The Instigator
mr_andry
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Fhqwhgads
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,561 times Debate No: 7552
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

mr_andry

Pro

Whether or not there should be a playoff system in college football is one of the most controversial aspects of college football. Right now, we are stuck with the traditional BCS which has had its positives but its time to change.

In 2006, #9 Boise State defeated the heavily favored #7 Oklahoma Sooners in one of the most spectacular games ever witnessed in college football. Now this may not seem like much of an upset, but Boise State only has about 11,000 full-time students. Oklahoma has about 30,000. The reason Boise State got a ranking that high was because they went undefeated in the regular season. Oklahoma lost three during the regular season.

Boise State did everything they possibly could do and was still denied the opportunity to compete for the national championship. The BCS makes it virtually impossible for smaller teams to try for the national championship.

Not only does the BCS hurt the small teams, but also the larger schools. There have been many instances where there has been much controversy over who the top two teams should be. The teams given the opportunity to compete in the championship game should not be based on the opinions of so called "experts." Such subjectivity needs to be done away with.

The solution to this problem is a hybrid of both the BCS and an average playoff system. For the playoff part, the top 6-8 teams could be put in a tournament style bracket. The BCS could still be maintained for the rest of the teams that are not in the tournament. In essence, the only thing you would be changing is the top 6-8 teams which would eliminate controversy over who should be given a chance for the national championship.
Fhqwhgads

Con

First of all, I'd like to say that I am glad to be here (first debate on the site) and that this will be fun to argue, since I don't have a bias to either side of this debate.

That being said, I must negate the resolution presented here that the NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

Observation 1. While not all bowl games are part of the BCS the resolution does not state that the BCS is the only set of bowl games. Though the affirmative mentions the BCS exclusively a number of times in its argument the affirmative does not state that it is the only college football avenue open to debate. Therefore it becomes the negative's burden to set the grounds of the debate, therefore argument will be open to any and all of the bowl games played between Division I teams, even outside of the 5 games played in January that belong exclusively to the BCS.

Contention 1. Revenue is lost to many of the sponsors of the bowl games if the bowl games in question are dropped to make room for bracket games. While a company can sponsor a game in the earlier rounds of a proposed tournament, the revenue generated will be less likely to meet the revenue of a bowl game. While the affirmative can argue that larger-market schools can generate more ratings and more revenue, this creates a catastrophe in which companies will be fighting over the big-ticket games which creates too many problems for its expected reward.

Contention 2. The BCS is working for its own good in the long run. The BCS has the 5 biggest sponsoring companies of all the Division I bowl games, and tends to choose larger-market teams to help generate even more monetary gain, as higher ratings will result in higher revenue; also look to the fact that even in seeded tournaments such as the NCAA Men's basketball National Championship tournament, larger schools will almost always still come out on top no matter if the rankings are biased or unbiased due to overall better recruiting due to having a more prominent name in their respective sport (i.e. the Dukes and North Carolinas of football).

Contention 3. By dropping bowl games, you end many teams' seasons too early. The affirmative states that "The BCS could still be maintained for the rest of the teams that are not in the tournament," however the BCS only consists of five games, therefore it is useless to uphold a system that these schools can no longer compete in. It is wiser to continue the BCS normally and keep bowls alive for smaller schools that may not have the same abilities as a larger school, and while underdog stories such as that of the Boise State victory do go against this claim, it is somewhat of a rare feat, and you also must apply my C2 in this case, where larger market teams will always be chosen for the revenue, which is the more important factor to the people in the industry. For some schools, the minor bowls are like their championships, their small but proud victories, and the cap to a season that obviously went well enough for them to earn a spot for a bowl.

Therefore for the arguments I have presented, I strongly urge you to vote negative in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
mr_andry

Pro

Thank you for accepting this argument. This is my first time on this site as well.

Refutation 1: My opponent claims "Revenue is lost to many of the sponsors of the bowl games if the bowl games in question are dropped to make room for bracket games." Just because some of the games are in tournament form does not mean that companies couldn't still sponsor it. The games could keep their title and still be in the tournament.

Refutation 2: My opponent also claims "The BCS has the 5 biggest sponsoring companies of all the Division I bowl games, and tends to choose larger-market teams to help generate even more monetary gain..." This is exactly the problem. The BCS is usually more concerned with the teams that would generate the most money than with the teams who deserve it the most. He also says that "larger schools will almost always still come out on top no matter if the rankings are biased or unbiased..." Yes, this is true but there are almost always more than just two prominent teams which is the problem we run into with the BCS. That's why I propose that the top 6 to 8 teams participate in a tournament to decide the national champion.

Refutation 3: In my opponents third contention he elaborates on how, if we were to change to a tournament system, the much smaller schools would not be able to compete, stating "It is wiser to continue the BCS normally and keep bowls alive for smaller schools that may not have the same abilities as a larger school." Nowhere in my argument have I stated that these schools would not be able to compete. In fact, most if not all of those teams will be unaffected by this. As I have stated previously, I would propose that only the top 6 to 8 would participate in the tournament. Every other school that did not make it would compete in the same bowls they would have.

I thank you for reading this and hope that you will side with the Pro.
Fhqwhgads

Con

1. A six to eight team tournament would not allow for the almost twentysomething bowl game sponsors each year. And cramming multiple sponsors into each makes them have to split the rewards.

2. "The BCS is usually more concerned with the teams that would generate the most money than with the teams who deserve it the most." Exactly. While we think it's unfair, they won't choose a more fair system due to the fact that they would get more from larger-market teams' viewership ratings, even by fans of neither team. Making money is more important to the networks than good football, despite how enthusiastic the commentators are. The CEOs don't care, they just don't want to see ratings drop, because that's more money in their pocket.

3. You mentioned the BCS the first time, which is only the 5 BCS championship games. The smaller schools could not compete for BCS titles. You now state that you said that they keep the regular bowl games too? Make up your mind.

4. A tournament would also be bad for the sole reason that this is not basketball, and too many games are trying to be fit into little time. Basketball teams can play multiple games a week, but football would result in a tournament spread too thin for fans who lack the luster of the hardcore alumni fans at home or the just generally hardcore fans. It becomes a bit too much like the NFL playoffs where only one championship game is played. How would you determine who would get slotted into the remaining BCS Tournament Bowl Games, (as I will refer to them here)? Yes, a National Championship matchup is much easier, but slotting teams into the other four isn't, as you did say you planned to keep bowls open.
Debate Round No. 2
mr_andry

Pro

mr_andry forfeited this round.
Fhqwhgads

Con

I see my opponent has conceded.

I will finish this out, and keep it brief.

Cross apply all my arguments, because by conceding, he drops my entire case and rebuttals. The only vote is a negative vote.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
american football .... how i hate you lol

watch football , or as you yanks call it soccer ! much better.

if you dont liek that watch a good old game of rugby ! stay away from that all girls english sport called cricket though !
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Here's what I would think would be great. I admit it won't happen and it has it's problems... but:

9 week 'regular' season.

top 64 to a single-elim bracket determined similar to that of March Madness (without the conference tournaments).

As soon as you are eliminated, you go to a bowl game (I believe there are some 30 bowls... 32 bowl games would not be that big of a deal and those people can still get their money).

Now that's a 15 week season. Certainly it's long (for college), but it's reasonable. Not to mention that the money that people love, would be increased by the epicness of this tournament.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Play the tournament games at the bowls so as to provide more publicity.
This resolution is mostly one sided.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
John,
Tournament games would still draw crowds. Besides, the bowl system can be incorporated in a playoff system.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Many towns rely on the extra tourism and income that bowl games produce.
At least that's what I heard from someone who was arguing against a playoff system.
Posted by dtclark2188 8 years ago
dtclark2188
I agree that it would be awesome, but you have to remember that these guys are students too. I mean, every time they advanced to another round, they would basically have to ignore their studies for another week. I hate being a buzz kill, because that would be legendary, but you can't forget the point of collegiate sports.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
I think the question should really be how. i would LOVE a 64 team playoff, but for football it would take a long time (a month and a half), but it would be totally epic! Call it Winter Madness!
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Same here.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
I totally agree with you!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by samariner 7 years ago
samariner
mr_andryFhqwhgadsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by Fhqwhgads 8 years ago
Fhqwhgads
mr_andryFhqwhgadsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mr_andry 8 years ago
mr_andry
mr_andryFhqwhgadsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70