The system's broken, you say? You're outraged that (random No. 2 team) was selected over (random No. 3 team)? Then it's time to pick which method would be better. Small playoff? Big playoff? Go back to the old way?
Dec 5, 2011 - The Monday after the BCS championship participants are selected is officially Hate The BCS And Proclaim College Football Broken day across the country. It is a tradition almost as storied as Homecoming itself at this point. This year, we are outraged that Alabama would be selected over Oklahoma State (nobody is outraged about Stanford, it appears), but really, the teams don't matter. No matter what, Random No. 3 team clearly should have an opportunity to play for the national title, and Random No. 2 clearly is no better. Some years, if we're lucky, No. 4 or No. 5 also have decent claims to a bid. And if Random No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 have football fans for congressmen, the fun is only beginning.
(I have a long-standing theory that your progressive/conservative nature when it comes to politics is the direct inverse of your views on fairness in college football, but that's another column for another time.)
So basically, the system is broken, it's all unfair, it's all stupid ... and we're still going to watch the national title game. But lo, there is hope on the horizon. The BCS' current contract expires after the 2013 season, and decision-makers have already been discussing potential changes. I am about 99 percent positive we will be getting a Plus One model with the new deal, which would obviously be a hefty step forward. But is that the most fair method for determining a champion?
Before we go further, however, we have to define fairness as it pertains to college football. Is fairness "Give everybody a shot at the title"? Because if so, the 16- or 20-team playoff model below is the only logical solution. Does fairness include giving teams with the best regular seasons a significant advantage? Because maybe, then, something between a Plus One or the old model would be fine. LSU has already proven a ton this season, so one could almost make the case that forcing them to win another three to four games to claim the title would be a bit unfair. Does fairness include giving extra benefits to conference champions? Giving advantages to teams with better records (to hell with what computers might say)? Giving advantages to teams that won head-to-head matchups?
In just about every other sport, teams play enough games to more fully establish a general hierarchy. But we are dealing with just 12-13 games in college football. Should we buck history and decide that fairness includes handing out as many seats as possible to the title race, since we can't learn much of anything in 12 games? Is that fair?
Below, I'm going to present 10 options for determining a national champion. In the poll below, I want you to vote for the method you consider most fair. Feel free to explain why in comments. Instead of simply deciding "the system's broken" and announcing that a playoff would cure all ills, it's time to add a little more detail to the equation.
The Method: This is a two-team playoff of sorts, in which two participants are chosen for a national title game by a mix of human pollsters and computer rankings after all regular season and conference championship games are played.
This Year: No. 1 LSU vs No. 2 Alabama.
Pro: To an extent, this maintains what was originally the goal of determining college football national champions, namely that the "best team of the entire season" wins the title. Plus, it assures us of at least one extra No. 1 vs No. 2 matchup per year. Being that this is the first rematch in 14 BCS seasons, it usually produces a matchup of teams from different backgrounds and conferences, which improves inter-connectivity.
Con: As we've seen, there are quite often more than two teams that can claim to be deserving of the title. In 2010, three teams finished undefeated. In 2009, four did. In 2008, seven major conference teams finished with one loss, and two mid-majors finished undefeated. Et cetera. My line has long been that the BCS' problem isn't who it selects to play for the title -- it's that it can only pick two teams.
The Method: This adds two qualifiers to the current system: you must win your conference, and if the No. 2 team lost to the No. 1 team, the No. 3 team earns the opportunity to play for the title (and on and on until a non-rematch is found).
This Year: No. 1 LSU vs No. 3 Oklahoma State
Pro: This addresses the current outraged lines of choice: "Alabama already lost to LSU!" and "Alabama didn't even win their conference/division!"
Con: This still only selects two teams. Plus, in the case of this year, human voters and some computers determined that Alabama was a better, more deserving team than Oklahoma State, but Oklahoma State gets the nod simply because they didn't have to play LSU in the regular season and Alabama did. Everybody is currently outraged about Oklahoma State getting denied a shot, but the outrage would only be about one decibel lower if Oklahoma State got picked instead. We are angry because of the system, really, not particularly because of the teams themselves.
The Method: Automatic bids go to some conference champions (SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, Big Ten), and most other top bowls are left to fend for themselves. The AP names a champion after all games are played.
This Year (using AP poll):
Sugar Bowl: No. 1 LSU vs No. 11 Kansas State
Rose Bowl: No. 6 Oregon vs No. 9 Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Oklahoma State vs No. 4 Stanford
Orange Bowl: No. 2 Alabama vs No. 13 Michigan
Pro: I don't know ... LSU gets an easier game after facing a brutal regular season schedule? This season, that could almost be considered fair since one team so clearly stood out above the rest.
Con: In most seasons, it's a mess. As we witnessed over decades, this system invites controversy and co-champions with a much higher rate than the BCS. Depending on the conference affiliation, a No. 1 team might not have to play a top-ranked team in its bowl, and the only way a No. 2 team (which, in many years, might be just as deserving as No. 1) might have a shot at the title is if No. 1 loses to somebody else.
The Method: A national champion is named after the regular season is completed. Bowls are exhibitions with no impact on the final polls.
This Year: Congratulations, LSU, on your national championship!
Pro: If there is a single team that clearly distinguished itself in the regular season (like LSU in 2010), then they aren't forced to win one more game to take the crystal football.
Con: Most years, there is not a single team that has clearly distinguished itself.
The Method: Using a method not unlike the current BCS equations, the top four teams are selected for two national semifinal games. The winners play in the BCS championship. Again, I fully expect this model to be adopted in two years.
This Year:
No. 1 LSU vs No. 4 Stanford
No. 2 Alabama vs No. 3 Oklahoma State.
Pro: More teams get a shot at the title, but there is still a rather elite overall cutoff. Most years, only undefeated and one-loss teams would get a spot in the Top Four, meaning the regular season would still carry quite a bit of weight.
Con: This still doesn't offer teams from every conference an equal shot at the title (meaning the Orrin Hatch's of the world would still find reason to complain and meddle). Plus, let's face it: the "No. 3 team got screwed!!" outrage would not in any way be tamped down, as most years, No. 5 would be every bit as deserving of a shot as No. 4. (Just think about how worked up we get about Team No. 69 not getting a shot in basketball.)
This year, actually, proves that. No. 4 Stanford would likely get into the playoff (unless there is some sort of conference title requirement), while No. 5 Oregon, which beat Stanford and won the Pac-12 over the Cardinal, would be denied. People would complain exactly as much as they do now.
The Method: The current bowls are maintained with their automatic bids and allocations (sans the BCS national championship game), and after all bowls are played, the top two teams (according to, presumably, the BCS rankings) would play in the title game.
This Year (using BCS rankings):
Sugar: No. 1 LSU vs No. 4 Stanford
Fiesta: No. 3 Oklahoma State vs No. 2 Alabama
Rose: No. 5 Oregon vs No. 10 Wisconsin
Orange: No. 15 Clemson vs No. 23 West Virginia
Pro: This allows for the further maintenance of conference-affiliated bowl games (which assures buy-in from big bowls like the Rose) and technically allows for more than four teams to have a shot at the title if things play out just right.
Con: Among other things, it is messier. Model A is clean and easy to understand.
The Method: Eight playoff participants are determined based on some combination of conference championships, rankings requirements (meaning, conference champions get an automatic bid as long as they are ranked __ or higher) and at-large bids. For this exercise, we will say that conference champions ranked in the BCS Top 12 get bids, and the other participants are selected based on BCS rankings. Presumably, the first round would take place on the higher-ranked team's home field, and the semifinals and finals would take place in BCS bowls. (Also: no limitations on the number of teams from a given conference.)
This Year:
No. 10 Wisconsin at No. 1 LSU
No. 5 Oregon at No. 4 Stanford
No. 6 Arkansas at No. 3 Oklahoma State
No. 7 Boise State at No. 2 Alabama
Pro: This allows for more seats at the table, and it allows us to continue to value conference championships to a certain degree.
Con: This begins to open the door for a three-loss champion at some point; plus, the selection criteria would get messy. Conference champions get a bid, except for when they don't. Also: BOISE STATE GOT SELECTED INSTEAD OF KANSAS STATE OR SOUTH CAROLINA? RAGE!! AND WHY SHOULD WISCONSIN GET IN JUST BECAUSE THEY WON A WEAKER CONFERENCE? (Or to put it another way, we would still figure out a way to get angry about who was selected.
The Method: Matt Hinton's proposal.
Automatic bids go to:
— The champion of each of the "Big Six" conferences — the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC
— regardless of ranking. (NOTE: The existing, meritocratic BCS formula for selecting which conferences earn this distinction will remain in effect, leaving the door open to the Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, etc., to earn "Big Six" status, and keeping, say, the ACC and Big East from becoming entrenched if they fail to perform on the field.)
— The top four at-large teams in the final BCS standings (limit one at-large bid per conference).
This Year (to my best understanding):
First Round
No. 7 Boise State at No. 23 West Virginia
No. 8 Kansas State at No. 15 Clemson
Quarterfinals
Boise State/West Virginia at No. 1 LSU
No. 4 Stanford at No. 5 Oregon
No. 10 Wisconsin at No. 3 Oklahoma State
Kansas State/Clemson at No. 2 Alabama
Pro: It is a nice mix of politically acceptable and still somewhat elite. Major conference titles still matter, but other schools still get a seat at the table.
