One of the things that is great about college football is that every week there are big games with national title implications, and it always stirs up more talk about how flawed the BCS system is. Most agree that we need a real playoff system to properly crown a national champion, but some insist that a playoff would marginalize some of the games and rivalries that mean so much now.
Others worry about the bowl games and commitments that go along with them that would be compromised as a result of a playoff as well. What we have now is the best and worst of both worlds. We are talking about the teams, the games, and the BCS rankings and how everything might play out every day, which is a good thing.
It does generate a lot of interest. On the other hand we are also talking about how justice isn’t being done with the current system in place and everyone is clamoring for a better system. There is one major factor that will always affect getting a new system in place. And that is money.
There are many commitments between conferences and bowl games that would be affected. Any time there is money involved there will always be resistance to drastic change, and rightfully so. These games represent a major source of funding for these universities.
That being said I will present a solution to this BCS system that preserves the integrity of the conferences, and would result in a more clear cut national champion than we have now. One of the first things that would have to happen is that each major conference would have a four team playoff of their own to determine who would be the conference champion, and qualify for a season ending eight team playoff.
For example, at the seasons conclusion, the SEC would rank the top four teams and they would play to determine who the conference champion is. Florida would play the fourth ranked team, Mississippi, and Alabama would play Georgia again. The winner of those games would play in the championship game. Both games would be at a neutral site.
This format would have benefited Georgia last year because they were playing their best ball at the end of the year but didn’t get a chance to compete for their conference title. Conferences that don’t have a title game would have to be realigned, but not in a way that would affect their regular season scheduling.
The Big Ten would split their conference into two divisions, and maybe add another team, such as Navy, or Notre Dame, and their four team playoff would come from that group.
The PAC 10, and the WAC are on the same side of the country, so it would be a natural fit for those two conferences to play a four team playoff featuring the top two teams from each conference. This year that would have been Oregon State, USC, Boise State, and Oregon.
The Big East, and Sun Belt conferences would square off at season’s end, and the Mountain West and Independents would combine and split into two groups. Keep in mind that this alignment is only to determine who qualifies for the final playoff. These wouldn’t be permanent conference groupings.
comments (23) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
32 teams is a lot. This takes a solid step in guaranteeing that the NC is also a Conference Champion via these mini-tournaments (for the most part) but you can do the same with 16 teams (for the most part), provided you allow teams like Troy to qualify only as an at large.
The field of 8 including the same number of SEC as Conference USA teams seems to be a misappropriation. If you are going to do 32 teams, you might as well do it like other NCAA sports and mix the top 32 teams (including each regular season conference champ) or have a more appropriate allocation of positions based on relative conference strength.
I think once the BCS rankings come out Sunday, I'll take my own shot at potential playoff formats.
from about 1 month ago
Good points. Looking forward to seeing your ideas.
Andrew
about 1 month ago
NO PLAYOFFS! i have no desire for a college football playoff. a playoff would hurt the sport of college football. one of the things that makes it great is the bowls. sure you claim you are saving the bowls, but really it is destroying them. in essence it would be like the nfl giving the team that wins the playoff game a trophy for every win and calling it something random like the snow bowl or any other ridiculous name they could come up with. college football is the only sport where every week matters. if you add a playoff then it destroys that.
and let's pretend that we do impliment a playoff, was New York the best team in the NFL? Was george mason one of the top four teams in the nation a few years ago when they went to the final four? was kansas the best team in the nation?
there is almost no way to pick who the actual champion is. this year the bcs will pick the right two teams. the big 12 winner and the sec winner.
USC can complain all they want but they wouldn't be in this situation if they wouldn't have lost to oregon state.
the team that doesn't go the big 12 championship can't complain because all of them had the chance to not be in this situation and all of them failed.
keep the bcs. the closest thing to a playoff i would be ok with is the +1 system
from about 1 month ago
Keep the faith Jordan. We already have the NFL. Why repeat the mistake? In the worst case we could turn into the NBA, where the playoffs last for two months, but it feels like five months. Did their new regular season start yet, or are last year's playoffs still going on? I stopped paying attention a long time ago.
Personally, rather than a plus one, I would rather see them get rid of the NC game. What's the point of two team playoff? Keep the BCS ranking system to declare a champ and be done with it.
Then the bowls could go back to what they are supposed to be. A fun reward for the top teams. A week of fun and sun for snow bound fans, players and alumni. A chance to see some unusual conference games. A nice parade here and there.
Until 1966, the final polls were released and the champion was declared before the bowl games. Sounds like a plan to me!
from about 1 month ago
i wouldn't mind the final rankings coming out before the national championship game but i don't think that college football fans would agree with i
i do not personally like the +1 system but it is the only acceptable one to me. it is the only thing that wouldn't destroy the sport.
i am sick of people and teams complaining. here's a fact. GET IN A GOOD CONFERENCE AND GO UNDEFEATED AND YOU WON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.
look at alabama, are they complaining? no because they took care of business and are sitting there undefeated.
about 1 month ago
Major logistic failure. Top two teams are playing an additional 5 games.
from about 1 month ago
I don't think that is a bad thing Aaron. Only 2 teams are playing those 5 games. If the object is to have a true national champion, then the games are waranted I believe. I don't think the schools or teams would mind it that much, especially with the interest and money that would be involved.
Andrew
about 1 month ago
all this would do would turn college ball into the nfl. the nfl sucks to watch because its regular season is pointless. say usc had a playoff spot locked up and still had 2 regular season games left, they would have no reason to show up in play, that would be 2 games the fans lose. they way it is now, all teams fighting for a bcs bowl have to show up and win every week. the nfl sucks for a reason, dont send college ball into the a world of boring regualr seasons, and useless playoff games. the current system is flawed, everyone knows that, but playoffs would be much worse.
from about 1 month ago
Places in BCS bowls: 10.
Places in an eight-team playoff: 8.
USC would not have a playoff spot locked up until they won their conference (having played a complete conference schedule). Depending on format, they would be playing a quarterfinal vs. Penn State (in the Rose Bowl) or another team at one of the four BCS bowl sites.
As of now, USC has not clinched the conference championship; they have to beat UCLA next Saturday. That's likely, but not a sure thing. That's why they play the games... UCLA upset USC two years ago to knock them out of a title game spot.
The point is that the spots are not locked up until the last week or two of the season.
And the regular season is not pointless in the NFL, iceman... perhaps you've heard of byes and home-field advantage? They're important in the NFL.. think of how important they might be in FBS (I-A).
Because they're already important in the three other divisions of college football (FCS/I-AA, II, and III). Obviously in an eight-team playoff a bye might not be relevant, but in a 12-team playoff it would be, and in a 16-team playoff home field would come into play. Those top four spots (or home field in the first round or two) would not be settled until very late (example: at this point, neither Alabama nor Florida would be guaranteed a bye, as the season isn't over yet and a loss would likely drop them out of the top four).
from about 1 month ago
How would this turn college football into the NFL? The NFL season is not pointless. You don't qualify for the playoffs unless you succeed in the regular season. I completely disagree about your USC example. They wouldn't want to lose to UCLA or Notre Dame regardless of how many wins they had. These are kids who are not getting paid and their rivalry games are mostly late in the season so they won't need extra motivation to play those games. They are not like pro athletes. If the NFL was as bad as you say, then people wouldn't be watching all the time and selling out most of the games. It's one thing to not want a playoff in college football, but the reasons you have here don't jive.
Remember, that it takes a lot of money to make the NCAA go, and they are looking for additional streams of income to get everything funded that they need. If the interest is there, which it is, they would have a playoff and add more games just for the money.
Andrew
from about 1 month ago
How would this turn college football into the NFL? The NFL season is not pointless. You don't qualify for the playoffs unless you succeed in the regular season. I completely disagree about your USC example. They wouldn't want to lose to UCLA or Notre Dame regardless of how many wins they had. These are kids who are not getting paid and their rivalry games are mostly late in the season so they won't need extra motivation to play those games. They are not like pro athletes. If the NFL was as bad as you say, then people wouldn't be watching all the time and selling out most of the games. It's one thing to not want a playoff in college football, but the reasons you have here don't jive.
Remember, that it takes a lot of money to make the NCAA go, and they are looking for additional streams of income to get everything funded that they need. If the interest is there, which it is, they would have a playoff and add more games just for the money.
Andrew
about 1 month ago
Agreed with Aaron.
Wrong way with the conference playoffs. It's better, if reform is on the table, to require all conferences to play complete conference schedules. No exceptions. That would mean 12-team conferences have *one* non-con game, and if they have a traditional non-con rival, then no cupcakes will make it on the schedule.
