Brooks on Books: Death to the BCS

This is not a "fair and balanced" look at the college football's (lack of) method for determining a champion at its highest competitive level. No, this is an attack on the current system, and if you are like me and think the sport is marred by its illegitimate way of deeming a team a so-called "champion," then you will enjoy this book by several writers from Yahoo Sports (Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, Jeff Passan).

These guys are out to take down the system from the get-go, and they do so in often scathing fashion, referring to the vested interests who prop up and protect the BCS as The Cartel throughout the book. But they have facts and logic on their side, and even if you don't like their specific suggestion for what SHOULD be done--a 16-team playoff system incorporating on-campus games while preserving the bowls outside of the tournament--you have to admire how they lay out the case against the current non-playoff mess.

And they point out how The Cartel likes to cite that "there is no clear alternative" as one of its reasons for sticking to the status quo. Well, this book offers a well-conceived alternative. I like how "Death to the BCS" exposes how Cartel members, such as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney, use straw man arguments and misleading statements--including falsehoods perpetrated before Congress--to obscure the issues and distract from legitimate anti-BCS arguments. The authors do a great job of exposing the inconsistencies even within Cartel talking points.

Much of the information and ideas in this book have been available for a while, but it's all put together in a brisk, coherent presentation that is especially fun to read for fans who yearn for a legit playoff. Perhaps the most enlightening chapter in "Death to BCS" is the takedown of the current crooked bowl system. The authors show how the "guaranteed payouts" hyped by the bowl games are essentially shams, and their explanation of how many teams actually LOSE money by attending bowls is eye-opening.

One thing I like is how, despite their exposure of the inefficiency of the current system and how tons of money goes to wasted expenses (and the pockets of overpaid bowl execs), the authors state their love of the games themselves and find a way to preserve them. They say, hey, more football is always good for them, and they make a convincing argument that the bowls could still survive and even thrive in a post-BCS playoff era of college football. They certainly prove how shallow the talk about "tradition" is in the bowl system. Anyone who wants to protect the tradition of the bowls, well, hasn't it already been destroyed by the move of big games like the Orange Bowl off New Year's Day? And just how good have the games been this year, anyway? I haven't had a chance to watch much action so far, but when I do flip to a bowl game, it's usually a blowout. But they don't want to get rid of them. They just want to improve the system.

Of course, money talks in sports, as it does in everything else, and here the authors rip open the finances of the current structure, but rely on speculation (as opposed to the facts that prop up most of the book) to make the case that their system would make more money for everyone. Now, I agree with their conclusions and believe they are right, but I'm just saying. Still, they offer a great argument that a playoff could be big-time money, and a look at the NCAA basketball tournament should reinforce that belief. This is what makes the current BCS system, and the stubborn adherence to it of the Cartel, so puzzling: all the money being left on the table in order to avoid a reasonable championship tournament.

"Death to the BCS" provides lots of ammo to fans who want to convince their pro-BCS friends. But then again, how many people ARE pro-BCS? The only ones who are are the power brokers who preserve it, and let's hope some people with the influence to influence THEM read this and can do something. For us simple, old college football fans, we get a fun book that provides lots of insights and organizes the facts into an effective argument against what we have, while also providing a viable option to replace it.