The headlines on ESPN.com read “TCU’s newly signed Patterson is against playoff,” and it has been causing a stir on blogs and message boards across the internet. I’m not so sure that is what Gary Patterson feels or means. Let Angry Trey show you.
Go ahead and read the article. There is not one line that clearly says “I am against a playoff in college football.”Most people have been bringing up this quote…
"Is it easier to win one game for a championship? Or to have to win four?" Patterson asked. "If you have a playoff, you practice and get on a plane and play. And if you lose, it's over. If you go to a bowl game, you're there seven days and the kids can enjoy a place and get rewarded."
Where does he say that he is against a playoff? Coach Patterson clearly states that he thinks it would be “easier” (key word easier) to win one bowl game for a championship versus multiple playoff games. He also believes strongly in bowl games as compensation to the players. That is something he has stated many times before. The bowl games are rewards to the players who have worked hard all season long. It gives the player s a few days away in a different city, they get a few gifts, see a few sites, and play a football game.
I also believe that TCU not being in a BCS conference is a key factor here. I don’t think Patterson wants to start criticizing the BCS as an outsider looking in. How does it look if the Mountain West is trying to get into the BCS, or TCU is fighting for a BCS bowl but Patterson is publicly saying it’s a bad system? That doesn’t look good, or help our chances at all. It’s different if Mack Brown or Nick Saban wants to say something because they are already included. If Patterson starts speaking out, he will be labeled as the “whiney, small school coach.” It works that way every time.
I could be completely wrong here, but I think Coach Patterson is playing his cards very wisely here. The BCS is as much about money and politics as it is actual football being played.
