What Would A College Football Playoff Look Like?
Last week, the ACC Commissioner and BCS Coordinator, John Swofford, testified before the House Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee. So, it would seem, the powers that be appear to be applying a bit more pressure on the BCS to change their ways soon.
There are many problems with instituting a playoff. For starters, the people on this congressional subcommittee don't even appear to understand the game of college football. Bobby Rush of Illinois referred to the ACC as the "Athletic Coast Conference". Another congressman suggested that they have a 64 team playoff as a solution.
Perhaps Congress isn't the way to get a playoff system in motion.
Whatever the case, Joe Barton from Texas made a not-so-veiled threat to the BCS representatives that showed up to the Congressional hearing:
"if we don't see some action in the next two months, on a voluntary switch to a playoff system, then you will see this bill move." ['this bill' referring to a bill that would prevent the NCAA from labeling a game the National Championship without a playoff]
Of course, the BCS still cannot explain how it is not unfair to distribute 90% of the lucrative BCS earnings to the 6 power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 10), and only 10% to the other 51 schools in Division I.
And the BCS must also be incredibly stubborn or deaf, as 73% of the players want a playoff system. Additionally, many fan surveys have been conducted, and I have yet to see one with less than 60% of the respondants wanting a college football playoff. Here's one from OnlineAthens.com that said 68% were in favor of a playoff, 16% were undecided, and 16% did not want a playoff.
So, most people want a playoff, but right now we're stuck waiting for someone to enact a change. In the meantime, we can dream, so why don't we take a look at what a college football playoff might look like! (after the jump)
Obviously a playoff system will arise from great compromise. Among the biggest complaints about a playoff is that it would cause the season to drag on too long. I can certainly see why this would be a major concern. A 64 team playoff would most likely result in a 6-week long postseason (yikes!).
Compromise #1
As much as we'd all like March Madness College Football edition, the playoff can at most comprise 16 teams (4 week playoff), but more likely would comprise 8 teams (3 week playoff) or 4 teams (2 week playoff).
The Big 6 conferences would probably complain about not having an equal chance to play in a 4 team playoff, and non-BCS conference schools would have a difficult time climbing the rankings to be in the top 4. This most likely eliminates the 4 team playoff idea. In all honesty, I think a +1 game stands the best chance of being accepted by the BCS. This would involve seeding the 4 best teams into 2 of the BCS bowls and then letting the winners play a couple of weeks later in the BCS championship game. It keeps all the normal bowls in tact, but has a quasi-playoff embedded in it.
So, basically we're looking at an 8 team playoff. One of the other biggest complaints about the playoff system is that it would diminish the value of the regular season (which is absurd, but whatever, we'll assume that's true). The easiest compromise here is to make winning your conference a rule to be seeded into the playoff.
Compromise #2
The 8 highest ranked conference champions in the final BCS rankings will be seeded into the playoff bracket according to their BCS ranking.
This way, a champion of the Mountain West Conference would be able to get seeded into the tournament without being beaten out by an at large team who didn't take their conference schedule as seriously.
If we use this playoff system, last year the first round matchups would have been:
- #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. #8 Virginia Tech (ACC)
- #2 Florida (SEC) vs. #7 Cincinnati (Big East)
- #3 USC (Pac 10) vs. #6 Boise State (WAC)
- #4 Utah (Mountain West) vs. #5 Penn State (Big 10)
This playoff system would continue to place an emphasis on strong performance in conference games and conference championship games. If you can't win your conference, you can't get into the playoff.
Now, diving a bit into logistics, the college football purists would want to keep the existing BCS bowl games in tact. A lot of people have proposed ideas on how to incorporate the bowl games into the playoff. In the playoff system I proposed above, there would be 7 games total. Right now, there are only 4 BCS bowl games. I would propose the following:
Compromise #3
Have 2 of the BCS bowl games host the semifinal games (2nd round), have one of the BCS bowl games host the championship game, and have the last BCS bowl game host a BCS Showcase game which would invite the top 2 non-playoff teams. The bowls would rotate who hosts what each year.
For instance, last year the Orange Bowl would have hosted the national championship game, the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl would have hosted the two semifinal games, and the Fiesta Bowl would have hosted Alabama (4th BCS) and Texas (3rd BCS). This ensures quality, marquee matchups for all of the BCS bowl games. In fact, their viewership and ratings should go up because the significance will be increased. This also avoids diluting the "BCS Bowls" with other bowls to reach the magic number of 7.
Personally, I would love to play the opening round games at the home site for each of the higher seeds. However, I could see that creating a lot of controversy. In any event, there's some reasonable way to figure out how to work the first round games, but I won't discuss all of them. Allow me to argue for the home games for a second...
