Herb over at the Sun-Times put up a good piece on a possible solution to the playoff/BCS conundrum. Go over there and check it out.
Herb has a lot of the right reasons and the right approach to things – it’s possible to keep the BCS system in place, and to keep the Bowl system in place (for the most part) and still get a more satisfying solution than computers and humans voting on how good teams are despite never seeing them play (wait, computers can see?).
The only issues are that Herb pushes for too much even though it’s not really necessary to do so. And he also ignores the BCS rankings, which is death to any solution (I wish it wasn’t so, but it is).
His solution is an 8-team playoff featuring the Top 8 teams in the BCS. 1v8, 2v7, etc. A lot of these games could be played within the current bowl setup, and all the other non-top-8 teams would still play in all the other bowls across the land.
There are 4 main issues with his solution. First, it digs too far down the rankings. Teams 5 through 8 this year are Wisconsin, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Does anyone really think that one of those teams could be, or deserve to be, National Champs? And how often does a #8 team have a legit claim to the BCS MNC game? Almost never? Right.
The second challenge is the number of games. I like that Herb is thinking about season length and the repercussions for college players. He likes the ‘3 more games, 2 more weeks’ mantra. Not bad, but it’s still too much. For the teams that go to the MNC, they could end up playing 16 games (up to 13 regular season + 2 rounds of playoff + MNC game). That’s simply too many. These kids need some time off, and they need to be able to actually study (well, for some schools this is a reason) and rest up and heal. I know – somewhat sacrilegious for me to be pushing for LESS football, but this is a real concern for kids’ well-being.
Also, the more non-traditional bowl games you create the more difficult it becomes to maintain the current bowl system. Keeping the current system in tact is a key part to any plan. It will be absolutely critical that any proposed system satisfy the current power players out there – the bowls and the BCS crew and the conferences/school presidents. 8 teams and 3 games is too much and it would be too difficult to mesh the new approach with the old and keep everyone happy.
Finally, bumping VA Tech up into this mix over a team that’s higher ranked doesn’t make any sense. I’m not sure how Herb got to VA Tech as #8, but it’s key to include the BCS in any solution, which means using their ranking system. I’m not sure how or why Herb put Va Tech (BCS #13) in over Arkansas, MSU, Boise State, etc, but I wouldn’t agree there.
So, the answer is very similar to Herb’s proposal, just with 4 teams instead of 8.
Use the BCS as it is now and rank the teams to end the season. 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, then the winners meet in the MNC. This would eliminate virtually all situations where teams feel left out. Think back on it – how often does a team ranked 5 in the BCS have a legit claim? I think the answer is never. Sure we’ve had situations where 3 and/or 4 had claims, and those would be solved in this setup. Maybe the team ranked 5 feels they’re deserving since 4 gets to go – but you have to cut it off somewhere, and I find it very unlikely that we’d often (if ever) have a situation where teams 5, 6, 7, 8 are regarded as true contenders. Is it possible? Sure. Unlikely? Very.
Plus, we can keep almost the entire bowl system in place. Literally. Every single bowl can stay just as it is right now, with the only difference being that 2 of the major BCS bowls would become playoff games of 1v4 and 2v3. And if Bowls so desire, they can do 2 games to maintain historic rivalries, much like how the Rose Bowl handles things when they have the MNC. So these games could either be substitutes or additions. And then you have the MNC one week later at one of the other major bowl sites. The sites for each playoff or MNC game would rotate each year between the BCS Bowls, and perhaps they could add another (Cotton?) to the rotation to spread things out a bit more.
This only adds one more game for the teams that make the MNC, and it only extends the season by 1 week (but not really, because the BCS MNC is already pushed back pretty late).
Who loses here? Where are the problems? I don’t see any.
We get a playoff. Controversy is avoided (99.9% of the time). The Bowls still get their tie-ins and money. The BCS maintains its lame-ass monopoly (which is required to get to a solution unfortunately). ESPN and CBS and whoever get some great matchups to broadcast. And all the other bowls still go on pretty much sucking (but I watch anyway).
Where’s the downside? EVERYBODY WINS. Can someone please make this happen?
Santa, buddy? Pretty please?
Thanks, brother. Let’s aim for Xmas 2015, because I know it’ll take time for you to sort through all the BCS dudes on the Naughty List to get this done.
Don't take me, yourself, or life so seriously. This is supposed to be fun.
Biscuit co-founded HerLoyalSons in partnership with his ND roommate (Dillon Hall baby!), MQ, in 2006 and has been ranting about ND Football and everything Notre Dame since. He strongly believes in the mission of ND and its football program. Biscuit expects logic and data in arguments and will absolutely crush you if you come to a debate missing one or the other. He despises everything Michigan, and his favorite pastime is mocking Purdue.
- (Re)Introducing: DANCING LEPRECHAUNS - August 29, 2019
- Ticket Auction: ND vs USC - August 22, 2019
- No Respect! - December 14, 2018
I disliked his comment about how playoff advocates strike him as part-time college fans. While I have been a lifelong Notre Dame fan, some of you may know I actually went to undergrad at an FCS school, and the playoffs were a great, great experience.
I think you have the right idea Biscuit, but I wish you didn’t. Maybe I’m a hard-liner but I’d rather not do any solution that keeps the BCS and the Bowl system intact. There’s 35 bowl games, only about 6 of which are actually worth saving in my opinion.
And I understand a concern about season length, but if the powers that be really cared about that, they wouldn’t keep lengthening the regular season. If it were still 10 games they’d make the same argument about season length.
In my perfect world they’d cut the season back several games and then have a 16-team playoff. Honestly I think a larger playoff arguable rewards the better teams more, because they get to play a patsy in the first round, whereas a small playoff, you still have controversy as to who gets in, and then it’s pretty much “any given saturday” in the first round.
I think having the national championship game at one of the historic bowls is reasonable. But as far as most of the bowl system, from having experience FCS playoff home games, it’s a much, MUCH more exciting experience than just having one neutral site postseason game (usually with some undignified name), with really nothing on the line, other than maybe where you’ll be ranked to begin the following season.
TX, I like the idea of shortening the regular season to make ‘more room’, but then everyone loses money. And that’s one of the big impediments. A smaller change to a 4-team playoff is better than no change, which is what I think we’d get if we try for these big shifts.
I agree. This thing is nowhere near as complicated or intractable as people make it out to be. 4 team playoff would be fine. But no one will step up and take the lead in fixing it. I’m no fan of Mark Cuban, but better him leading the charge than no one.
I’m a big proponent of having a playoff in D1…err…FBS…football, but limiting to only 4 teams will never pass muster, nor is it sound in theory. The point is to have the champion decided on the field (within reason), not “the champion must be decided on the field as long as it is one of the computer’s top 4 teams”.
8 teams is *not* too deep. I realize they are different games, but look at the NCAA tourney. For example, take the top 10 of last year’s final regular season AP top 25 and look at their tourney results:
1 Kansas (65) – lost in 2nd round to URI (NR)
2 Kentucky – lost in Elite 8 to WVU (6)
3 Duke – won NCAA championship
4 Syracuse – lost in Sweet 16 to Butler (11)
5 Ohio State – lost in Sweet 16 to Tennessee (15)
6 West Virginia – lost in Final Four to Duke (4)
7 Kansas State – lost in Elite 8 to WVU (6)
8 New Mexico – lost in 2nd round to Washington (NR)
9 Villanova – lost in 2nd round to St. Mary’s (NR)
10 Purdue – lost in Elite 8 to Duke (4)
Meanwhile the Final Four boiled down as follows:
Final Four:
(4) Duke
(6) West Virginia
(11) Butler
(13) Michigan State
My point is thus: if you limit a football playoff to only 4 teams, you really aren’t going much beyond the current system.
c-stone, 4 teams may not be the ideal solution but it’s a heck of a lot better than none. and pushing for 8 teams to be included means you’ll have none.
plus, it makes the season too long, and teams 5-8 rarely have a legit claim. look back over the past few years and tell me when someone in that group had a legit claim to be in the MNC?
plus, anything that blows up the current system entirely just wont happen. so the choice is to work with whats there already and modify a bit, or just get what you have now, which is no playoff. it may be annoying, but it’s reality.
Biscuit, I realize there are realities that may never be changed, but this system sucks. Bowl traditions aside, NCAA football at the end of the day is no better then judged figure skating or any other judged sport. How the hell is Utah ranked 20th going into a bowl when they were crushed by 30 something ranked Notre Dame.
These top teams on any given day could lose to any one of a dozen teams.
Two things: The polls should never come out until after at least week four and all voters, both AP and coaches should have their votes made public.
Under the current system, The Irish will never win another National Championship, unless they are undefeated and even then things get murky.
Like everything else college football only comes down to money. Money drives this system, not a desire for a true, consensus National Champion, otherwise those pricks at Ohio State would have been barred from the Sugar Bowl. God forbid integrity wins out on that one; does anyone have any idea how much money would be lost if those peckerheads could not play in the Sugar Bowl.
Wasn’t Miami ranked 12th at some point?
To add to Biscuits argument, keeping it limited to four teams, keeps the regular season meaningful. If you let in more even a two loss team may get in. Now you could argue that the two loss team is the best team in January but, you could not argue it was the best team for the entire season. Keeping the regular season meaningful, has always been one of the BCS arguments.
You mean like National Champion LSU from a few years ago.
I frankly am amazed that they haven’t yet switched to the plus-one system. People have been advocating it for years – since at least the debacle of the split NC in 2003. If they had swallowed the pill and done it, all the pressure they are now feeling about implementing a real playoff would have been forestalled.
I really don’t see how people have a problem with it. College football is a different beast than any other sport. There are two main factors to this: the number of teams and the physicality of the game. You cannot compare this to the Basketball tourney, where teams can play back-to-back games without a serious drop off. The regular season is (and has to be) limited. That means that the national championship is also a factor of the team’s body of work. I don’t want to see a 3 or 4 loss BE champion riding a lucky streak into the championship game.
There really are not that many teams that you can look at and say “they deserve a shot.” That’s the nature of the beast.
In 1977, six teams had 11-1 records after the major bowl games, all of which were played on January 1, were completed. Notre Dame, ranked #5 on the morning of Jan. 1, was named national champion.
That would not have happened if only the top four teams got to participate in a playoff.
What were their records before the games? Would there have been an undefeated team in a 4 team playoff scenario? Are you saying that the system in “77” was better at picking the true NC?
What were their records before the games?
Texas was 11-0 and ranked #1; the teams ranked #2 – #6 were all 10-1. Notre Dame was 10-1 and ranked #5, but it got matched up against #1 Texas in the bowl game because of how the various conference commitments worked out for the teams ranked #2, #3, and #4.
Would there have been an undefeated team in a 4 team playoff scenario?
Yes; see above.
Are you saying that the system in “77″ was better at picking the true NC?
No.
Yeah, we would have #1 Texas (11-0) playing #4 Alabama (10-1) and #2 Oklahoma (10-1) playing #3 Michigan (10-1). One-loss #5 Notre Dame (10-1) and #6 Arkansas (10-1) both would have been left out.
I don’t know that just the 4 team scenario is enough for the national champion, but it is a start. I think that ultimately you have to go to 8 teams to get a true national champion without a doubt, but certainly 4 is much better than 2. Being undefeated would mean a little less than it used to, but still would almost certainly ensure that you could at least play for the title even in a four-team scenario.
Legit example, but that was 1977. The world of college football is very, very different now.
Of course I knew ND had played Texas. I didn’t know the other teams records. Who knows ND may have been ranked higher back then, if they had used current BCS system. The question now is, what might be a better system and what might have a chance of being implemented.
I may have been “reading into” the Sun Times article, but Herb’s reason for 8 teams seemed to be that winning a BCS conference title qualified a team for the playoffs, provided that the overall record was “good enough” (he didn’t think UCONN qualified, but did not specify why). I agree with this line of thinking and agree with Herb that you need to go to 8 to ensure that you truly get #1.
I’d be OK with using the BCS rankings for selection and seeidng, but “jumping up” BCS conference champs that have no more than 2 overall losses. Independents or non-BCS conference champs would qualify on the strength of their overall ranking except, I would give preference to an undefeated conf. champ or Independent over a once or twice beaten at-large pick from a BCS conference.
You don’t have to look very far back to find a top 8 final regular season ranking with a bunch of good teams (2009):
1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2
Taking only the top 4 leaves out a 12-1 Florida team and an undefeated Boise State team. And obviously there may have been detractors in Portland and Columbus who’d say their 2-loss Big/Pac-10 school is better than your undefeated Big East/MWC team.
As far as making the season longer, I’m sure you’ve got the NCAA salivating. If it makes dollars, it makes sense. That argument went out the window years ago with expansion from 11 games to 12 to 13, 14.
Despite this I tend to agree with the final point, that any significant change won’t happen overnight. So starting with a 4-team playoff is progress.
Yep, not perfect. Although I wouldn’t agree that UF and BSU have legit claims that year. Even bringing in #’s 3 and 4 that year would be generous, as Bama and Texas seemed to be better than those 2 by a bunch.
What does this mean, “seemed to be better by a bunch.” How do you qualify this? Did these teams play #3 and #4, how did those games turn out? That is the problem with this system as you leave National Title games to “seems to” and opinion and not what happens on the field of play,
No, but they would have in my 4-team playoff.
By the way, Texas in “my opinion” was lucky to get out of their last game alive.
I think the 2009 season was totally crazy, and it’s unlikely that we’ll see anything like it again for a long, long time. Yeah, Boise would get screwed, but Florida had their chance and lost to Alabama. Oregon and Ohio State lost twice, so if you lose twice you’re out… how can you expect to lose two games and win the title? Oregon lost to Boise State, so they didn’t deserve to get in, and Ohio State lost to both USC and an unranked Purdue squad.
I just don’t think you’ll have that many undefeated teams normally.
Jason, just ask the 2007 National Champions LSU Tigers. They had two losses dude. Spare me the crap that this was rare, it happened.
It happened, but it’s still rare.
Rare is not good enough, two loss teams should never win the MNC.
tjak, you say that 2-loss teams should never win it, but a playoff makes that more likely. which do you want?
and pushing for more than 4 teams just makes it less likely to happen. working with the current system/powers-that-be is the only chance to get anything done. pushing for 8 teams makes it dead in the water. is 8 more ‘fair’? i don’t know, maybe. is 8 less likely to happen? for sure.
How about a playoff with 6 teams? If you use the NFL model (just one side of the bracket), you have 2 quarterfinal games, 2 semifinal games, and 1 championship game. That allows you to use all of the current BCS bowls with an additional Championship site. The bowl season is 3 weeks long as it is, so there is no change to scheduling necessary. Then you just rotate the games every year.
I am not against the 4 team playoff, which could also work very well. I’m just offering the largest possible playoff without interfering with the schedule.
A good idea. I’d support it.
Are you saying that the two top teams would not play in the first round and then thetwo winners play the two top teams and the winners play in the title game? That is a good model.