No non-conference cupcakes, anyway... can't help playing the likes of Washington, Iowa State, Duke, Syracuse, Mississippi State, and... Michigan. ;-)
If conferences want to have legit championship games that match the best two teams in conference, then they have to do away with sending division champions to the games. Though that would negate the reason for the game most years, and using common tie-breakers (such as point differential) even in those years two or three teams could be separated... especially if they're playing complete conference schedules!
An eight team playoff that incorporates both the four BCS bowl sites and traditional conference affiliations is workable, and would be more so if the conferences crowned teams with the best conference records. That is NOT guaranteed to happen with ANY conference playoffs, and there is no time to have "dual" champions (and automatic bids) for regular season AND conference playoff the way it happens in basketball.
In an eight-team playoff, with no changes to conference format, the top two teams play TWO extra games, the semifinal and final (the quarterfinals replace what would be dead-end bowl games...for six of the eight teams, anyway), for a total of 15 or 16 (depending on the team's conference). Teams are already playing 13 or 14 games if they go to a bowl game.
Take away the conference championship game as mentioned above, and that reduces the pre-playoff season to 12 games for all teams, with the finalists (top two) playing 15, the semifinalists 14, and the quarterfinalists (and other bowl participants... bowls would still exist) 13.
Jordan, as far as distinguishing the "best" teams from those that win the title, that's a false distinction. The teams that win through a knockout bracket do so on the field/court, not because a voter bumped them up in a poll so they could play in a title game. If the New York Giants beat the "best" team in a title game, they're the champions. And ask any player if they'd rather be (1) the "best" team as determined by voters or (2) the champions (i.e. title-winning team) as determined by a knockout competition, and you're kidding yourself if you think they'd answer (1).
from about 1 month ago
Appreciate the comments Scott. If you don't change the conference formats somewhat you don't have a level playing field. I think every conference should have to play at least a game to qualify for the final playoff. If not, you will still have questions as far as who deserves to be there. I think there is enough time between December and January to get more games in. This will also create more revenue streams for college football as well, and we all know the role money plays in this. Good insight though.
Andrew
about 1 month ago
A pretty inventive idea. I see where you are going with it. You are trying to preserve the conference tie ins to the bowls. What I like about your system is that you are not delusional like other playoff advocates about three realities.
1) It's the conference bowl tie-ins that are stopping a playoff. You've solved that.
2) You have to have at least 24 to 32 teams play off in a 119 team league for there to be any fairness.
3) You almost eliminated the polls. You are still using them in conference to determine the playoff participants. You should change that.
Of course, the main practical problem with your system is that you are forcing Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma to play off against each other for the right to face Troy in the playoffs. In other words, you have the NCAA basketball tournament, except the top seeds are facing each other first.
Therefore, the BCS honchos are not going to accept your system, because they know that once it is in place, there will be too much pressure to correct the seedings, which are absurd and grossly unfair to the top teams. You will end up with a system with just the 11 conference champions and 13 to 21 wild cards. That means no conference bowl tie-ins for the "elite eight", which means an equitable distribution of post season money for the first time in 1-A football.
I don't give a hoot about where the bowl money goes, but I'm against a playoff because it will ruin the regular season and undermine many other traditions in college football. I don't want to trade 13 weeks of playoff atmosphere football for 3 weeks of real playoffs. All so we can have an "undisputed" champion every year? So what? In a playoff, half the time a handful Cinderellas just get lucky and trip up the top teams anyway. Year in, year out, the BCS does a better job of matching up the two best teams in the final.
about 1 month ago
Creative, but like most BCS playoff suggestions - too much change to every get accepted. There is a much simpler way. Create an At-Large play-in system.
1st - accept the obvious that eventually 4 bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange) must lead to 2 BCS semi-finals and finally 1 BCS championship. They rotate among the 4 sites later in January.
2nd - keep the conference bowl affiliations as they currently are (too much tradition and ego to fight against) but create BCS bowl affiliated At-Large play-in games in early December for every at-large slot and for any conference champion slot who's winner is ranked outside the top 12 (or 10 or 16, but pick a logical number). Highly ranked non-BCS teams are guaranteed 2 play-in slots (or 1 or 3 or conditional based on record and ranking)
3rd - At-Large play-in game winners go on to play in the January BCS Bowls. At-Large play-in losers return to take their various slots in the non-BCS bowls. Smaller bowls are protected, more teams get a shot at the BCS bowls. And WE GET A COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP WON ON THE FIELD!!!
2008-09 example:
Rose Bowl keeps USC vs. Penn State (both with high rankings and bowl tie-in tradition)
Sugar Bowl takes the Alabama/Florida winner as its SEC tie-in
Sugar Bowl creates an At-Large play-in game and invites an undefeated Utah vs. the burned
Texas/OK team left out of the Big 12 championship game.
Fiesta Bowl takes the Big 12 champ if Texas/OK win, but creates a play-in game if Missouri upsets.
Fiesta Bowl creates an At-Large play-in game featuring Big-10 runner up (10-2) Ohio State vs.
an undefeated Boise State.
(If lower ranked Missouri wins, then a 2nd Fiesta Bowl At-Large play-in game is created
and the 4 teams are shuffled to include the now humbled Big 12-South team (or an
undefeated Ball State team?).
Orange Bowl has the ACC Champion (Boston College/Virginia Tech) vs. the Big East Champion
(Cincinnati) but both teams are lower ranked in the polls. The Orange Bowl chooses to
capitalize and creates two At-Large play-in games.
Play-in Game 1: ACC Champion vs. Alabama/Florida loser.
Play-in Game 2: Big East Champion (Cincinnati) vs. Big-12 co-champion (11-1) Texas Tech.
Results: A 12 (or 13) team play-off. All the top ranked teams are included, even the non-BCS worthies (except probably Ball State, dang! I wish this were a more fair world). BCS Bowl committees get to organize early December play-in games, added exposure, added revenue. Best of all - Winners move on until we have a real championship decided on the field!
from about 1 month ago
Your system would probably last quite a while, especially since you might be able to get the BCS conferences behind this.
Ultimately, though, it is doomed to expand. The entrants to the playoff are still largely determined by voters. There is an inherent unfairness that some conference champions are worthy of automatic entrance to the playoff while others are not.
Why is Ball State ranked 14th and Boise State 9th? On what basis? Opinion. Why is a 3 loss Georgia team worse than an undefeated Boise State team?
Your only argument is "it's better than what we have now." The problem is that once a playoff is established, nobody will care about what came before. They will just want into the playoff -badly. They will keep pushing unitl they get what they want.
One reason they will win is that they are right. In a 119 team league with a permanent imbalance of power, you have to let everybody in to the playoff.
1-AA football started with a 4 team and now has a 20 team. Basketball started with 8 teams and now has 65.
There will be no peace in college football until there is a playoff with all 11 conference champs and 13 wild cards.
I say get rid of the BCS and go back to the old polling system and bowl system. We have enough great games to watch each year. All the teams that don't go undefeated or don't play anybody should just man up and admit they lost. It's mostly the whiny sore losers that push for a playoff anyway.
Hey USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida and Texas Tech. It was settled on the field when you lost your games. If you were undefeated, you wouldn't be having this problem.
from about 1 month ago
Not a bad plan, but the big ten, and other conferences like them should have to play their way in because they don't have a conference championship game. Having to play your way in takes the voting out of the equation and levels the playing field between the conferences. Thanks.
Andrew
about 1 month ago
this is the best playoff idea i have heard so far
about 1 month ago
WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO PLAY ALL THESE GAMES??? THERE IS NO TIME TO HAVE A PLAYOFF THIS IS A STUPID IDEA. PLAYERS HAVE EXAMS, FAMILIES, AND LIVES, AND OTHER SPORTS, I.E. BASKETBALL HAVE ALREADY STARTED.
THE BCS SYSTEM IS FINE, IT IS GREAT,I DONT THINK THERE IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.
from about 1 month ago
very good point. ill use the common point made by coaches "players are student athletes not athletic students."
with the bowl system you are only allowed a certain amount of practices but there would be more practicing and playing if a playoff system were in place.
about 1 month ago
I like the idea but there's no way this would ever happen. That's wayyyyyy to many extra games added to the regular season and I'm not sure the preservation of the bowls you suggest would actually be so.
I'd like to see a smaller playoff between top teams but clearly, even such a small change to the system is being resisted. So let's start small... with something like this:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/87302-whats-really-wrong-with-the-bcs-its-subjective
about 1 month ago
Here you go, Andrew. Idea number 1.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/87861-fbs-playoff-series-two-teams
about 1 month ago
i think a easy and simple way to change college football would be to make top 25 teams play other top 25 teams in non conference games. this would get rid of cupcake games. simple.
write a new comment