I think this policy would be best as it would also reward playing a tough non-conference schedule in addition to winning your conference. It prevents teams from scheduling too many "cupcakes" to avoid getting penalized that precious BCS ranking. A bit of strength of schedule points could be all the difference between being a 4 seed or a 5 seed, and the difference between playing in front of home crowd support, or in a rabid unknown jungle.
This playoff system would find a way to reward tough non-conference schedules and good conference play. It would not diminish the value of the regular season. It would keep the BCS bowl games relevant and exciting, and furthermore, it wouldn't cause for the removal of any other "historic" bowl games like the Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl, Alamo Bowl, etc. Besides, who wouldn't want to see Frank Beamer trotting out on to Owen Field, something that probably wouldn't happen during the regular season.
Finally, a few more logistics to wrap it all up:
- The #1 seed's semifinal will be placed at the bowl game closest to that university. Since last year it was OU, this means OU would advance to the Rose Bowl if it won. Florida would then advance to the Sugar Bowl.
- Start the playoff 2 weeks after the conclusion of the regular season, like the rest of the bowl games. Play the semi-final games 10 days after the initial games (extra 2-3 days for travel included from normal scheduling), and the same for the final game.
This would make my playoff system look like this using last year as an example:
#8 Virginia Tech at #1 Oklahoma - Norman, Oklahoma - Saturday December 20
#7 Cincinnati at #2 Florida - Gainesville, Florida - Saturday December 20
#6 Boise State at #3 USC - Los Angeles, CA - Saturday December 20
#5 Penn State at #4 Utah - Salt Lake City, UT - Saturday December 20
Assuming they all advance according to seed:
#1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Utah - Rose Bowl - Tuesday December 30
#2 Florida vs. #3 USC - Sugar Bowl - Tuesday December 30
#1 Oklahoma vs. #2 Florida - Orange Bowl - Friday January 9
That's all I've got for now. Remember, these are just my ideas. I think it creates a fair and equitable playoff system that is both respectful to the concept of a playoff and to the people that love the old bowl system.
Thoughts? Discuss.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Comments
The BCS Won't Agree Until...
the barrel is pushed firmly against their temple, the chamber is loaded, and hammer is cocked and ready.
The BCS really shouldn’t be a party to this, regardless. What SHOULD happen is the NCAA should just step up and do it. They’re the sanctioning body here, as everything is done under their auspices and their rules. This isn’t BCS Division I, it’s NCAA Division I (or at least it is when some poor student has the misfortune to get a hold of a microscopic slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars he helps to generate…but that’s for another day).
Forget the bowls…they’re as meaningless today as they were before the BCS. Bowls were only meaningful when there were about 5-10 of them, which meant going to a bowl demonstrated that you were a quality team. If you can go 6-6 and still get into a bowl game, that means we have too many bowl games. Should we seriously continue to reward mediocrity?
So here’s what I would say:
1. Let the NCAA institute an 8-team playoff, on their own. More teams turns it into basketball and fewer teams really isn’t much better than what we’ve already got. I’d posit that the country can generally agree on what teams are the top 8 in the country, and that rarely is anyone outside the top 8 worth giving a shot at the Big Enchilada, anyway.
2. Seed it however you like; use the BCS top 8 (which is generally pretty accurate regarding overall strength of teams within those rankings), or use the Big 6 conference champs and 2 wildcards, or select by committee, or regional playoff games (since not all conferences have championship games), or whatever.
3. Use existing bowls for the playoff games. For best results, rotate them among the more prestigious and oldest bowls; will anyone argue with the Orange, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton rotating these games? Or you could even rotate among ALL the bowls, so that the revenue gets spread around (since that’s all the bowls really care about, and we’re foolish to deny it).
4. Let all the teams that DON’T get picked go to the remaining bowl games. This lets the remaining bowls continue to exist, and let’s teams still go to them. Bowls are nothing more than glorified exhibitions, anyway, and there’s nothing that says they can’t keep playing, even with a playoff. Let’s be frank: would the Motor City Bowl be any less meaningful with a playoff system in place? How about the San Diego Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl? Or even mid-tier bowls like the Alamo or Holiday? Those bowls can still provide good games, and people would still watch them. They would still sell as many tickets as they already do, they’d still get TV deals (ESPN/ABC might not be interested, but how about Fox, CBS, NBC, Versus, or the NFL Network?). If there are those who believe we SHOULD continue to reward mediocrity in college football, this provision would permit that.
