Minutes, "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear, decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system... It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this."

Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced the College Football Playoff Act of 2009 (160 KB) on Jan. 9, 2009 to make it illegal to promote, market, or advertise a post-season game as a championship or national championship game unless it was "the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system." The bill was approved by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Dec. 9, 2009, and it goes to full committee next, although a hearing has not been scheduled. [7] Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed that the BCS violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits contracts or conspiracies to limit competition, because the University of Utah was not selected to play in the 2008 National Championship Game despite being the only team to go undefeated that year.

The BCS commissioners have stated their opposition to a playoff system despite political pressure and public criticism. To work on improving its image, the BCS hired the former director of the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament, Bill Hancock, as its first Executive Director on Nov. 17, 2009; launched a Twitter page on Nov. 19, 2009; and hired George W. Bush's former press secretary, Ari Fleischer, as its spokesman on Nov. 21, 2009. [8] [9] Bill Hancock said that "A lot of frustration with the BCS is because people don't understand it... The fact is a playoff would be as contentious or more contentious than what we have now." [10]

The money college football teams make from ticket sales, television broadcasting rights, merchandising, and other revenue sources is often an important part of funding for their schools. For example, Forbes magazine estimated that the football team of the University of Notre Dame generated $97 million in contributions to the university's other sports, academic programs, and the local economy of South Bend, Indiana in 2006. [11]

The total economic impact in the host cities of the five BCS games in Jan. 2010 is expected to be more than $1.2 billion in earnings. (2.3 MB) Nearly $250 million in bowl game revenue was paid out to college football teams and conferences in 2008, and bowl game payments are expected to total more than $2.5 billion over the next ten years. (3.2 MB)

With the annual debate revived by fans and sportswriters, the involvement of the federal government, and the financial benefit that bowl games offer schools, the issue of whether to replace the BCS with a playoff system continues to be one of the most discussed aspects of college football.

We post pro, con, and not clearly pro or con comments in the approximate ratio that we received them. We sometimes edit comments for brevity, clarity, and spelling. We may also remove comments posted when we find better comments covering the same issues or for other good reasons.

1. "Playoffs would be idiotic. Who seriously wants to travel around in the middle of the school year so 'BCS busters' can get a fair chance at a title they don't deserve???"
   Matthew, Feb. 19, 2010

1. "In my opinion, one possible downside of a playoff system is that if a team has an off day, there goes the season. And non-BCS schools have a disadvantage here due to strength of schedules, money and facilities. In the current system, they still have a chance of playing through. The exception is of course the non-BCS teams. Although non-BCS teams must play a more perfect season, in some ways they are better off 'busting the BCS' as the system currently is - notably, the BSU and TCU type teams. Income parity is the major issue here. Big bucks maintain big programs and their inherent advantages. If the non-BCS schools would have as much money given to them as the BCS schools, the playoff system would be more equitable as well."
   Will, Feb. 10, 2010

Please take our short survey and give your opinion on whether or not you think college football should replace the BCS with a playoff system. We'd also like to know what you think of this "micro" site. At the end of the survey, please leave us a comment for posting in our Readers' Comments section above.

Footnotes:

1. Gary K. Johnson, "Football Attendance Continues to Rise Amid Economic Uncertainty," ncaa.org, Feb. 11, 2009
   
   
2. Bowl Championship Series, "The BCS Is...," bcsfootball.com (accessed Nov. 2, 2009)
   
   
3. Richard Evans, "NCAA Bowl Finance: Something Changed in 1995," econosseur.com, Nov. 2, 2009
   
   
4. Dan Wetzl, "Utah out of Sight, out of Mind," yahoo.com, Jan. 5, 2009
   
   
5. "Bowl Championship Series 2009-2010 Media Guide," Aug. 24, 2009
   
   
6. Bowl Championship Series, "How Are the BCS Standings Compiled?" bcsfootball.org, Oct. 30, 2009
   
   
7. Sean Brown, Congressman Barton's press secretary, told ProCon.org in a phone call on Dec. 9, 2009 that the vote in the subcommittee was a "voice vote," which means that no official tally is released other than the outcome that the bill was passed. He also stated that they are not expecting the bill to be heard in the House Energy and Commerce Committee until some time in 2010, and he provided a press release (200 KB)   with Congressman Barton's opening statement for the Dec. 9, 2009 subcommittee vote.
   
   
8. Dennis Dodd, "BCS Hires Fleischer to Spread Good Word? Good Luck," cbssports.com, Nov. 24, 2009
   
   
9. Associated Press, "BCS Exec Hancock Hires PR Firm," espn.com, Nov. 21, 2009
   
   
10. Associated Press, "BCS Creates Football Executive Director Role," New York Times, Nov. 17, 2009
    
    
11. Jack Gage and Peter J. Schwartz, "The Most Valuable College Football Teams," forbes.com, Jan. 2, 2007
    
    

Sources:

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), "2009-10 Postseason Football Handbook," ncaa.org, Sep. 10, 2009

BCS Know How, "Explanation of the BCS Bowls," www.bcsknowhow.com (accessed Oct. 28, 2009)

CollegeFootballPoll.com, "BCS Explained," Oct. 4, 2009

CBS Sports, "Strength of Schedule, Quality Wins Eliminated from BCS Formula," cbssports.com, July 24, 2004

Pat Forde, "Eight-team Playoff Would Be Ideal for College Football," ESPN website, May 20, 2008

Cam Inmam, "Why Not a 65-team playoff in College Football?," Mercury News, Nov. 13, 2009

Larry Lazo, "BCS vs. Playoff Debate Comes to Capitol Hill," CNN.com, May 1, 2009

Stewart Mandel, "College Football Mailbag," Sports Illustrated website, Nov. 4, 2009

New York Times, "Renewing BCS Debate," nytimes.com, Oct. 17, 2008

Ralph D. Russo, "On the Road to Controversy-Free BCS Title Game," Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2009

Pete Thamel, "College Season Sputtering to a Finish," nytimes.com, Nov. 8, 2009

Bud Withers, "The Debate of BCS Versus Playoffs," Seattle Times, Nov. 7, 2008

* ProCon.org received an email on Nov. 26, 2009 from John Lisk, an authorized agent of the American Football Coaches Association, requesting that we add the following text: "The Coaches' Trophy and the image of the Crystal Football are trademarks of the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA). The AFCA is the copyright owner of The Coaches' Trophy."