Con: It is messy and would open the door for Unfrozen Caveman Analyst ("I'm just a simple man in this complex world. I do not understand why the No. 7 team is playing at No. 23 while No. 9 South Carolina sits at home.") to take over our television screen for weeks at a time. (Any resemblance between Unfrozen Caveman Analyst and Lou Holtz is completely coincidental. As far as you know.)
The Method: My proposal. All 11 conference champions get a bid to the tournament, along with the top five at-large teams according to BCS-like rankings.
This Year:
Louisiana Tech at No. 1 LSU
No. 10 Wisconsin at No. 8 Kansas State
No. 21 Southern Miss at No. 5 Oregon
No. 23 West Virginia at No. 4 Stanford
No. 18 TCU at No. 6 Arkansas
Arkansas State at No. 3 Oklahoma State
No. 15 Clemson at No. 7 Boise State
Northern Illinois at No. 2 Alabama
Pro: Everybody (aside from independents like Army and Navy) begin the season with a shot at a national title. That alone is very refreshing, no? Plus, this is a rather clean structure that people would understand very quickly. And if implemented as I drew it up at Football Outsiders a couple of years ago, it would allow the bowl structure to continue to function, meaning teams who don't get a spot in the bracket still get rewarded for good (or average) seasons with bowls.
Con: In under a decade, a three-loss team would win the title. Maybe not everyone sees that as a bad thing, but it would represent a major break from college football tradition that the "best team of the entire season" (or one of them) didn't win the title. And while this system might encourage better non-conference games (since you are still guaranteed a spot at the table if you win your conference), it would also lead to a lot of very poorly-attended non-conference games, since why go if it doesn't matter for anything?
The Method: Why stop at 16? Just set up the current FCS monster, a 20-team bracket using the same criteria as the 16-team bracket.
This Year:
First Round
Louisiana Tech at No. 13 Michigan
No. 23 West Virginia at No. 21 Southern Miss
Arkansas State at No. 18 TCU
Northern Illinois at No. 15 Clemson
Second Round
West Virginia/Southern Miss at No. 1 LSU
No. 9 South Carolina at No. 8 Kansas State
No. 12 Baylor at No. 5 Oregon
Louisiana Tech/Michigan at No. 4 Stanford
No. 11 Virginia Tech at No. 6 Arkansas
Northern Illinois/Clemson at No. 3 Oklahoma State
No. 10 Wisconsin at No. 7 Boise State
Arkansas State/TCU at No. 2 Alabama
Pro: Everybody still gets a seat at the table; plus, if you believe that 12 games proves very little, then adding spots for teams like No. 13 Michigan and No. 12 Baylor is a good thing, since how do you distinguish between those two and, say, No. 9 South Carolina?
Con: A five-week playoff structure would just about kill the bowls as we know it, meaning 8-4 teams in major conferences would have little to play for (and fans would have less reason to attend). As fun as a playoff like this could be, it would result in a ton of very poorly-attended November (and, potentially, September) games.
So there you go. Now it's your turn to vote and explain which way is the best.
121 comments
1
May 24
3
May 24
1
May 21
23
May 19
2
May 18
12
May 18
7
May 16
Comments
Great piece Bill
Learned a lot.
@christhorman | Read Arrowhead Pride's community guidelines
by Chris Thorman on Dec 5, 2011 10:03 AM EST reply actions
This is a good exercise
While it’s true that the ire is shifted from the #3 team to the #5 team in your plus-1 model A, I don’t think that result is all that bad: everyone above them is a 1-loss team and they aren’t. The fact that they beat Stanford is weak in light of their whole body of work. If Oklahoma State had made it in, no ISU fans would being in arms over their exclusion from the title game.
I would argue that the playoff system shouldn’t be determined strictly in the abstract; instead, it should be designed after a careful examination of past results. Our goal is to give all teams with a legitimate claim to play in the national championship game a shot, and to exclude those who don’t. So look over the BCS’ history at how many teams had a legitimate claim to say, “I deserve to be in the national championship game right now just as well as the Top 2 teams.” Build a system that includes them, but also restricts or eliminates the number of teams who don’t fairly have that shot.
I think history supports that number is usually between 2 and 4 teams, so I support a Plus-1 system. I concede that the system would fail mightily in some seasons, but that’s the reality in a sport with little data to pull from where you might have only 2 teams deserving at a title shot in year 1 and 7 teams equally deserving in year 2.
Old South, New Twitter
Sposed to be SEC
by Old South on Dec 5, 2011 10:04 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
The best model, I think, isn't even one of the choices above.
If we could come up with some airtight set of criteria, then a playoff that involves a different number of teams each year would be the most foolproof when it comes to picking only truly deserving teams. But good luck coming up with those criteria..
Follow me at @SBN_BillC!
SB Nation
Rock M Nation
Football Outsiders
Football Study Hall
by Bill Connelly on Dec 5, 2011 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
FEI rankings
/asskiss’d
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Dec 5, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Utterly impractical and impossible...
…but yes, that would be the best of all possible worlds. My version of this dream consists of:
1) Tradition-respecting matchups between conference champions in the big four bowls. (LSU won the SEC…they should play in the Sugar Bowl.)
2) Bowl season to be completed no later than January 3rd.
3) Upon completion of bowl season, schedule further games if necessary to determine the national champion. This year, we wouldn’t need any (barring a shocker in January); other years, we could go as far as two semifinals and a championship game if needed.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Top 4 Ranked BOWL Winners in a +2 Format:
1) Use the current BCS to get the rankings. I wouldn’t mind the BCS determining what teams go to the top bowls similar to now or use another method I don’t care. The top-16 in the BCS would play in the top 8 bowls.
2) The 8 Team round is actually the bowls, and you must win that game to get into the Final 4 bracket for the plus-2. Sort of a Combination of Method No. 6: Plus-One Model B AND Method No. 7: Eight-Team Playoff.
3) Forget conference champions, regular season head-to-head, and all of the other stuff – you have to win to get in. I mean we started with the top-16 teams!
4) Based on the final BCS rankings BEFORE the bowls the top 4 that win bowls face-off. The highest ranked winner plays the lowest ranked of the 4 remaining teams.
5) If the lower football divisions can have a playoff then 2 additional games will not be bad for the “Student-Athletes” so stop it with that argument.
by ScottTTU on Dec 7, 2011 8:31 AM EST up reply actions
Plus One Model A with conference champion requirement
2011: #1 LSU vs. #10 Wisconsin
LOL. would like to play this method out for years past but im still waking up. The more I look at it, the more I realize how much Boise screwed themselves at a shot to play with the big boys this year. Get a kicker already!
by jack lockner on Dec 5, 2011 10:14 AM EST reply actions
Here's a shot
2010: #1 Auburn vs #5 Wisconsin; #2 Oregon vs #3 TCU
2009: #1 Alabama vs #4 TCU; #2 Texas vs #3 Cinci
2008: #1 Oklahoma vs #6 Utah; #2 Florida vs #5 USC (in retrospect, skipping #3 and #4 in 2008 looks like a Good Thing)
2007: #1 Ohio State vs #4 Oklahoma; #2 LSU vs #3 Virginia Tech (but probably the most outrage, as #7-10 would be really upset for various reasons)
2006: #1 Ohio State vs #6 Louisville; #2 Florida vs #5 USC
2005: #1 USC vs #6 Notre Dame or #7 Georgia (depending on whether we allow an independent in); #2 Texas vs #3 Penn State
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
This isn't too bad.
Of course, it would be pretty interesting with no conference champ requirements too.
2010: 1 Auburn vs 4 Stanford, 2 Oregon vs 3 TCU
2009: 1 Alabama vs 4 TCU, 2 Texas vs 3 Cincinnati
2008: 1 Oklahoma vs 4 Alabama, 2 Florida vs 3 Texas
2007: 1 Ohio State vs 4 Oklahoma, 2 LSU vs 3 Virginia Tech
2006: 1 Ohio State vs 4 LSU, 2 Florida vs 3 Michigan
2005: 1 USC vs 4 Ohio State, 2 Texas vs 3 Penn State
Follow me at @SBN_BillC!
SB Nation
Rock M Nation
Football Outsiders
Football Study Hall
by Bill Connelly on Dec 5, 2011 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
Should be
Top two automatically get in, seeds 3 and 4 are the next-highest conference champs.
2011: 1LSU v 5Oregon, 2Alabama v 3Oklahoma State
You can explore the prior years yourself.
I’d call my ideal plan a “Plus-Two”. It would be a seeded 4-team playoff I just outlined. Semifinals take place at home field of higher-ranked team two weeks after Conference Championship Saturday, usually when the first bowl games start, so the National Semifinals kick off bowl season.
Winners of semis play in Championship, two weeks (or so) later. On bowl selection day, two bowls would choose “loser of semifinal A” and “loser of semifinal B”.
Other than that, bowls do their own thing. No bowls host Semifinals. No problem with fans traveling cross-country two weeks in a row. Two games inserted into existing bowl structure, while everything else stays the same (hence “Plus-Two”). Conference championships are important, and finishing in the top 2 is strongly rewarded.
In all kinds of weather we'll all stick together
by doker on Dec 6, 2011 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
By that standard
Stanford should have been left out of the BCS…their QB lost the game for them.
haters gonna hate, potatoes gonna potate.
