The Administrative Core and the Division I Playoff Issue Pre-BCS: A Content Analysis of the Public Discourse from Popular Media Sources and the NCAA News

Untitled

“…The changing nature of the selection process and criteria of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has produced a variety of heated debates concerning the merits and fairness of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) postseason arrangement. As an example, Seifried and Smith's (2011) investigation of U.S. Congressional hearings conducted between 2003, Seifried's (2011 review of media literature pre- BCS (i.e., 1960BCS (i.e., -1999, and Southall, Southall, and Dwyer's (2009) examination of BCS broadcasts all discovered several consistent arguments and contrasting claims involving important stakeholders (e.g., athletic directors, conference commissioners, university presidents/chancellors, bowl representatives, and head coaches) associated with the operation and management of college football. Similarly, Oriard (2009), Sandbrook (2004), andSmith (2001) also criticized the operation of the Division I FBS postseason.…”

“…Non-BCS schools (e.g., Mid-American Conference, Sun Belt, Western Athletic Conference, Mountain West Conference, and Conference-USA, along with Army and Navy) and their representatives (i.e., commissioners) expressed great dissatisfaction with their lack of a realistic opportunity to compete for a national title and the barriers they faced obtaining entry or invitation to one of the five BCS bowl games (Seifried & Smith, 2011;Seifried, 2011). BCS bowl games include the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and the BCS National Championship Game.…”

“…They also noted a lack of bowl games or reduced interest in them would negatively impact host communities and the various charitable causes they serve. BCS supporters further challenged the notion that an alternative postseason arrangement would be better for the academic welfare of the student-athletes and promoted the possible logistical difficulties which might face members of their respective fan nations to attend contests under alternative postseason formats as entirely legitimate (Oriard, 2009;Seifried, 2011Seifried, , 2012Seifried & Smith, 2011).…”

“…To further illustrate the nature of this debate, the subjective ratings (i.e., Coaches and Harris Poll) and mathematical formulas (i.e., computer polls) utilized by the BCS also inflamed the various discussions (Buchman & Kadane, 2008;Seifried, 2011Seifried, , 2012Seifried & Smith, 2011;Stern, 2004). As the main sources of material to determine automatic and at-large selections available for any one of the five BCS bowl games, the BCS selection process provided only the University of Oregon (12-0) and Auburn University (13-0) the opportunity to play for the 2010 BCS national title, while another undefeated team (Texas Christian University 12-0) watched from afar.…”

“…Almost the entire debate concerning the Division I FBS postseason arrangement has emerged from administrators and coaches who compared the prospective benefits and negative consequences offered by various postseason formats against those provided by the unique bowl game experience. A collection of student-athlete opinions and their preferences is woefully absent and underdeveloped from previous discussions and studies (Seifried, 2011(Seifried, , 2012Seifried & Smith, 2011). It should be noted that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) did establish some committees to view the idea of a national tournament from the perspective of student-athletes during the past couple decades.…”