A Place for the C in the BCS

In their own minds, the most compelling argument of the Presidents and Athletic Directors of “Bowl Division Series” participants and the NCAA for not instituting a playoff system in college football is that their league has “the most exciting regular season in sports.”  There are various legitimate objections to this argument, including the following: 1) unless a school is undefeated (or an SEC team with up to 3 losses—bitter irony intended), the point is moot; since the ratio of undefeated teams to one- or two-loss teams is highly in favor of the latter, the regular season predictably would be more exciting for more fans and teams than is the case with the current system 2) for the 95% of teams that will not participate in the playoff, nothing will change (ie; the regular season will be no more nor less “exciting” than it is under the current system 3) the regular season in college basketball seems in no way compromised, and in many ways enriched, by the existence of the season-ending playoff.
But instead of using this frame as a context from which to engage in a well-worn discussion of the advantages of a playoff system, I instead will use it to suggest that the lack of a playoff structure in NCAA football places an unfair weight on how a team is perceived, which in turn has a much more far-reaching and damaging effect on the NCAA student-athlete than has heretofore been asserted.   In a system that relies almost entirely on its ranking system to determine its championship game participants, it is obvious that the perceptions matter a great deal.  One commonly held view is that to solve the problem both the AP and the USA Today should withhold their polls until later in the season since the preseason polls arbitrarily make it more difficult for lower-ranked teams to improve their standing; these teams likewise fall farther and faster down the polls after a loss, all because it reinforces the false perception of quality created by the polls.  But this change only mitigates the problem slightly, as most pollsters will still rank the teams on their own, just to stay organized, and, human nature being what it is, they will not be keen on rearranging the poll entirely according to some mythical objectivity they have acquired in a month’s time.
What must be added to this debate is the absurd weight that is placed on “Recruitment Rankings” each Spring.  As I depict below, these rankings have almost nothing to do with performance on the field; but in a world where perception reigns, even these “rankings” cannot be ignored.  Now, besides the fact that these rankings are made by those with no recognizable authority (not to mention a fair amount of anonymity), they contribute to the circus environment that envelops high schools on “National Signing Day.”  Athletes of dubious skill level are awarded scholarships on their ability to perform against dubious competition during dubious press conferences made public by dubious journalists.
The most vulnerable participants in this charade are, naturally, the 17 year-old high school kids who embrace the undeserved attention. For proof, consider a well-publicized story from last year’s “recruiting season” that embarrassed the college football world but failed to teach the NCAA the lesson it might have.  It concerns a slightly above-average high school offensive lineman who faked his own recruitment process.  Shortly after a real press conference for a staged signing, his bluff was called.  The fallout is what interests me; instead of using this narrative as an occasion for self-reflection, the NCAA took the low road and only blamed the kid. In fact, according to the New York Times, “An N.C.A.A. spokeswoman, Stacy Osburn, said a separate investigation may examine whether the universities or Hart had violated recruiting rules” (February 6, 2008).  Hart confessed to constructing the entire story, so what on earth could the universities have done wrong?  And what penalty could the NCAA give Hart?  Take away his fake scholarship?  Bar him from playing football, when nobody wants him anyway? These questions would be funny if they weren’t implied by the NCAA statement.
An ESPN Outside the Lines story goes much further in its indictment of Hart and those around him; here are some excerpts from that story:
A lie this big isn’t just a belch out of someone’s mouth, it’s years in the making. A lie this melancholy isn’t mean-spirited, it’s a flabby high school misfit stopping at nothing to fit in. A lie this loud isn’t humble, it’s a 300-pound lineman telling teammates, “Division I, son. I’m going D-I.” A lie this complex isn’t a one-man show, it’s mom, pop, grandpa, grandma, buddies, coaches and principals believing in the unbelievable. A lie this perfect isn’t premeditated, it’s a teenager watching Pac-10 football on TV every Saturday, wishing … wishing … wishing … So that’s how a fantasy, a whopper, saw the light of day. It was a million things (ESPN.com).
It is not clear how ESPN knows that this kid is a misfit or what his grandparents had to do with the ruse.  It is clear, however, that of the “million things” that caused this problem, ESPN does not believe the NCAA’s outlandish publicity on National Signing Day is not one of them.  And the major reason is that they televise this annual absurdity; the reason for its popularity is that these rankings influence preseason rankings which, as I have asserted above, affect a team’s chances at playing for a national championship.
No one in the NCAA or at ESPN stopped to ask themselves why this relatively simple hoax was so effective.  I think it would have been great if Hart was defiant instead of apologetic, like a computer hacker who shows the cracks in the system without doing any damage.  If anything, the NCAA should interview him to learn something about themselves.  Instead, he was insulted and sheepishly apologized for disabusing a flawed system.  The excitement he created by simply spreading rumors outdistanced all notions of reality.  But the fact that his story was a “lie” was only problematic because it came from his mouth.  I imagine a false “scout” could easily create a similar “lie” and convince schools to offer an athlete of Hart’s caliber a scholarship.  The problem is not that excitement is more important than reality, it is that, in this situation, excitement is the reality.
Sadly, it was actually a guidance counselor who first suspected Hart’s story was untrue; sadly, this suspicion was based on the fact that Hart’s grades were not high enough to earn a D-I scholarship.  Again, according to ESPN, “Kevin, in his early stages of high school, found out that Fernley students were eligible for athletics as long as they earned passing grades. In other words, a lowly 1.5 grade-point average could still land you on the field. ‘Most of the football guys simply shoot for Ds,’ says a Fernley student who wishes to remain anonymous. “They don’t care about school.’” (ESPN.com).  This pathetic response is the result of all the false promises National Signing Day and Recruiting Rankings if not creates, at least enhances.
And so, let us return to the task at hand.  Below are the rankings for Football Recruiting for the year 2004, and after that the final AP Poll for 2009, the year these recruits would have been seniors:

2004 Scout.com Football Recruiting Rankings
1 Tennessee

2Michigan

3 Florida State

4  Georgia

5 Oklahoma

6   USC

7  Ohio State

8   Iowa

9  California

10   Nebraska

___AP  Poll________________2009
1. Florida

2. Utah

3. USC

4. Texas

5. Oklahoma

6. Alabama

7. TCU

8. Penn State

9. Ohio State

10. Oregon

Only three of 10 teams made the final top 10 list: and many of those teams, including Iowa, Cal, Tennessee and Michigan had horrible years by their standards.  Similar lists could be compared year-in year-out with the same result.  So if there is not truly a correlation between “recruiting rankings” and performance, why does this hoopla continue?  The easy answer is money, but what that means must be specified.  The entire college football system is based on perceptions: from preseason polls to “conference rankings” to five-star recruits to national championship trophies.  And when the foundation of those perceptions is accosted, as was the case with the Kevin Hart story, the fragility of the system is exposed.  But instead of learning from this error, the NCAA and its partners simply cried foul on a 17 year-old who unwittingly revealed the irrational logic of this system.
The NCAA must know what it is doing, and what it is usually doing is trying to make a profit.  And so the question must be asked: what profit is made from a system based on perceptions?  Well, such a system creates a lot of dialogue and a chance to benefit from pseudo-events like National Signing Day and spring practice depth charts debates.  When the championships are not won on the field, but in the offices of the NCAA and in the programs of their television partners, perception reigns.  And perception, as Kevin Hart demonstrated, is easily manipulated.  And so we won’t get a playoff anytime soon, because the NCAA has us right where they want us: under their control fighting over myths.

TJ