*Chris Petersen For President*
by mc.hammertime on Dec 5, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
I came down here to post the same thing. Here’s the one thing I want from any proposal – you have to fix this year and every previous year in a way that makes coherent sense. And if you can’t fix the year an undefeated Auburn team got left out, then you haven’t fixed the problem.
Of note, I had and have no problem with Boise’s exclusion over the years, mostly because Boise wouldn’t take on the financial bet of losing a big road game (where they would not get a gate) against a top tier opponent where they had the financial upside of playing in the BCSCG if they won (instead of a BCS bowl). Really, once Boise ducked Nebraska, they and their arguments were dead to me.
"I make love to pressure."
-- Stephen Jackson
by USCKB on Dec 5, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Of note...
I voted for the 20 team playoff model, not because I believe in it, but because as a Gamecock, I had a hard time accepting a model that allowed Carolina to be excluded while Clemson was included. The four teams with conference championship requirement keep both conference and non-conference games relevant (since you have to be a top four BCS team that is also a conference champion), and that’s what’s most important – if you end up making UGA/GT irrelevant in a year where UGA had the SECCG the week after and that game had no impact on their seeding or whether they made the tournament, you’ve fundamentally altered the sport in a way I consider negative. I also don’t want late season conference games to become irrelevant once a team has wrapped up the division. Basically, I want to avoid the NFL’s Week 17 at all costs.
"I make love to pressure."
-- Stephen Jackson
by USCKB on Dec 5, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Really, once Boise ducked Nebraska, they and their arguments were dead to me.
I weep that we don’t have your approval!
I don't believe in dibs, or love at first sight, or love, or best friends, or doing things.
by marktgarten on Dec 6, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
The season is too short, with too many teams, with asymetrical regular season opponents to really decide who's the best teams
The best way to decide it is as always on the field. Even a three loss team can be a national titleist if they can get hot at the right time. Think about Green Bay in the NFL, they won it all with a 10-6 record and a wild card spot, by getting hot at the end of the season, and proved it on the field. This year they have even upheld that theoretical “number one” ranking by being undefeated after 12 games. Good thing they don’t use polls and power rankings in the NFL.
But the NFL has control of scheduling and makes it more fair and challenging depending on the results on the field in the prior season. With 32 teams in two conferences in evenly divided divisions that is possible. With 120 teams in (I’ve lost track of) a number of conferences with uneven numbers and VERY uneven schedules. Some TRY to get better schedules but can’t get better teams to play them (BSU), but rarely get them to do so, should they be penalized?
Teams will play better and harder if they still have something to play for. A spot in the playoffs is always a motivator. This makes the regular season more enjoyable.
Put me down for a 16 team playoff, as that seems the most balanced. Besides, discussing who is number 16 is far preferable over who is number 2. And by the way, the NCAA tournament field was fine with 64 teams.
by mdlusk on Dec 5, 2011 11:19 AM EST reply actions
"Deciding it on the field" drives me crazy.
Because that’s not a full explanation of what playoff people mean. They mean: “Decide it on the field…but only games called ‘playoffs’ really count as ‘deciding’.”
I’m all for deciding it on the field…starting the first Saturday in September, ending on New Year’s Day. And if there aren’t enough games in that time frame to settle things (this year there were, but most years it isn’t sufficient given 120 teams)…well, that’s why the MNC is and should always remain mythical, until such time as college football breaks up I-A into two or three separate divisions.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Except the best teams don't necessarily play each other in the regular season
Which makes your argument equally flawed.
CougCenter | Cougar Sports Weekly | @NussCoug
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 5, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Which is why you match them up in bowls, followed by a plus-one.
If anything can be adequately settled on the field in the regular season, it’s division and conference championships. Those must be respected in all cases if you take the regular season seriously…and if you do, there’s no reason in the world to go to 16 teams, or even 8.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
You have to have at least 11
if you really want to claim that winning your conference means something.
Yes, LSU is going to curb-stomp Louisiana State, just like Oklahoma curb-stomped K-State in 2003… wait, what?
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
Err, Arkansas State, rather.
Fingers outrunning brain.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
Winning your conference means something, if your conference does.
Which actually points to one thing I like about the BCS…it at least hints at the reality that Division I-A (okay, “FBS” if you must) is not one division, but at least two.
In an ideal world, Division I football would be sorted into three or four tiers (roughly 80 teams per tier if there were three, 60 per tier if there were four), with the possibility of promotion and relegation to accommodate the rise of the Boise States of the world. But so many teams want to be I-A these days, even if there’s no conceivable sense in which they belong at the same level with the teams in the top 25.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
The problem with that, as I am sure you are perfectly well aware
is that the divisional structure of the NCAA has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of play of the teams. What division you are in is a function of how many sports you offer and what level of athletic-based financial aid you choose to provide. (And, theoretically, in the case of I-A vs I-AA, attendance figures, but the only time they ever tried to enforce that they actually got voted down.)
Nothing more, nothing less. If Mount Union decides tomorrow to expand their athletic program and offer a full I-A load of schollys, the only thing standing in their way is an invitation to a I-A conference… which is a rule they only implemented two years ago because people forgot that what division a school wants to compete in has always been their own choice, not someone else’s.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, exactly right.
And this is exhibit #42,307 demonstrating the awkwardness and weirdness of marrying big-time athletics with higher education. Which is a whole ’nother deathless and unsolvable controversy.
Rather than tackling that one, the NCAA could just agree to fully acknowledge that Division I football is weird and different enough that it should be treated separately. There already are gestures in this direction (the erection of subdivisions, conferences having football and non-football members). Why not go all the way and allow football programs to reorganize themselves however they want for that sport only, while leaving the existing division and conference structures in place for other sports? All of a sudden problems like “Boise could never join the PAC…it’s a joke academically” and “we have to keep the Big East alive as a full BCS conference because they’re so strong in basketball” disappear.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
My vote went to the 10 team model
This seems like the best compromise, where the bowls (which I hate but I get it – tradition, whatever) still get their piece but we get a decent amount of seats at the table to see who gets the crystal. Regular season still carries meaning as if you don’t win your conference you NEED those wins to have a shot.
It still doesn’t solve cupcake scheduling but I don’t know if any postseason system would save that, so it’s the NCAA’s call there.
Now, "wait 'till next year" looks like "Watch out for next year!" GO LEAFS GO!
by AB_Positive on Dec 5, 2011 11:24 AM EST reply actions
I agree with this
Cupcake scheduling is already a problem, so it’s not like it would be a big change. If anything, it makes up for cupcake OOC games by forcing several high-quality matchups leading to a national championship game.
I also think it does a good job of several key things I look for in a good post-season system.
1) Winning the conference is important – Take 6 conference champions, rewarding conference championship.
2) Adjust for difference in conference strength – Take wild-cards from high quality conferences (this year, probably SEC, Pac-12, maybe Big 12).
3) Give incentives to keep winning in the regular season, making the regular season important. This includes byes, home-field advantage, and willingness to keep playing hard for a wild card.
It’s not perfect, but no system is. There would surely be a late-season game here or there that would basically be a scrimmage for the 2nd-string because a team already has a playoff spot locked up, but I think it would be more rare than in the NFL considering how easy it could be to move down a seed due to the smaller number of games. Also, several rivalry games take place in the last week, and I think most teams would still want to win those games.
Proud member of the Fax Girl fan club.
by billycthulhu on Dec 5, 2011 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
That's a pretty good balancing of positives and negatives.
Still not what I would choose, but you make a good case. And yes, there’s really only two possible solutions to the cupcake problem:
1) Give the NCAA and/or conferences more authority over scheduling, and have them use that authority to crack down by imposing a one-cupcake-per-year maximum. (“Cupcake” being defined as an OOC opponent that is neither from a BCS conference, nor has finished in the final BCS top 20 in any of the prior 5 seasons.)
2) Make up for it with playoff games.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
The coaches and Harris voters have the power
They can start to punish teams that play cupcakes and overrewarding teams that play strong OOC schedules. To give an example from this year OU fell 2 spots when they where still undefeated despite playing a FSU. After that loss FSU droped 9 spots. Oregon lost like 8 spots when they lost to LSU. Why would any school take the lesson its a good idea to play a good OOC scedule when they can go safe.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
Playoff system
And create a conference based on region (since we have 48 states confrences based on North, South Mid-West and West) Top 4 teams from each confrence should go in. I mean since we’re doing super-confences we might as well do something that would benefit from it.
Or we could always un-emphasize college sports and get people to get involved in lower league sports.
by Kirielson on Dec 5, 2011 11:27 AM EST reply actions
The only "fair" way to go is a 6 or 8 team playoff.....Conference champs only
You don’t like it….get in a conference and earn the championship…..which means the regular season still counts, as you have to earn your way to the conference championship and win key rivalry games. The conference championship gives a team that may have lost a game or two due to a key players injury a chance to still be in the Title hunt.
Having 6 or eight teams allows for the top 2 teams to play a “weaker” opponent or get a bye.
No No-AQ’s, Houstons, Boises, or TCU…unless they win a participating conference. Why? Check out the bowls they got invited to, that tells you everything you need to know. No big fan base, no big travel money….no ticket to the Playoffs.
I love the smell of Auburn in the autumn.....it smells like....victory.
by Col.Angus on Dec 5, 2011 11:48 AM EST reply actions
Derp.
The crap bowls we get invited to have ZERO to do with fan support and everything to do with conference bowl tie-ins. You seriously don’t know how that works?
And I can’t speak for Houston but I know for a fact that Boise and TCU have large fanbases that travel well.
Clippers // Chargers // Rays // Boise State
"The Lakers do win games. But things can change." - Blake Griffin
by 82-0 on Dec 5, 2011 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
16-team playoff, with a caveat
The selection of the at-large teams must be made either by computers, or by a panel of people whose JOB it is to do so. I do not mean writers. I do not mean coaches. I do not mean athletic directors and school presidents. I mean people who are actually dedicated to watch these teams play and openly, transparently, make a decision — a decision they’re going to have to defend to the public.
Seriously, hasn’t anyone stopped to consider that we leave 2/3 of the decision-making NOW in the hands of guys who are asked to fill out a ballot even though at best they’ve managed to catch the freakin’ highlight package of the day’s games? And every single one of these guys has a more important job to do. Voting in the poll is just a lark (and some of them don’t even do it themselves).
Further, because of that, the polls are biased toward the narrative. I am not (necessarily) accusing the networks carrying games of deliberately structuring their coverage in order to push a narrative for the purpose of influencing poll voters. However, we have to accept and recognize (and more to the point, the networks have to man up, accept, and recognize) that under the current system, how they cover the sport in and of itself has far too much influence on the voters themselves. If ESPN analysts had been stumping for Oklahoma State, Alabama would be in the Sugar Bowl. If Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson don’t spend an entire half waxing rhapsodic about how glorious a rematch would be and how great the SEC is, maybe Alabama is in the Sugar Bowl. That’s a reality we’re going to have to acknowledge. (I’m not mortally offended that Alabama is in the championship; I am mortally offended that the decision was made by people at whom propaganda was being openly fed.)
Honestly, everything I just said should be applied to every single one of your 10 options, and it would be an immediate and vast improvement over the current system. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 12:01 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I'm all for the At-Large Selection Committee regardless.
by SuperJew on Dec 5, 2011 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Jesus, listen to yourself!!
A selection commitee? Really?
Play it out on the field….I don’t want to hear about committee or anybody that can be corrupted for their “Vote”. I don’t care if the #60 team wins its conference and somehow finds its way to the championship game by hook or by crook…they did it on the field and beat Champions to get there.
“Giving” a team a spot at the table just adds to the confusions and more people whining.
I love the smell of Auburn in the autumn.....it smells like....victory.
by Col.Angus on Dec 5, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
The NCAA uses one for pretty much every post-season tournament
in every other sport at every level. Selection committees are fine for selecting at-large teams to a big field, and better than the alternatives.
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Okay, that's a brilliant idea.
Who, exactly, decides who gets to play it out on the field?
/crickets
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't it funny, though...
…how the “settle it on the field!” playoff crowd tends to wind up with a selection committee in the end…rather than acknowledge that the regular season already does “settle it on the field”? If you take the regular season seriously, as college football traditionally has, you can count on having at least one and no more than four really strong and deserving candidates for the MNC every year at the conclusion of the regular season.
So in my view, any system designed to give more than four teams a shot at the crystal football (or that gives teams that didn’t even win their divisions a crack at it) doesn’t take what’s already been decided on the field seriously enough.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah its so much better to leave it up to geography like the pros do
There are rules for selection for every playoff tournment in major sports and just because its a black and white rule makes it no less arbitrary than another method. The NFL faces this problem all too often with their western divisions. Or how about the tie breaking rules in the NFL.
1.Head-to-head, if applicable.
2.Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3.Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4.Strength of victory.
5.Strength of schedule.
6.Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7.Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8.Best net points in conference games.
9.Best net points in all games.
10.Best net touchdowns in all games.
11.Coin toss.
Because obviously the NFL way is consistent. Conference games matter except when they don’t (in the case of chosing division winner).
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
So why stop at 20?
Haven’t you learned anything from CBB – too many teams is still not enough. Who is this "Everybody" that still gets a seat at the table?
The 20 team plan would still have pundits in out-cry … the occupy CFB playoff group. You have included Arkansas, Alabama and South Carolina in the group but punished Georgia for losing the Conference Championship Game. Along with Houston, Michigan State and really Oklahoma. Who wants to play in a Conference Championship Game now with the chance of losing the chance to go to the playoffs.
Clemson and TCU have to play into the second round but they beat teams in the second round.
Then you will have the "my records better than your record" debate with West Virginia and Georgia. Why not just take the top 20 teams and include Nebraska over Conference Champs West Virginia and Sothern Miss.
Eventually, teams like LSU will stop scheduling Oregon in the year to make the case at the end of the year and only play minor teams out of conference. No more Alabama vs. Penn St. because there is too much risk compared to making into the top 20 compared to making the top 2.
Then the system will require 24 teams … then 32 teams … then 64 teams … why not act like little league and give ‘em all a trophy.
Future looks dim with playoff schemes.
by LSUFan1 on Dec 5, 2011 12:04 PM EST reply actions
These people are nuts...
There are MAYBE 4 teams that can compete with LSU and these folks want the Boise’s and TCU’s and Houstons to get their shot. Ridiculous. A playoff is about settling it on the field and not relying on biased reporting, coverage or whatever else corrupts pollsters.
At least if you are a conference champion, you have proven you have won with something on the line. You have PROVEN you belong. To let an independent or a second or third place conference runner up in because “they should be better” than anyone else. You know how you know whos better? Because they win…thats how. Thats how I know LSU is better than Bama. Bama might be better than Ok State but I do know that when Ok State had to win impressively, they did. When Bama HAD to win….they lost.
Oh, yeah and get those participation trophies ready…..theres gonna be lots of tears.
I love the smell of Auburn in the autumn.....it smells like....victory.
by Col.Angus on Dec 5, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
You're making no sense.
You said to me, above, “Jesus, listen to yourself!!”
You said yourself, here, “A playoff is about settling it on the field and not relying on biased reporting, coverage or whatever else corrupts pollsters.”
And yet you completely ignored what I actually said above, which was it doesn’t matter which model you choose, you need to get the pollsters out of the business. If you’re going to rail at people for their opinions, you need to actually read what the hell they say.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There are about 340 Divsion I basketball teams in 30-ish conferences
There are about about 120 FBS football teams in 11 conferences (which will drop to 10 with the MWC/CUSA football merger). The 65-team field that basketball had for a while was mostly to comply with NCAA regulations for the ratio of at large to automatic bids (and 68 is just a slight expansion from that); a 16-team playoff would require a rules change/exception for FBS football (which I’d favor; I voted for 16 teams).
Basketball can be practically played 2-4 times per week; football can only be played once per week. So it would be extremely difficult to have a > 32 team football playoff (the 5 weeks for 32 teams can maybe be done; it is in lower-division football, but they typically play a shorter regular season. Six weeks isn’t happening and would be half the field in any case), and of little value (very few NCAA sports include more than 1/4 of the field in the post-season, and I’m hedging on this because I don’t want just say none outright and miss something obscure).
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
The Big Dance is fun, but basketball is nuts.
I mean, 340 teams in a single division is just goofy, no matter how many games they can squeeze into a season. Three subdivisions, with 16-team tournaments in each subdivision (and none of those ridiculous conference tournaments), would be much more sane. But far less profitable for the top tier, of course.
Also, you mention lower-division football…that should also be a cautionary tale for us. Didn’t the I-AA playoffs start out with just a 4-team format? Give it another 10 years or so, and it’ll probably have degenerated into a 9-game regular season followed by a 32-team playoff.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
To add on
The lower division playoffs in NCAA football also draw about half the attendence of regular season games. Just for all the playoffs bring more people people.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
lower-division football doesn't draw many people period
mostly students, who aren’t on-campus during the playoffs. FBS is very, very different.
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
The calander
You need 60 to 110k people to fill up the stadium. The playoffs will have to happen in December. How is there not going to be attendence issues trying to fill these stadiums over 3 weeks in December? The fan base in college are generally located further away from the school than say the pros. The schools tend to be in smaller metro areas. People especially booster types tend to have other obligations that they have to undertake during december namely home for the kids on christmas and work parties and family parties and the like. There is not going to be 40k students on campus during this time.
What I am getting at is after the first few years of novelty attendence will become an issue. This is not the NCAA tournment were you only need 20k total to fill the early rounds up. And if a 16 team Wetzel style playoff every came to be good luck selling tickets because you won’t find the general public allotment selling even half the ticekts pre game.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
No, they do not.
The first round games do, because they’re on Thanksgiving weekend. After that, they draw just fine.
Hell, Old Dominion and Norfolk State sold out this year. ON Thanksgiving weekend.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
In D1 Thanksgiving is the weekend of big attendence
And they still draw less than regular season games.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
11 team playoff
1 Spot for each conference champion; 6 lowest ranked play the first round to narrow it to 8.
by rjthom5 on Dec 5, 2011 12:05 PM EST reply actions
16 Team Playoff
The 16-team playoff is exactly what I would promote. Include some Bowl-Tie ins, and the rest of the bowl eligible teams can continue the bowl tradition. This gives more importance to winning the conference championship, while maintaining a strong OOC schedule.
Great work on comparing all of the possibilities. If a team can prepare for a conference championship in one week, then they can prepare for a playoff game each week. The only worry is what effect on the “student” part of the student-athlete would have on finals.
by cabhorn on Dec 5, 2011 12:21 PM EST reply actions
The method I proposed at Outsiders...
…has all first-round losers getting thrown into the draft pool (so they can still ‘celebrate’ their success for the season, which was the original purpose of bowls) and all of the quarterfinal losers filling in the remaining BCS bowl slots (since the other two would be hosting semifinals). I cannot take credit for that (an old co-worker mentioned it), but I love it.
Follow me at @SBN_BillC!
SB Nation
Rock M Nation
Football Outsiders
Football Study Hall
by Bill Connelly on Dec 5, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Thats 4 extra games for the champs
Thats just nuts unless you are going to give the top 4 teams 2 bye weeks, the second 4 one by week and let the bottom eight have a “play in” game. But bottom line is that you would still have teams the rely on “rankings” to get to play. Rankings are what got us in this mess.
I love the smell of Auburn in the autumn.....it smells like....victory.
by Col.Angus on Dec 5, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I can't vote because there are really only two ways I want it
and that is my prerogative.
1 is a 12 team playoff, and I know it won’t make sense for most folks. But 11 conference champs in and the best independent team by record. And send everyone on their merry way. Top four teams get byes based on something akin to a BCS or RPI type formula.
Otherwise, I am in favor of scrapping the system and going to the (kind of) old way of voting after the bowls and see what happens.
Pigskin Punditry
Rock M Nation
Follow me on Twitter
"I'm not a believer in predetermined fates, being rewarded for one's efforts. I'm not a believer in karma. The reason why I try to be a good person is because I think it's the right thing to do. If I commit fewer bad acts there will be fewer bad acts, maybe other people will join in committing fewer bad acts, and in time there will be fewer and fewer of them" ~ Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snicket)
by D-Sing on Dec 5, 2011 12:30 PM EST reply actions
Or we could just accept that there's no such thing as a national champion
There is simply no way to determine a clear-cut “best” of 120 teams with only a 13 or 14 game schedule. Any attempt to do so is doomed to be a failure. And the best solution is to accept that that’s ok.
The problem with the current mania for naming a “true” national champion is that it downplays the significance of all teams that aren’t competing for the national championship. We should watch college football because each individual game is (to a greater or lesser extent, obviously) fun and interesting. By treating the games as little more than a means to an end, we devalue them.
A perfect example is this weekend’s SEC championship game. There was a lot of snarky discussion about how the game was pointless because it had no effect on LSU’s trip to the BCS game. Well, maybe that was true; maybe it wasn’t, but even so, how on Earth can you say it was pointless? It was setting up to be a great game best team in the SEC East and the best team in the SEC West, to determine the SEC champion. Isn’t that enough? Does it have to also affect the national championship race, or it’s simply pointless? I can’t agree with that.
There’s longstanding tradition behind this. For many years there was no attempt to name a national champion; there were conference champions, and bowls were just fun exhibitions between the conference champs. Then the polls started naming champions, first as a lark, then more seriously, and the bowls became Very Serious Business. Now it’s become completely professionallized — we have people whose job description is “ESPN BCS Analyst.” This is crazy.
I’m really concerned that the BCS discussion has completely taken over the college football commentary and blog discussion, beginning in September. I want to beat Ole Miss by 50 not because it helps us in the polls, but because I love to beat Ole Miss by 50. I think it’s time we reclaim our sport from the relentless discussion of champions and just love it for what it is.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Dec 5, 2011 12:33 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
This isn't entirely true...
If you settled it on the field, the best team in the SEC East was South Carolina (5-0 v. division).
"I make love to pressure."
-- Stephen Jackson
by USCKB on Dec 5, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Unrelated to my main point, but I kinda agree
The best way to pick an SEC champ would be for all 12 teams to play each other, then the team with the best record is champ (head to head being the tiebreaker). Obviously they won’t do this for various reasons, and starting next year it’ll be flat out impossible with 14 teams.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Dec 5, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
a 3 way tie is still possible
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 12:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
So it goes
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Dec 5, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
The division title is the main regular-season goal now.
And I grow more comfortable with that the bigger the conferences get, actually.
With a 16-team superconference, for instance, I’d expect 7 division games and 2-3 out-of-division games per season; for an 18-team superconference, 8 division games and 2 out-of-division.
The more heavily-weighted the schedule is towards divisional play, the more balanced it is. I’d thus expect to see fewer 3-way ties, and fewer teams being helped into the conference championship game with weaker out-of-division schedules (my Bulldogs caught just such a break this year).
In a superconference, you have a solid and traditional regular-season league competition for the division crown; and if Division I-A (or the BCS-eligible subset thereof) were sorted into four 18-team superconferences, that could give us a de facto 8-team playoff after the regular season with traditional bowls and a plus-one:
a) Conference championship games to take us from 8 to 4.
b) Traditional bowl matchups to take us from 4 to 2 (Rose Bowl matching Pac-18 and consolidated Big Ten/XII, Sugar Bowl matching SEC and consolidated ACC/Big East).
c) National Championship game between Rose and Sugar Bowl winners.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
yeah but no major sport works that way
You don’t win the NFC East if you go 6-0 in the division and 2-8 in the rest of your schedule. The definition of settling it on the field (in my opinion) is that every team controls its on destiny. In conferences with divisions, that’s what you have.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 12:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
True
I think it’s interesting that there are all sorts of ideas out there about things that “shouldn’t happen” in determining champions but those very things happen in the NFL, whose playoff system makes just about the most sense to me (well, except the coin-flip tiebreaker).
Sure, Oakland went 6-0 against divisional opponents last year, but because they couldn’t win as much as Kansas City, they didn’t go to the playoffs. I think that’s fair. I also don’t see why teams that didn’t win their division/conference simply “shouldn’t” go to the playoffs. Some divisions are just clearly better than others in certain years, and while I think it’s important to emphasize winning your division, it’s also important to adjust for the disparity (as the NFL system does). No one argues with Green Bay’s Super Bowl win last year. They were in a very competitive division and played absolutely dominant football late in the year. The disparity is even more pronounced in college. Giving only conference champs playoff spots seems silly to me. I know using polls to discern between #2, 3, and 4 is tricky and too subjective, but I’m pretty sure Alabama or Stanford would be a better pick for a playoff spot than the MAC champion.
Bottom line, as 4.0 Stance correctly pointed out, there is no way to truly determine who is the absolute best team. But I think we can find a pretty decent way to fairly get a champion, regardless.
Proud member of the Fax Girl fan club.
by billycthulhu on Dec 5, 2011 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
It depends on how you view the regular season.
I tend to take a soccer-style view of things myself: that is, that league play and tournament play are completely different animals.
If you play in a league (or division or conference), the more or less round-robin format of the regular season is the whole competition right there. Whoever wins the most games wins the title. Full stop. No “playoffs” should be needed to settle anything, unless you’ve got too many teams on your hands or the system is otherwise broken.
If you play in a knockout tournament (which most soccer leagues run concurrently with the league season), that tournament is its own separate thing; league standings aren’t really relevant to it. All that matters is that as many teams as possible get to participate, and that they all control their own destiny (no matter who you are, if you just keep winning, you’ll win the championship).
Somehow, in modern American sports culture, we feel compelled to mash together these two very different types of competitions in almost every sport we’ve got. So “league” and “cup” play become “regular season” and “playoff” play. The real shame here is that because there’s only one trophy, and because it’s become an unquestionable tenet of our culture that playoffs trump everything that came before, there is no way to avoid devaluing the regular season. It’s just a question of how well you can control the damage.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
Forget the BCS, forget playoffs, forget the magical National Championship that’s only open to a select few of the historical powers except for the rarest of rare occasions, and just enjoy college football games and your own partisanship. Because this way is incredibly unsatisfying as a fan, as games without immediate bearing on the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP are so denigrated as ‘pointless’
by Gihyou on Dec 5, 2011 12:58 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Exactly.
College football is unique and precious, and you state very well how and why this is so.
Playoff people don’t love and relish (or, sometimes, even understand) the regular season as much as you and I do…and truth be told, I kinda pity them for it.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
You can’t tell me games are worthless just because my team dropped out of the NC race in Sep. when my team beat its two big rivals yet again.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
@USKBC
No one wants to do a return game or pay market value for a one and done. There is a good example of Nebraska a few years back where Nebraska was going to do a 2-for-1 against Boise one road and two home for Nebraska but with I think no payment or well below market value for the second game at Nebraska.
The truth is that no big name wants to play at Boise State. Oregon and Oregon State are and I think Washington State are BCS programs that played at Boise State.
Follow me on twitter! | Mountain West Connection | SB Nation Denver
by Jeremy Mauss on Dec 5, 2011 12:59 PM EST via mobile reply actions
WSU has a home-and-home with them coming up.
CougCenter | Cougar Sports Weekly | @NussCoug
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 5, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
No Boise wants more than market value for a one and done. They want 1.5 million which is higher than most pay for wins get. Boise does not seem to understand that schools pay the million in order to get a win not to have a competative game. You don’t pay to have a competative game.
Nebraska was leaving money on the table offering Boise a 2 for 1 as they could make more money doing 3 pay games. To “break even” it really needed to be 3 or 4 to 1.
No one wants to play at Boise because they play in a 32k seat stadium they can’t fill and Boise makes unreasonable demands. They can get the NW schools because its a cheap travel but no other team wants anything to do with them.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
that is why the system is broken
It is all about money. Boise is in a unique situation. They are a really good program, but are in a league where the money is not there, so they are selling themselves like other schools from a comparable conference just to scrape by.
Boise State can fill their stadium, so not sure what your are talking about on that.
Follow me on twitter! | Mountain West Connection | SB Nation Denver
by Jeremy Mauss on Dec 5, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, did not realise they actually started to fill it up in the last 2 years
What is broken about it? Boise does not get intrest from the Pac or Big 12 not for some silly reasons but for real legit reasons that Boise is in control of. They are a very bad school and they have a tiny stadium. If they moved out of Tier 3 status as a school and had even 50k they would have intrest from at least the Big 12.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
the amount was $1 million for the third game of a 2-for-1 and that is about the going rate.
Follow me on twitter! | Mountain West Connection | SB Nation Denver
by Jeremy Mauss on Dec 5, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
If you want to keep the Bowls around, and ALSO have a Playoff...
What about this?
16 team playoff, with 2 rounds done in late November or early December, at least 2 weeks (if not more) before January 1st.
All 12 teams that LOSE in those first 2 rounds will be GUARANTEED a New Year’s Day or New Year’s Eve bowl game if they wish to play. Now, whether that’s against each other or against teams not in the Playoff is up to each individual bowl. There are currently 11 Bowl Games on either NYE or NYD (in this case 1/2) this year. Between those 11 bowls, there should be spots for the 12 teams and some extras.
The Final Four will be done in two weeks. The first weekend will be the first Saturday after New Year’s. The second will be the second Saturday after New Year’s. All four of the major BCS bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange) will host one game, rotating annually. The first weekend will be a 3:30 game and a 7:00 game at one of the major BCS bowls. The second weekend will be a National Championship and a 3rd Place game, taking place at 7:00 and 3:30 respectively.
All of this should be done most years before the NFL’s Conference Championship rounds. This year, the National Championship game would take place on Saturday, Jan 14, and the Divisional Championship rounds are on Jan 14 and 15.
If the NFL or the schedulers don’t like the NCAA taking up Saturday, they can always do this on Friday or Monday.
I don’t understand why the NCAA has traditionally scorned PLAYING MORE GAMES. There’s a TON of monies out there for these games, and the schools make TONS of monies off these games. Why not have more of them?
by Doshi on Dec 5, 2011 1:12 PM EST reply actions
Yes, more is always better.
That’s why making “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” a regularly-scheduled, year-round program was such a smashing success.
The fear of leaving money (or “monies”) on the table very often leads to killing the golden goose. Though maybe if this goose were a little less golden, it might be to everyone’s benefit in the end…
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
not that it has anything to do with anyhing else
Who Wants To Be a Millionaire is a success in syndication. It it wasn’t, it would’ve been cancelled. The syndicated version had nothing to do with the cancellation of the prime time version. It was actually planned that they would run concurrently, but ratings were so bad in prime time that they cancelled that version a month before the syndicated version made it to air. Bad analogy.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 2:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Because that plan only works in fantasy land?
If there is an expanded playoff past 4 teams the Bowls are dead. The majority die in the first 4 years and the few remaining die in a decade or stick around with NIT level intrest.
You don’t put games on Friday night because no one watches TV on Friday night. You don’t put college up against the NFL playoffs because the ratings will suck. That leaves Mon though Thursday. Good luck finding 60k plus fans to travel 2 times for midweek games.
Also great to see you lumped off Thanksgiving weekend regular season games which are some of the most profitable games for colleges as this tends to be rivalary weekend when record setting crowds show up to the stadium and a big reason why is so many alumni are back home for the holidays and a much shorter trip back to school.
I am also not sure how you are saying there are more games either? From the calander you have you are pushing the regular season to start in mid August. Schools that start after the regular season starts have crap attendence during those games and now you are suggesting every school have crap attendence? Or are you talking about making the regular season shorter which would mean fewer games overall?
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
There's a MONTH between the final regular season games, and the first bowl games...
Why in the bloody heck does this happen?
by Doshi on Dec 5, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
Its the way it is for historic reasons
In the reality we live in now people stop watching TV in the numbers needed to pay for a playoff the last 2 weeks of the year. The Bowl games on during this time are cheap so don’t need a large audiance to be successful.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
The SEC commissioner (Mike Slive) went to the BCS back in 2008
and had a plan for a plus 1 system (4 team playoff essentially) and no one, other than Swofford from the ACC, would even listen. The Big 12 Commissioner even put out a press release saying “the system we currently have is fine.”
Oh the irony, look who got left out of the title game this year (OSU) and now look who is pushing for a plus 1 (The Big 12 commissioner). There is a term for those people who say one thing and then do a 180degree turnaround when the system does not fit their particular wishes. I’ll let you figure out what that term is.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
by SevenRings on Dec 5, 2011 3:00 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Inconceivable!
Long-term thinking is all too rare these days. People take positions and make decisions based on what looks best right now. It is inconceivable to them that the shoe could ever wind up on the other foot.
It’s not inconceivable, of course, and the time will come when that word clearly no longer means what they think it means. But because it was completely unforeseeable that their ox would be the one being gored someday, they can then make the 180-degree turn without shame or even self-consciousness. And so cue the leap into the next short-term decision that they can’t be bothered to think through…
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
This keeps getting brought up
and you realize the Big 12 commissioner in question got fired for incompetence, right? I mean, there’s nobody who doesn’t giggle uncontrollably every time they see the words “Dan Beebe”.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
Just wanted to say
I’ve been reading articles about this for a decade now, and they all point out that the BCS is going to be renewed in a few years and we’re pretty much guaranteed to have at least a +1 system the next time. Not that the article isn’t good, just saying.
Personally I think the Bowls are the greatest post-season in sports. Anything that would upset them, I believe, is just short-sighted and foolish.
by frankelee on Dec 5, 2011 3:02 PM EST reply actions
Go for the 16 Team
As a sports person the 16 team setup seems most reasonable. You take a little of the basketball model in that every conferencehas their shot. Combine that with 5 high ranking at-larges and you’ve got a viable system. So what if a team with 3 losses wins it all? Every major sport these days is setup to emphasize postseason performance. Its time for college football to get real and abandon a system that makes the rich richer and leaves everybody else out.
Do what you like. Like what you do. - Life is Good, Inc.
by SportsGuyGL on Dec 5, 2011 3:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Sorry but this is funny
If you think the current system makes the rich richer wait until their is a playoff. Most athletic departments depend on going to the bowl for their donations. No post season donations drop. Because of the limited number of at larges the power houses will be taking them most years. They still keep getting big donations while the 2nd and lower tier schools fall behind. Top recurits no longer take a chance on going to Iowa or Mizzou meaning power houses get even better.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
8 team playoff system is the best
Also Craig Nusser can eat a dick. CougCenter sucks.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
by WazzuMadBro on Dec 5, 2011 3:35 PM EST reply actions
My vote is the current system
There is need for slight modification namely going back to something like the 2000 formula or decreasing the human influence while eliminating some of the stupid computer polls and replacing them with better models along with putting back MOV in some form even if it is a cap.
I like that there is a major sport in America that actually rewards play from the whole season instead of letting a “hot” or “lucky” team win it in the end. Or a team to get into a tounrment because they are better than this group of randomally selected groupings. Because it is important that the Seahawks or Dodgers or what every other bad team from an even worse division make it because well some one has to be there from that grouping.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 3:37 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Nice try Nick Saban
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
by WazzuMadBro on Dec 5, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
To the playoff people some questions
1- Who is going to pay for this playoff system? Remember playoffs will be played in December when after roughly Dec 15th no body watches TV for 2 weeks and even NFL ratings take a small dip.
2- Where and When are these playoff games going to be played?
3- How are you going to pick any at larges?
4- What is going to happen to the third tier teams like Iowa, South Carlonia, and UCLA’s of the world that are lucky to make a playoff every 20 years under any playoff plan that has even the slightest chance of passing?
5- What happens to bowls?
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 4:13 PM EST reply actions
lol
1. Yeah everyone stops watching TV for 2 weeks after dec 15th. hahahah are you serious?
2. In antartica during a blizzard obviously! durrr
3. Plenty of ways to do it which cant be worse than how they pick them for the BCS now so who cares?
4. What stupid point is this? How does it change anything for “3rd tier” programs and their chance of making a playoff. My WSU cougs would have a much better shot at playing for a title with a playoff format than if it a BCS beauty pageant where they will ALWAYS get passed up.
5. Who fucking gives a shit. Fuck bowls
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
by WazzuMadBro on Dec 5, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I give a fucking shit about bowls
I like them. I would like them to still be around when this is all said and done.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Thats nice
Which shitty bowl do you work for?
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
by WazzuMadBro on Dec 5, 2011 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Have you ever been to a bowl game?
Honest question
(%$#^**&&%)
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Rose Bowl 98
WSU-Michigan.
Great time. Woulda been just as happy if it was a semifinal game.
Why would anyone give a shit about a football game having bowl affiliation is beyond me. You must be 75 years old or something. Old guard guy who cares less about what is good for the game and more about antiquated tradition.
Gtfo
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
by WazzuMadBro on Dec 5, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
I never said I didn't want a playoff
I just said I’d like there to be bowl games when all is said and done. I like the fact that when my team isn’t in the top 16, there’s still a bowl to watch/go to. If you’ve only ever been to BCS bowls you wouldn’t understand. And why so hostile?
GFR (Grand Funk Railroad)
(&!@34) {?}{PO
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 5, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not close to 75 yet, but...
…I would like to put in a word for old-guard guy.
Awfully flip of you to write off old-guard guy as not caring about what is good for the game. Just because you don’t agree with or don’t understand his reasons, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. It might just be that, having more wisdom and experience, old-guard guy sees things you don’t.
When the young and impulsive start blowing up traditions they don’t understand, one can safely predict that the unintended consequences will bite them in the butt soon enough.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 5, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
Fine
If they pay all travel costs for both teams (including reasonable numbers for staff, band, and cheerleaders) and ditch ticket guarantees and minimum hotel stay durations, they can continue to operate. No school should lose money on a bowl. Yes, that would make the official payouts far less gaudy and kill off many lower-tier bowls; that’s fine with me.
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
NO school loses money going to a bowl in the first place
To keep it simple if Michigan somehow lost money in the Sugar Bowl they still will end up making money from the bowl because the Big Ten splits its pot and they clear over 2 million per school. This also ignores that donations go up when a team makes a bowl.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
almost all schools lose money on bowls
due to ticket guarantees. Because most schools are not Michigan, and cannot bring tens of thousands of fans anywhere.
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2011 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
you're both wrong
about half of schools that go to bowls lose money according to Bloomberg . The problem with playoff debates is they’ve become so polarized. Most people are in entrenched positions on both sides. When they read something that validates their position, they store it up for future use. When the opposite occurs, they disregard it.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 6, 2011 12:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
No they don't
They still at the end of the day receive a check from the conference office that is in the black. An individual school might lose money but big deal negotiate a better bowl payout or set up confence rules that bar schools from accepting bowl bids that are going to lose money. The conference as a whole makes money with bowls.
The accounting that shows schools lose money is a joke. No one looks at Microsoft and goes well the Bing division is losing money the company is in trouble and internet search is a dead field they look at the whole company and see the Office and Windows BD doing blockbuster quarter after blockbuster quarter.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 6, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Figures don't lie...
…but liars figure. The black arts of creative accounting can make a money-gushing enterprise look like a basket case, and vice versa. (Just ask anyone who was supposed to get a percentage of net profit off a blockbuster Hollywood movie.)
I’m not sure anyone really knows what the true profit/loss figures are on some of these deals. (Even many athletic directors probably have only a vague idea.)
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
I guess i'll take my facts and go home :(
First off, if you wanna argue how the numbers are misleading, fine. Give me some information to make me look again. Don’t just tell me its a joke and not give me something backing you up. Thats pretty weak. Second, I don’t think you really understand how the bowl works. Schools don’t negotiate their payout every year. Its a contract. Also some schools lose money when they go to a BCS bowl. If you wanna argue its because of wasteful spending on the trip. Fine. I don’t disagree. But at least give a little substance.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/college-football-winners-still-lose-as-bowl-game-expenses-exceed-payout.html
Also your Microsoft analogy is misleading. Microsoft=Athletic Dept. Bing=Bowl Game. If you wanna see how much money Bing is making or losing, look at Bing. No one is saying that bowl games are putting the ADs in the red, just that there’s a fair chance they might be losing money on their bowl game.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 6, 2011 1:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
From that very piece
According to Rutgers’s financial records, the conference gave the New Brunswick, New Jersey, school a $1.33 million revenue-sharing check — based on the BCS distribution, bowl payouts and conference television revenue
Here is another http://www.mndaily.com/2008/11/12/bowl-game-payouts-big-ten-total-least-316-million
Bowl game payouts to the Big Ten this year will total a minimum of about $31.6 million, according to the Big Ten media guide.
Having trouble finding the stories now but earlier this year during the Big Ten distrubition it was widely reported the Bowl payouts to the schools were around 2.5 million.
Schools can most defiantly turn down bowl invites the University of Miami is doing so this year in fact. Most schools don’t turn down bowls because even if they lost money playing the game they are loss leader and the increase in donations more than makes up for it. To use my school as an example to buy bowl tickets because though its a mid level bowl it is a high profile matchup you have to be a booster or season ticket holder. This money does not get credited to the bowl in the books.
No my analogy is correct. The conference as a whole is Microsoft. The BCS bowls are Office and Windows while the International Bowl and Beef O Brady Bowl are the Bings. The conference takes the cost of the bowl out of the bowl payout and what is left over goes to its members at least for the Big 5 conferences.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 6, 2011 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
you didnt read the article
The check from the big east also included TV revenue sharing. So only a percentage of that 1.3 mil was from the bowls. Right underneath it says that South Fla lost money on their bowl trip. I do agree that the publicity can be worth it, nevertheless about half of all schools that participate in bowls lose money.
And yes your analogy is false. I never said that schools and conferences were losing money with their football programs, I said half are losing money on their bowl trips. Office and windows are seperate properties owned by Microsoft. Comparing Windows to Bing is like comparing the ESPN regular season deal to the bowls. They have nothing to do with each other (save getting the brand out there). Not to mention comparing a global software giant with very capitalist tendencies to a trust of 12 independent institutions who distribute money in an almost communist way is where it got off on the wrong track in the first place.
But none of this is my original point, which was that we can’t have a realistic discussion of this because people have already entrenched. They throw out facts that support their position, ignore facts that don’t.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 6, 2011 6:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
And again half the schools do not lose money in the end on bowls. Half the teams might lose money on bowls if there was not conference revenue sharing but there is for at least the 6 AQ conferences. What the writers of the bowls lose money are doing is saying Team A goes to a bowl that pays out 3 million but it cost them 3.5 million so they lost money. But, that is not how it works. It works like this Conference 1 with teams A, B and C bring in 25 million and the total cost of going to the bowls was 15 million so each school gets a check for 2.5 million (front office takes a cut).
To make it very simple using the bowl lose money arguments they can’t explain tOSU books. tOSU never received a check for 17 million dollars from a BCS bowl despite playing in what 8 of them. It could have cost them 1 dollar in expenses and yet their books never showed 16.9 in profits from the bowls. That is because the money was payed to the Big Ten front office. tOSU than received a check from the front office of about 2.5 million for their bowl share.
I am not trying to be difficult but my analogy is correct. Schools do not receive money from bowls except for Navy, Air Force and ND. The conferences get paid by the bowls. The Sugar Bowl Inc writes a check to the ACC and Big Ten not to Michigan and VaTech. This money than goes into a pool (in the Big Ten) with money from the Outback Bowl, Cap One Bowl, Rose Bowl and the rest of the bowls. The Big Ten than takes out the expenses and cuts a check to cover them to their respective schools. The money left over is than divided up 13 ways. Basically if you are a Big Ten team the only way you can lose money in a bowl is a bowl to cost more than 4 million in expenses. To put that number in perspective that would be 36 percent of all of the outlays for the conferences 7 teams to make a bowl.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 6, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
I get it
I understand how bowl payouts work. You’re misunderstanding what the article is saying. Its saying that a lot of schools are losing money because they’re conference payout isn’t enough to cover the expenditures they put out to go to a bowl game. Team A spends 1 million to go to the Rose Bowl, Team B spends 2 million to go to the Orange. The conference payout is 1.5 million. Team A makes money, Team B loses money. That’s what the article is saying. Here’s another for you:
http://www.mndaily.com/2011/10/04/bcs-bill-how-bowl-games-cost-football-programs
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 6, 2011 8:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
1- Look at the TV ratings for the last 2 weeks of the year sometime. Ratings fall off a cliff.
2-Funny. Playoff people. Step one Playoffs Step two ? Step three profit.
3- Well give one
4- IF you think there is a second class now wait until the playoffs. Bowls bring donations. With no bowls donations dry up but more importantly recruiting dries up because what high 3 star let alone 4 and 5 star is going to play for a school that has 0 chance at a post season? When they can go to big name school that is rolling in playoff money donations with their better coaching, better faculties, better chance at the pros?
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
One thing to remember ...
The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament has a committee that is designed to pick the at-large teams for the tournament. There’s no reason that FBS football can’t have a similar setup to pick at-large teams after conference champions are included.
I prefer a modified version of the 16-team playoff, but 4 would be better than what we have now, and 8 would be better than 4. If there are more FBS teams in the future, perhaps moving to 20 (or even 24) would make sense, but more than 16 adds one more round of games, which may be asking too much.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS
by mdak06 on Dec 5, 2011 4:56 PM EST reply actions
All of this
is worthless without stating where you expect these game to be played.
Having said that, any playoff system that incorporates the bowls should never be allowed.
So if you’re not including logistics and how you’re going to have a home field advantage-based playoff system, you can take all of it and shove it.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Follow @cornnation Twitter
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on Dec 5, 2011 5:14 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
But playoffs mean profit
Thank you. More people need to get logistics are a huge issue. Tampa International Airport does 60k Thanksgiving week. Now imagine bowl city having to deal with that influx during the buisest travel time of the year. Its not like the bowls or superbowl where people have a month to plan and come at different times, they will be coming in basically Thursday and Friday. The airlines can’t plane ahead because they have no way to know if its Texas or ND.
And before anyone says what about the NFL. NFL teams are located in places where there are a million plus people. Colleges tend to be in places with maybe a few hundred thousand people.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 5, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Really good points. Thanks.
There are some details there I hadn’t even begun to consider.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
My take: the easy solution.
There needs to be a playoff.
Any system should encourage OOC games during the season without hurting a team for playing good competition during the season.
Any system should reward being in tough conferences or having a tough schedule; conference might be a way to go about it ,but it ’s not hte only way.
My easy solution: 8 or 16 team playoff structure. Only the top 4 conferences (determined by how well they did AS A CONFERENCE against OOC play, in a weighted way like computers or FEI/S&P do) get auto bids for their champions. They get good slots as well.
That leaves 12 at large bids. Anyone can be in those bids, but they are given out primarily based on strength of schedule and a SBS/S&P/FEI ranking. If you play crappy teams and win a lot? Doesn’t matter, because that team that scheduled a brutal schedule and played well in all of those games but lost 4 is getting in over you. Sorry, Houston.
First round of games are played at the higher position’s home field. Second round as well.
Final 4 is played at neutral sites; I’m tempted to say that this should be played at the home of the better ranked team too.
Final 2 is a neutral site. 3/4 also has a consolation.
What this does: encourages good conferences and winning conferences but only if you’re a strong conference that repeatedly shows this by playing other good teams.
It encourages strong OOC play; if you schedule FCS teams it might as well not be there as far as the rankings are concerned.
It preserves in-conference rivalries.
It isn’t that odd as far as college goes; college basketball is already used to the RPI metric and getting in brackets.
by kalon on Dec 5, 2011 5:37 PM EST reply actions
My take: the hard solution
The hard solution: blow things up. Have 4 16-team megaconferences. Everyone else is excluded from the playoff save one at-large team that gets to play the 16th ranked team to get in in a special shot.
16-team megaconferences are not static. The teams in the conference rotate. In specific, the bottom two teams from each conference are replaced by the top 8 teams in the non-megaconference group every year. The term is relegation, and is what things like the european soccer system does.
Winner of the conference gets in automatically. 12 at large bids picked out from the remaining 64 depending on FEI/S&P like metrics to determine best teams.
by kalon on Dec 5, 2011 5:39 PM EST reply actions
I like your thinking, but...
…if the megaconferences operate properly, won’t the conference championship games give you your Final Four right there?
Or, if you want to have a more inclusive cup competition…why only allow 1/4 of the teams to participate? Have a 64-team single-elimination tournament running concurrently with the megaconference schedule. (Since we’re talking about European soccer lately.) Teams who lost in the first round of the cup, and didn’t win their divisions, would play a customary 11-12 game schedule:
7 division conference games
2 out-of-division conference games
1-2 cupcake or traditional rival games
1 cup game (round of 64)
Teams who made it as far as the round of 16, and didn’t win their divisions, would still only be at 13-14 games (same as now including conference championships and/or bowls). So for 3/4 of the teams in any given year, there’d be little if any additional burden…and two trophies rather than one to play for!
Admittedly, we’d really be pushing it with those few teams that made it to the Final Four of the cup and their conference championship games in the same year. If there were a way for them to ditch their cupcake/OOC schedules in a pinch, we could still get them down to 16 games maximum…but that’s still a lot.
by Blog Goliard on Dec 6, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
To hell with your American "playoff" concepts
Sixteen team Champions League. All 11 conference champs and 5 at-large teams split into four pools of four. All teams play each other once, pool winners go to semifinals, winners of those to a final.
by Lioli44 on Dec 5, 2011 5:43 PM EST reply actions
I want more football so I voted for 20 team playoff
Really, I’d like to see a 16 team playoff. Either make the non-AQ conferences mean something or get rid of them.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Dec 5, 2011 6:06 PM EST reply actions
I'd rather just have a 6 team playoff
which would really be like a “Plus 2”. Take the top 6 teams from a rating system that’s either less poll based and/or less based on polls from people who stand to gain from the results (coaches, media). So like a selection committee. Top 6 teams from any conference with 1 caveat; in order to obtain a number 1 or 2 seed and a bye, team must be conference champion. So this years seeds:
1. LSU
2. OSU (conf. champ)
3. Alabama
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
Rd. 1:
Bama vs. Ark
Oregon vs. Stanford
(yes, rematches all)
Rd. 2
Bama/Ark vs. OSU
Oreg/Stan vs. LSU
NCAA Football Championship:
winner of rd 2 games
by philadelphiacub on Dec 5, 2011 6:19 PM EST reply actions
this system rewards winning conference championship substantially,
yet still makes it possible for the best teams to play in the finals. Really, a smaller tournament of really elite teams who realistically are the best team in the country is a better option to me. College football and MLB seem to be facing some of the same dilema that MLB really opened up when it added the Wild Card. Traditionally, MLB rewarded the best team over a long, grueling season. I’d prefer the best team win the championship over the hottest team any day.
by philadelphiacub on Dec 5, 2011 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think there is a right way.
Personally, I would be fine with the Plus One A model
...but then 2010 happened.
by BeatLA55 on Dec 5, 2011 9:23 PM EST reply actions
My 8-team Playoff System
8 teams selected with the following priority
1) Undefeated DI-A teams
2) Remaining BCS AQ Conference Champs
3) BCS standings or equivalent
If somehow there aren’t enough slots to allow all six AQ champs (i.e. 3+ non-AQ undefeated, which has never happened), lowest-ranked AQ champ is excluded.
This system has the following benefits:
1) Puts a large emphasis on conference play
2) Continues to give AQ conferences a “preferred” status (critical for it to be accepted)
3) Every non-AQ team has a chance at the national title (win all their games)
The biggest possible drawback is that non-AQ schools would be encouraged to load up on OOC cupcakes (DI-AA or DII) to make an undefeated season more likely. I don’t foresee this being a huge problem, as few non-AQ teams finish conference play undefeated anyway. If it does become a problem, caveats could be placed on non-AQ teams, such as finishing in T-20 or playing at least one AQ school.
by bubba0077 on Dec 5, 2011 9:32 PM EST reply actions
The answer is always the Australian Football League system
Game 1: #4 Stanford @ #1 LSU
Game 2: #8 KSU @ #5 Oregon
Game 3: #7 Boise State @ #6 Arkansas
Game 4: #3 OSU @ #2 Alabama
Winner of Game 1 advances to Game 7, winner of Game 4 advances to Game 8.
Loser of Game 1 advances to Game 5, loser of Game 4 advances to Game 6.
Winner of Game 2 advances to Game 5, winner of Game 3 advances to Game 6
Losers of Games 2 and 3 are eliminated
Assuming higher seeds win each game the next round would be an elimination round
Game 5: Oregon @ Stanford
Game 6: Arkansas @ Okie St
Game 5 winner would advance to play LSU, Game 6 winner advances to play Alabama, and the winners of those games play for the MNC. Perfect.
by Narghile on Dec 6, 2011 9:14 AM EST reply actions
The Ohio punter is right....
One of the problems with your playoff systems, especially the 16+ systems, is that you have the higher seeds getting home field advantage. That will never happen. Regardless of the merits of home field advantage, it’s a political problem that will never get the votes from the schools to actually happen.
The SEC and Pac 12 are never going to agree to games in Madison, Columbus, etc. in December. Nobody wants to play in the north in December…especially if they’re a finesse team. Can you imagine Oregon’s offense in the Happy Valley snow? Eek. There’s nothing particularly fair about awarding home field advantage to the higher seeds anyway, and if you combine the weather factor then you’re tilting the scales so far in the Big Ten’s favor that any notion of fairness becomes ridiculous.
Of course, if the games aren’t played at home fields then you run into the logistics problems that someone else mentioned as well as empty stadiums. Bama fans aren’t going to travel to see them play Northern Illinois when bigger games are on the horizon.
Which brings me to my final problem with the 16+ team plans. What is the point of Alabama playing Northern Illinois anyway? Is there a realistic chance for the Huskies to win? Not really. The only thing newsworthy that can come from that game is Trent Richardson blowing out a knee. I understand the desire to put the non-AQ champions in the playoffs, but the only thing it does is increase the chances that a team loses a key player for the rest of the playoffs or that a player has his career ended. And for what, exactly? To prove that Bama is better than Northern Illinois? It just seems so pointless.
by Muldrake on Dec 6, 2011 1:38 PM EST reply actions
Another huge factor you nail is Politics
The only “playoff” that has even the smallest chance of ever happening is a plus one after the old style bowl season. The politics of every other one make them impossible.
This goes for all the other “playoff” systems. The NCAA by rule and because of reality will have to run it. The major schools that you know actually produce the value in the sport want nothing to do with them as they have seen what has happened in basketball.
4-10 team playoffs. There problem is simply they bring on actual anti trust issues not the pretend ones of the BCS. You are limiting access to nearly half the schools at the D1 level.
12 plus team playoffs. No one is going to pay for games that feature MAC, Sunbelt, WAC, C-USA, MWC and new Big East. The NCAA is going to give every team in the first round an equal share like in Basketball and there is just no way that this is acceptable to the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC, and Big 12. Even with 16 teams that is 38 percent of the payout money going to teams that bring next to 0 value.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Dec 6, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed