The Holy Huddle: Football, Playoffs, and Fairness

Last updated on: July 4, 2012 at 10:00 am by Doug Hankins

The Holy Huddle: Football, Playoffs, and Fairness 2012-07-04T10:00:33-06:00 Doug Hankins

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Each week in The Holy Huddle, Doug Hankins takes a look at the goings on of the sports world from a distinctly Christian perspective.

We finally have a playoff system for the highest level of collegiate football. This past Tuesday, BCS presidents approved a four-team playoff for the national championship that begins in 2014. But, the question remains: What did fans gain with this new playoff format? Did we achieve the goal of settling the age-old debate about the true champion of college football? Or did we simply create room for further speculation and debate?

My personal belief is that the new playoff format is a step, but not a leap, in the right direction. The thing college football organizers fail to realize is that fans participate based on the three laws of sports:

We value fairness.
We value entertainment.
We believe that entertainment should be fair.

These laws help illuminate why we love March Madness. It is a fair system that produces one heck of an entertaining tournament. It is also why we bristled at the former BCS championship. It was grossly unfair and only occasionally entertaining. Consider this past year’s championship game. It featured Alabama versus LSU—two teams that had already played against each other during the regular season (a 9–6 win for LSU). Why were we watching two teams play each other again? This was neither entertaining nor fair.

Games like LSU–Bama II reveal the other, more pressing laws of sports—the ones that college presidents, conference commissioners, and media members live by:

We value profit.
We value entertainment.
We believe that entertainment should be profitable.

After all, who stood to gain the most when LSU played Alabama in New Orleans? It wasn’t the fans of college football.

LSU–Bama II produced the lowest TV rating for a national championship game in the BCS era. However, it made a lot of money for ESPN and for businesses in the New Orleans/Alabama/Louisiana area. This match up in the title game reveals that the profit laws of college sports are the priority. And thus, we understand the driving logic behind the new four-team playoff. Make money first, consider fairness second. Ergo: Four-team playoff.

Before you let out a “Hallelujah” for the four-team fair playoffs, consider these lingering philosophical problems with the selection of the four teams:

College football is not a zero-sum game (ZSG). A ZSG is one in which those who win are offset by those who lose. College football is not a ZSG because some top-tier teams, like Baylor, schedule matches with second-tier teams, like Sam Houston State. But, not every school in the top-tier plays a school from the second-tier. Thus, the wins and losses of all top-tier schools do not even out. In fact, there are about 20 more wins than losses among top-tier teams each season, causing an inequality in the weighting of top-tier schedules. This negatively affects the ranking process, which helps determine the current BCS championship and which will continue to determine the four-team playoff. This would not really be that big-of-a-deal except . . .
There is no way to measure head-to-head matches due to a limitation of inter-conference play. Sadly, the five major BCS conferences do not always play one another in a given year. But, don’t worry because . . .
Rankings are arbitrary. A competition ceases to be a sport when a panel of judges determines the winners. If humans and computers get to determine rankings (a flaw in the process because wins and losses are not equally weighted), then you have situations each year when some teams that lose will ultimately land at a higher ranking than other teams who begin with a lower ranking and move up (see Tulane 1998).

So who will determine the four teams for the playoffs? Arbitrary rankings, a non-ZSG won-loss column, and teams who win outside of a true head-to-head matchup? Sheesh!

Bottom line: A four-team playoff is a good step toward fair, but not the leap that fans desire. Until organizers discover a way to make the system of wins and losses evenly weighted and determine ways to make the regular season contain substantial head-to-head match ups, then a ranking system will be unfair. And to determine the best four teams based on an unfair ranking system is less than what college fans deserve.

Previous Post

July 4, 2012

The Female Gaze: A Time for Justice

Next Post

July 4, 2012 Music at Mars Hill: Songs from the Whirlwind

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Asides Elsewhere Featured Film Games General Culture Headline Literature Music Of the Moment Podcast Politics RetroPost Sports Technology Television Uncategorized Viral

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz