No College Playoff, aka "Why the Big 10 isn't interested in killing itself."

The conferences that make up the BCS Coalition met today and decided that there will be no college football playoff in the near future. In other news, bright light is expected to peak over the dark horizon around 6:00 am.

I really don't understand why the SEC and ACC bother "convincing" the Big 10 and Pac 10 that it's in their interest to be in a playoff. It isn't. The PAC 10 is a fine football conference, and the Big 10 has a great football tradition. The Big 10 in particular has benefited from the current system, which has allowed its conference champion to make the big dance without having to run the gauntlet of a serious conference schedule. That is not to suggest that the Big 10 doesn't have some excellent football teams. Ohio State and Michigan are both top programs, but what makes a conference is not just the top two teams but how the conference stacks up from top to bottom. In terms of the top two, I think the big conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC) are on par. The ACC is dragging those conferences due to the steep fall of Miami and FSU. But once you get past the top two, the Big 10 falls off. Illinois had a good year in 2007, but it needs to have more consistent years before it can be considered a power. Wisconsin is a pretty solid program, but name the big bowl game that school has ever won? Penn State just isn't the Penn State of old. Purdue has fallen mightily, hence Tiller's encouraged retirement. And then you have Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa (which fell off the map after Ferentz's initial progress), Indiana (terrible), and Northwestern (no longer the hallmark of futilty, but still in Duke's league). The bottom half of that conference doesn't pose a threat to an otherwise dominant team. So the reality is Ohio State and Michigan only have to really get up for two or three games a year.

The Big 12 has much more depth. Great top two with Oklahoma and Texas. A much improved middle tier, with Missouri, Texas Tech, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Colorado (and no, the fact that Kansas and Mizzou finished high last year isn't that meaningful -- one year does not a program make). And then you have the bottom three: Kansas State (which is improving), Iowa State (which isn't), and sacrificial lamb, Baylor. As Oklahoma learned, a team like Texas Tech, which may not be dominant, is still the kind of game that can trip you up. And that's exactly the obstacle Ohio State hasn't faced (the fact that Michigan was tripped up by App State is the exception that proves the rule).

The SEC offers a similar gauntlet. Last year, they had 10 eligible bowl teams, though only 9 were invited: LSU (national champs), Auburn, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina. And even Vanderbilt, which wasn't bowl eligible, was really close. LSU made it to the championship game despite slipping up against teams that weren't even in the top 5 of the SEC (Arkansas and Kentucky). Take a week off at your peril.

The PAC 10 depth isn't quite as good as the Big 12 or SEC, but it's much better than the Big 10. Teams like Oregon, Arizona State, and Cal are significant traps. The only thing the PAC 10 is missing is a counterweight to Southern Cal, which it just doesn't have.

The bottom line, though, is that the current system provides huge rewards for the conferences who make the title game, and the current system makes it much easier for Ohio State or Michigan to make the title game than their counterparts from other conferences. Given that fact, why would the Big 10 ever want to do away with the system? And given Southern Cal's dominance of the Pac 10, why would it make its path to the title game any more difficult?

Given the entrenched positions, it makes little sense for anyone to try to get those conferences on board. If you want to make them an offer, make them an offer they can't refuse. Cut them out of the title game. The SEC and ACC could pull out of the BCS (the Big 12 could as well, but the current position of that conference is that everything is just fine thanks for asking!). That would destroy the credibility of the entire enterprise and, I think, ultimately lead to its downfall. That might result in the return of traditional conference bowl venues, but so what? Frankly, I'd rather return to that system, or a modified one (SEC and Big 12, for instance, could agree to meet every year), rather than the current system. And it has nothing to do with the title game. It has everything to do with USC playing Illinois and Georgia playing Hawaii. I can live with some injustice in the title game; but as a fan of college football, I'd like to see good teams playing other good teams. The current system, in the way it allocates bowl choices, leads to awful matchups between overmatched opponents. And for every Boise State over Oklahoma, there is a UGA thumping of Hawaii that doesn't end until 2:00 in the morning.

Enough. We're never going to get a playoff, but there is no reason that other conferences have to participate in a system rigged in favor of the Big 10 (and, to a lesser degree, the PAC 10). Those conferences are astute in looking out for their own self-interest; it's about time the ACC, Big 12, Big East, and SEC started doing the same.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3375352&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines