The article in question is critical of the college playoff systems that were put in place in 1998. According to the article, college playoffs rule out the potential of many teams by failing to give them a chance of playing at later stages. The playoffs are organized into four team categories that make the elimination process short and easy. Therefore, those teams that are good and competitive enough to play with the big teams rarely get a chance to advance in their plays. Because of the BCS rules, eight teams were cut off from advancement even though they had the capability of making good records in later stages. Additionally, the article cites that the college playoffs only give a chance to the unbeaten teams and lives out other teams which were beaten only once. As a result, there are only three teams left to play in the league. Even though it is good that slots are spared for teams that remain unbeaten in the playoffs, a good system should be established to accommodate the others.
The new SEC and ESPN format of declaring a national champion will be very limiting to the teams that are beaten even once in the playoffs. Because SEC has a big influence on the world of sports, its influence on how the championship should be granted is very applicable. Even before the playoffs are over, the body has already announced its final four. The final four are teams that remain unbeaten. The article seems to point to the unfairness in the way SEC is conducting the championships. If college playoffs were centered on a broader spectacle of teams, such issues would be avoided. Instead of a four system, the article suggests that college playoffs should involve sixteen teams. The teams would provide a wider ground for the choosing of who goes into the championships. Furthermore, there is no difference between an unbeaten team and that which has only lost one game. The margin for determining which one of the two is the better team is slim because of the playoffs that are currently in place.
The article makes compelling arguments for its claims. For instance, it suggests that from the fact that the teams are not given a chance to proceed, there is no telling if they are good. The time allocated to determine the goodness of a team is too narrow, because most of them are eliminated during the playoffs. In the arguments, the article gives evidence of its advanced claims. It cites that the other teams that suffered losses performed better in other championships. They beat the teams that are considered as giants in other forums, but have been denied the chance to meet them because of the playoffs. For example, during the Fiesta Bowl, Boise State achieved a victory over Oklahoma. The same team was eliminated from this season at the playoff stage because of one loss (Brookover, Bob, 1). To this extent, the article makes a solid argument. A team can be beaten because of many factors that could be corrected at a later stage. However, the new rules do not give the chance of a later stage to the teams that succumb to one or two losses. Additionally, it is mandatory for fairness to be upheld in the selection of the teams as the article has observed. The fundamental role of SEC should be to ensure that the teams are graded equally. The same is not the case with SEC. Three of the teams that were selected belong in SEC, which left only one spot for the rest.
The ethical evaluation of the arguments brings forth some realizations. It was a well-argued article and presented the issue of fairness quite openly. The SEC and other bodies are depicted as being unfair entities that seek to downplay the performance of the teams that are considered as weak. The competition is, therefore, centered on few teams that are seen to be deserving of the title, which is unethical. A fair chance should be accrued to anyone. The article also makes a reasonable recommendation for the representation of sixteen teams in the advanced stages as opposed to only four. Such a recommendation would broaden the chance that the teams have of advancing. They could offer a surprising turn of events on who gets the championships. The argument also assumes an ethical approach when it sites that the team that wins the championship was won.
However, the article is biased and remains fixated on the thought that is baseless, which is unethical. The teams are not picked for the championships. A winning criterion is used to establish the four teams that end up in the finals and battle for the Championships. The argument on this claim coaxes the reader into thinking ill about the body even through a misrepresentation that is aimed at persuading the audience. From what the article says about the winner of the title, the reader would assume that the winning team is handpicked with no basis. The teams that remain in the finals are among the best. They have earned the right by remaining unbeaten. The article indulges in a misrepresentation, which is unethical. Even though they are chosen, it is through the merit. Although, the act of choosing the final four before the championship is concluded is unethical, the writer leads the reader to believe that they did not deserve to be in the run for the championship. They were chosen either way.
Work Cited
Brookover, Bob. "College Football Playoff System Is Not Good Enough." The Inquirer 5 Nov. 2014. Print.
