Enough of this talk about college football not having a national playoff. Truth is, it already has three of them.
In fact, playoffs in the small-school divisions, I-AA, II and III, are reaching their peak. Last week, for instance, Boise State upset No. 1 Middle Tennessee State in the Division I-AA quarterfinals, proving the polls don`t mean a thing.
Yes indeed, there won`t be any doubts or controversy about the national title when those smaller schools complete their playoffs. Sportswriters only cover the champions at those levels; they don`t determine them.
The smaller schools would seem to be one up on their big brothers in Division I, the large-school group that includes the Notre Dames and Michigans but doesn`t include a playoff.
Or do they have an edge?
Advocates of a playoff in Division I should be advised to stay away from certain coaches in the lower levels. They wouldn`t get a ringing endorsement. ”It`s too much wear and tear,” said Eastern Kentucky coach Roy Kidd, whose team twice has won the Division I-AA playoff. ”It`s too many games. And every team but one ends up a loser.”
”I like the bowls,” said Boise State coach Skip Hall, who assisted for 12 years at Washington. ”You`ve got to weigh the benefits of many teams receiving the opportunities, instead of a precious few.”
Hall`s tean went to the sidelines Saturday with a 59-53 triple-overtime loss to Nevada.
If it`s December, it must be time for Bing Crosby`s ”White Christmas,”
and the annual cries calling for a football playoff in Division I. The chorus seems louder this year than it ever has been.
And perhaps with good reason. The bowls botched the selection process and came up with some terrible matchups. An outbreak of parity also has left the game without a true No. 1 team. The title ”mythical national champion” never will seem more appropriate.
A playoff would leave the whole thing clean and satisfying for coaches and fans alike, the argument goes. Its time also is due, because Division I football is the only entity in the NCAA that doesn`t have a tournament to determine its champion.
And yet, once again, a playoff still seems unlikely. The university presidents don`t want it, and they have the final say.
”There`s absolutely no sympathy for a playoff among the Big 10 presidents,” said University of Illinois President Stanley Ikenberry, a member of the powerful Presidents Commission. ”And I doubt there`s any sympathy among the other presidents. The concept is wrong.”
Ikenberry and the other presidents know a football playoff would be a financial windfall, probably in the $1 billion range garnered by the NCAA basketball tournament. But they don`t like the costs to the student-athletes. In an age of reform, when the presidents are trying to cut back the demands on student-athletes, a playoff would go against the movement. As it is now, most Division I teams start their preseason practice in early August, play 11 games, then practice again through December for their bowl game.
A 16-team playoff, like the format used in Division I-AA, means the finalist has to play four extra games, which extends the season by almost 40 percent.
”I can`t justify that,” said Minnesota Athletic Director Rick Bay.
”It`s too much for the players.”
Even a four-team playoff after the bowls is too much to some.
”If we went to mid-January, that would cut into second semester,” said Florida State coach Bobby Bowden. ”The season is long enough as it is.”
Eastern Kentucky`s Kidd isn`t about to disagree. He has had firsthand experience.
”It`s tough on the players, and it`s tough on the coaches,” he said.
”It`s worth it if you win, but it`s a tremendous strain. Your players are exhausted.”
Furthermore, it cuts into their ability to study. Had Boise State won Saturday, it would have moved into the final next Saturday. The timing couldn`t have been worse for the players, because they have final exams this week. If memory serves, semester exams were tough enough without having to practice for a football game.
”It`s something we`ll have to work out,” Hall conceded. ”If school wasn`t a part of this, it would be simple. But school is a big part of this.” Then there are the physical demands. Football, at last check, produces more bruises than basketball. By the end of the season, coaches are moaning about the length of their injury lists. Extend the season further, and it logically figures the casualties will mount.
”This isn`t basketball or tennis,” Bowden said. ”Football is an injury sport. If you play 13, 14, 15 games, then the best team isn`t going to win it. It`s going to be the team that has the most guys survive physically.”
Bowden is a proponent of the bowls, although he cautions the bowls can`t afford a repeat of this year. If the bowls didn`t exist, a playoff format already might be in place for Division I. Those opportunities weren`t available to the smaller schools, which hastened the formation of their tournament.
However, if the smaller groups tried to come up with a tournament today, it would be shot down. The same would be true if somebody wanted to start the NCAA basketball tournament from scratch. No chance.
Reform is headed for less, not more. The presidents have built momentum calling for change as they head into January`s NCAA convention in Nashville.
”A football playoff probably won`t get a serious look until the bowl agreements with the conferences and television run out,” said the NCAA`s David Cawood. ”Most of those terminate in 1994 and 1995. Something could happen then. It all depends on what happens with the reform package.”
For his part, Ikenberry likes the fact there`s uncertainty over a No. 1 team this year. He thinks the debate is healthy because there are a number of teams that think they are the best.
If that kind of thinking is prevalent among the presidents-and it probably is-don`t hold your breath for a playoff anytime soon.
Said Ikenberry: ”It`s a bad idea whose time hasn`t come.”