I think the playoff idea is only difficult because we still have people in power over college football who believe the money will simply dry up if a playoff is put in place. Given the money already flowing through the game, I doubt anything would lessen that.
by ousooner919 on May 5, 2009 1:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Pac 10 and Big 11 would love this
since they only have one good team per year. Actually, any conference that doesn’t have a championship game will love it. But only one Big 12 team in the tourney? Only one SEC team? How good could it be?
by scrodz on May 5, 2009 1:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Generally, I agree
I don’t like the conference champs idea myself, for that very reason. Personally, I prefer seeding by BCS top 8, because at least it has subjective and objective parts, and you’d still have “dark horse” teams, and mid-majors could still come in and win. Seeding by committee could work but would probably need a bigger playoff (which is why the basketball folks do it this way). Seeding by conference champ would suffice (at least we’d have a playoff) but is certainly not ideal, even with some wildcards thrown in. Plus, you’re still leaving a lot of conferences out.
by ousooner919 on May 5, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The minor conferences are just that - minor.
College football was built by the big six conferences. They are the ones who dedicated themselves to the sport before there was any money involved. Now, every other FCS AD in the country is trying to step up to IA, so they can get in on the payday.
by scrodz on May 5, 2009 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Instead of the top 8, make it the top 6
The 1st and 2nd seeded teams get first round byes. That would keep the regular season from becoming redundant like basketball.
by scrodz on May 5, 2009 2:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not bad
Good compromise between the 8-team crowd and the 4-or-less-only crowd. That could work.
Or don’t require a set number. Say, 8 teams at most, 4 at the least in any given, and let what happens in the regular season determine who goes, from the BCS rankings and guided by a committee. Some years, only 4 teams deserve to go. Some years, more might. We’ve certainly seen that in the past few seasons.
by ousooner919 on May 5, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this is coming eventually
but I think college football’s glory days was when each conference had a bowl game as it’s championship destination. It was a great moment for a SW Conf to go to the Cotton Bowl, or a Big 8 team to get to go to Miami. That was the prize, and it made the sport regionalized. It was great to throw Oranges on the field! So what if your team wasn’t the best in the country…it was still important for say, a Pac-10 team to get to the Rose Bowl.
The problem was….only the Rose Bowl had conference champs meet up. The best teams were usually in different bowls, and only had to wait for a vote to find out who the better team was. When they went to the BCS game it in theory gave the two best teams a chance to find out who was better. Which made the rest of the 120 D-1/Bowl Series Schools feeling left out.
I personally like a +1 system, though it’s not with out it’s flaws. Like what if after the bowls there are still 3 quality teams, or what if there is only one, like in 2000 when Oklahoma was the only school that had was undefeated, or how is this really any different then what we have now.
by Redhawk on May 6, 2009 4:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I really hope that
all you playoff spouters get what you want. Really do. After several years of the new mess you will be bitchin’ again.
Let congress do it, hey the did perfect with the mortgage system that worked for hundreds of years. Congress has also made wonderful messes of other things as well. Invite the creeps in.
But oh now maybe you want ESPIN to be in charge. If anyone can say they enjoyed over 40 worthless post season bowls that ESPIN and the like sponsored then go ahead and say because I won’t believe you. ESPIN will make a biased scum slinging mockery of CFB once they start having a bigger say. YOu want ESPIN anal-ists telling you who is #1-8, go fish.
As far as the BCS giving 90% of the bucks the Big 6 conferences, hell it is their money and why give a bigger share to the little schools. The little schools enrollment is nowhere near the size of Big 6 schools. Can the teams of the little schools play football? On any given Saturday, but get real, that is it. Most that want playoffs believe in the PC crap that everyone must win, every one gets a chance, everyone gets a trophy. Do any of you have ingchildren or grandchildren play organized games where they don’t keep score? Go ahead raise your hands, what the matter gonna defend PC crap to me, you don’t have a chance at converting me in it’s merits.
Tradition is what works or it wouldn’t be there, Who says the system isn’t working? Texass? Hah. Boise State, go get a life. Hawaii, Utah, just aberration on any given Saturday.
by scarab on May 7, 2009 6:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Troll-esq
but really…this is a fail even as a good troll job. Also a fail as crazy-old-man-rant level too.
Just to let you know, football programs do not mean a school is “big” or “little” in fact the largest university in the country (undergraduate enrollment) is none other than the University of Central Florida. Also in the top ten is Cal. St. Long Beach. Also in the top 20 are University of North Texas, and the University of Houston. The only Big 12 teams in that top 20 list would be Texas A&M and University of Texas at Austin.
by Redhawk on May 8, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Red, I'm not a troll of anykind
and my post is not a FAIL. I have been on this board for several years and have never been accused of being a troll.
At lest 50% of the CFB fans I know of feel the same way. Now if this place is going to be the Harvard PC type of board, the blue crap etc. , then I’m leaving but bear in mind that there are plenty of us who do not want some crummy playoff just to have it. And a little school is what it is, a little school.
A traditionalist forever.
by scarab on May 10, 2009 8:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs











