But first, as a sidenote, weren't the Alabama-Florida games and Oklahoma-Texas games true semifinal games? Florida beat Alabama on a neutral field, as did Texas over Oklahoma. If we're talking playoffs, that's the setting we'd shoot for - match the top 4 (or 8, or more) teams and play the games on neutral fields. Before last week, Alabama and Florida was a #1 vs. #4 game, and Oklahoma and Texas sat at #2 and #3. So logically we'd have Florida and Texas play in January, having advanced in the semifinal round. But the BCS tends to make a mess of these things, and unlike every other sporting league in the world, the loser of a semifinal gets to advance above the winner into the championship game. And that's why we're talking about this stuff.
There are a myriad of factors to be considered when the issue of a playoff comes up. I'll take a look at each one before detailing the possibilities.
Factor #1: Bowls
Like it or not, any playoff scenario would have to include the bowls as part of the equation. They've been a part of college football since the early 1900's, and have become an American tradition at the same level as turkey on Thanksgiving and fireworks on July 4. And losing the bowls would do significant damage to the game as we know it. There's a pageantry and uniqueness the bowls bring to college football that would be sorely missed if they were gone. Teams are rewarded for a good (or mediocre, in the modern era) season, coaches get to work with their teams for another month or more, and we see matchups we may never see otherwise. Conference supremacy and bragging rights are on the line. And it's a chance for fans to see their team play one more game in a sport that only has a dozen contests each year. No other sport has a tradition quite like it, and losing the bowls would eliminate a large part of the fabric of college football.
There's also the money factor. Bowl games generate large chunks of money for the cities that host them, and schools and conferences get a sizeable cut of cash by their teams getting invited to play in a bowl game. The bowl officials and their sponsors have cash to give, and as long as that's the case, conference commissioners, school presidents, and athletic directors aren't going to simply give that up. Money talks, and the bowls speak loudly.
Bowls and bowl game officials are more powerful and have more influence on the game than most of us care to realize, and a big reason why a playoff hasn't happened yet is the clout they have. Anything that would damage their attendance, their tradition, or their popularity is stonewalled. The bowls are the reason we have this thing called the BCS in the first place - it was the bowl games' way of self-preserving while meeting the growing demand to determine a true national champion. They, and their wads of cash, have the conference commissioners wrapped around their fingers, and the commissioners keep voting to keep the BCS in place, I think, because the bowl officials have so much influence over them. It's not the excuse the commissioners give (more on that soon), but it's hard to deny that it's the real reason.
Factor #2: Conferences
This factor is tied directly to the bowls - conferences get richly rewarded by sending their teams to bowl games, both in money and exposure. And the BCS has been very good to the major conferences, so much so that any playoff possibility that has a shot of making it would have to include all 6 BCS conferences as part of the equation. The conferences want their piece of the pie.
Conference championship games are a consideration too. They add a thirteenth game to the calendar for three of the six BCS conferences, and any scenario that adds more games to the schedule would have to contend with these already added-on games. The easy solution in transitioning to a playoff would be to eliminate conference championship games, making the playing field even in regards to the total number of games played by everyone. The conferences would argue that this prevents them from crowning a true champion, but it's rare that the championship games match teams that would actually be tied for first place. There has yet to be a conference championship game that's matched two undefeated teams in conference play, and more often they match teams with differing conference records. You could certainly make the argument that these championship games are unnecessary, that in most cases one team sits atop the whole conference with the best record. The divisional structure employed by 12-team conferences could easily be eliminated without much change. And in rare cases of a tie, that's why tiebreakers exist. No one's really going to cry about being a conference co-champion anyway.
So while competition is the reason conference bigwigs will give for why these championship games exist, the real reason is because of how lucrative they are. Ticket sales and advertising revenue pad the conference's coffers, and it would be a hard sell to convince the conferences to get rid of such a cash-producing venture.
Factor #3: The Academic Calendar
I should label this as an excuse rather than a factor, because it's the one thing you hear time and time again from non-playoff advocates (mostly school presidents and conference commissioners) as the reason they oppose a playoff system. The claim goes that adding games and making the players play 15 or 16 games would interfere with academics, especially in December when most schools have finals.
The problem with that argument is the glaring heap of evidence that proves this logic is a load of crap. First, they do it in every other division of college football, even in December, without any concern for academics. And the lower divisions are where the actual student-athletes live, the ones who have a future in business, not football. Second, it would only affect at most 16 or so teams, and the teams are so well-stocked with tutors and people trusted to make sure the players do their work on the road that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Third, no one's forcing a playoff to happen in December anyway, so if interfering with finals is a concern, just start the thing up in January, when a new semester is beginning! Fourth, the NCAA recently approved a twelfth game to the regular season calendar. If they were that concerned about football getting in the way of studies, they wouldn't have allowed the 12th game to happen.
Again, this argument is just a smokescreen masking the real factor: money and keeping status quo with the bowls.
Factor #4: Polls
This is less a factor standing in the way of playoffs and more a glaring problem with college football. The current poll system - which combines computer formulas, media, coaches (or rather Sports Information Directors), and the Harris Poll's cauldron of former players, writers, and who knows who else - is a mess full of regional bias, maddening computer illogic, and the need for "style points" that only serve to turn sportsmanship on its ear. I detailed much of my opinions on polls, specifically computer polls, in my Week 11 post, so I won't duplicate it here. I will, however, point out that the week after Oklahoma dismembered Texas Tech, one of the computer polls used in the BCS formula persisted in ranking the Red Raiders ahead of the Sooners. And you wonder why Texas goes to Glendale while the team they beat on a neutral field gets to play for the championship.
I'll talk possibilities in a second, but regardless of what happens with the BCS and any possible playoff, an across-the-board change must be made to the polls. My solution is to hire a number of people (maybe between 200 and 300) and pay them a modest sum to be poll voters. Make it these people's job to watch college football all day Saturday, become experts on the teams, and make unbiased, educated votes as to who should be ranked where. Doesn't matter if they're sportswriters, former players, or Joe Fan sitting at home. Just take coaches out of the equation - bias is unavoidable there. To combat bias, make sure the voters are a representative sample from all across the country, and make their voting public every week, not just the last one. Create a website where you can see exactly what each person voted. And if clear inconsistencies or bias becomes evident, put that person's voting status up to a vote of his peers. They can vote him off the committee. Creating a system like this would cure some of the ills plaguing the BCS and would only help any future playoff scenario to be fair.
Factor #5: Significance of the Regular Season
If you've been reading this blog all season you already know my thoughts on this. Major college football has the most significant regular season of any sport, hands down. Every game truly does matter. It's must see TV each week, something that can't be said for any other major sport. One loss cripples or severely hinders championship hopes, and the season builds to a frenzy by November, with each matchup of undefeated or highly ranked one loss teams taking on mythical levels of hype. The upsets are bigger, the games more dramatic, and the season-long buildup of excitement so intense because only 2 teams will end the season with a shot at the title. It's fantastic. And I'd hate to see a playoff become established that would ruin that excitement and drama. This is what many playoff zealots neglect to consider - that the game they're so passionate about would suddenly become so much like every other sport. Sadly, most playoff scenarios would do just that. But not mine. So as we transition to the possibilities, please - anyone in a position of influence who happens to stumble upon this little blog - do your part to preserve the uniqueness and relevance and magnitude of the college football regular season by creating a playoff system that maintains its significance. In the words of computer learning needs magnate John Scherer, please - try my product.
Possibility #1: The Four-Team, "Plus-One" Format
I'll start with my proposal and work through other possibilities later. In my opinion, the "plus-one" scenario is the one that best balances all the factors involved.
To review, the "plus-one" means that 2 of the BCS bowls would become semifinals, with the winners to meet in the BCS National Championship game a week later. It would be the season as is with the bowls, the BCS, and all, "plus-one" game. Hence the term. Clever, huh?
The establishment of a fifth BCS game, the aptly titled "BCS National Championship Game" paves the way for this. The BCS championship game is scheduled on January 8, exactly one week after the traditional bowl extravaganza of New Years Day. I think the powers that be had the plus-one possibility in mind when they made this game happen. We're still waiting for the whole plus-one part to come in, but we'll be patient. We've waited about 100 years already anyway.
I propose dramatically altering the BCS formula with the creation of the new polling system already detailed earlier, and allowing those voters to determine the top 4 teams. Call the new poll the "BCS Poll" if you want. Then play the 2 semifinal games on New Years Day, one in the afternoon and one in the evening, followed a week later by the national championship game. Keep the rest of the bowls as is, including the other BCS bowls, which could be played during the week between the semifinals and final, as they already are. They'd be great appetizers leading up to the main course on January 8. What a week of anticipation and celebration of college football that week would be, after a scintillating regular season full of anticipation, drama, and intrigue!
The benefits of this scenario is that it's the only one that maintains the significance of the regular season. Four teams being included means that one loss can still kill you, as would be the case for USC and Penn State this year. So the games wouldn't lose their drama. A counter-argument might be that this would give an unfair advantage to one loss teams (or non-BCS conference teams, or two loss teams in some cases) who are highly ranked in the beginning of the season or who lose earlier than later. So part of my proposal is to eliminate the silly and uneducated preseason polls. Start the voting after each team has played 4 games, a full third of the season. If Athlon Sports and The Sporting News still want to put out preseason polls, let them go for it. They're fun to examine and argue about, but they have no business having a direct impact on the final outcome of the season. This is perhaps the greatest flaw among the many the polls have - that a team's preseason rank, a matter of public opinion and prediction before anyone's even set foot on a field, can help or hinder a team from playing for the national championship. It's ludicrous. Starting the polls after 4 games, along with the "professional pollster", checks-and-balances system of polling, would for the most part eliminate any unfair advantage.
This scenario would also give each conference a fair shake and a continued inclusion in the BCS, and do nothing to the tradition and integrity of the bowls. The conferences would still get their cut, teams would have the ability to earn an extra game and a nice postseason trip, and the academic calendar is undisturbed! You don't even need to scrap conference championship games (although I think they should).
Another thing I'd include in this proposal is to ban teams from playing games against non-Division 1-A (FBS for you who are up with the times) teams. This would prevent teams from feasting on cupcakes and force more heavyweight non-conference showdowns, which would add to the pollsters ability to evaluate teams. When Oklahoma beats Chattanooga 57-2 it allows you to learn nothing about their team. Narrow the scheduling options and you're likely to see them play someone like Ohio State or Georgia. Now you can see how good they are. And everyone wants to see more big-time early season games. It can only make the game better. Just watch all the big-time programs line up to schedule the suddenly smaller list of automatic wins if this happens. MAC schools and Notre Dame will have to bar the doors shut!
Possibility #2: Eight Team Playoff with the BCS Top 8
This scenario would simply take the top 8 in the final BCS standings and match them up, 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, and so on. It's the simplest version of any 8 team playoff scenario, which seems to be the one advocated by nearly everyone who wants to see playoffs happen. Game locations and dates could happen in any number of ways. You could stage the first round a week or two after the conference championship games at the home sites of higher seeds, then play the last 2 rounds on or around New Years Day and the week following. Or wait until after Christmas to start and play a 3-week tournament, using neutral sites, probably existing bowl game locations. The BCS bowl games would have to be involved, so an all-neutral site tournament would likely be most acceptable.
But there are major drawbacks to this 8-team format. First, the conferences wouldn't buy in because their champion wouldn't be guaranteed a spot. If this were the scenario this season, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati would be left out despite winning their conferences. So it would be rejected roundly by the conference commissioners. It also would be nixed by the whole "academic calendar" argument, no matter how bogus it might be. And most importantly, it would suck the drama out of a slew of regular season games. For a major conference team, one loss would no longer put championship hopes on life support, so games like this year's Penn State-Iowa and USC-Oregon State would lose nearly all their drama. Late season clashes between highly ranked teams would become like late season NFL contests, when teams already in the playoffs rest their starters and the games essentially become meaningless. They'd be for seeding purposes only. Alabama-Florida, Texas-Texas Tech, and Texas Tech-Oklahoma would all have been zapped of the edge-of-your-seat, this-could-kill-our-season drama that made those games so intriguing and memorable. Part of the excitement of college football is the buildup to each big game, and so much of that would be lost if a playoff contained 8 teams or more. Imagine how lifeless Alabama-Florida last Saturday would have been in Tim Tebow and John Parker Wilson spent most of the game on the sidelines and the rest of the players just went through the motions, basically holding a practice for the upcoming playoffs. No one wants college football to lose that big-game drama that fills each Saturday. So that's why I reject this scenario as incomplete.
Possibility #3: Eight Team Playoff including BCS Conference Champions and 2 At-Large Teams
This would essentially be the same as the prior scenario, only including each BCS conference champion instead of strictly the top 8. This is actually the most talked-about and most-supported scenario, but I think it's deeply flawed, more so than the other 8-team format. It has the same flaws, plus one huge additional pimple: there would be teams who make the playoffs who have no business being there. This year, for example, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati would get automatic bids at the expense of Texas Tech and Utah, who everyone in their right mind would agree are more deserving. Texas and Alabama would fill the 2 at-large spots, leaving the rest out to dry. And we'd have the same controversy as we do now - teams who don't deserve to play for a national championship end up playing for it over teams who do. Only in this case there would be more controversial teams than just the one that the typical BCS standings produce (this year being Oklahoma). It would also overemphasize conference play and many big non-conference matchups would become like preseason games, or cease to happen at all.
Possibility #4: A Six Team Playoff
This would seek to be a happy medium between the four and eight team scenarios, with the top 2 teams getting the bonus of a bye week. But the question becomes, do you take the top 6 in the BCS standings or the six major conference winners? The conferences wouldn't go for it if their teams could be left out, and smaller conferences would cry foul if it were only open to major conference teams. And if it did take only conference champions, or even the top 5 champions and an at-large team, it would overinflate conference play to an even greater degree.
Possibility #5: A Large (12, 16, or 24 Team) Tournament
Invariably college football is compared to college basketball, and the NCAA tournament is given as an example of "how it should be done". And I won't argue with the simple greatness of the NCAA Basketball Tournament - it's probably the most exciting sporting event we have. But comparing it to football is an apples-to-oranges thing. The 65 teams who qualify (and I still think that play-in game is bogus, cut it back to 64!) comprise just a shade under 20 percent of all Division I teams. A similar number in 1-A college football would be 24 teams who'd qualify. I actually think this would be better than an 8 team tournament, because it would ensure that everyone who has an argument to be in it would be. But it would do even more damage to the regular season as 3 or 4 loss teams would be able to make it. So the regular season would be completely sapped of life. How many people care about college basketball before late February? The same thing would happen to football before mid-November. TV ratings would plummet and the game would lose money.
Even if you'd draw the line at 12 or 16 teams you'd still have the same result. But you might as well go that far if you're talking about an 8 team playoff, which would have a worst-of-both-worlds result: a diminished regular season and an end result mired in controversy over who gets in and who doesn't. At least with the all-inclusive tournament you'd avoid the controversy.
Other factors blocking this scenario are the bowls - they'd become very much like college basketball's NIT - and the number of games the players are required to play. So what works for college basketball wouldn't for college football. Football's different in that the regular season does have so many fewer games and naturally does take on much more importance. And that's the way it should be - don't mess with it if it's working. And it clearly is.
Possibility #6: A "To Be Determined" Format
This is probably the most radical idea, one I came up with a few weeks go. What if the "professional pollster" idea took root, and a select few of these pollsters were appointed as a sort of selection committee? This committee would meet the last weekend of the season, deliberate and weigh merits of each team, and decide exactly who in that season deserved to play for the national title, no matter how many or few teams. Then the logistics would be taken care of, a tournament set up, and it would play out in the following weeks. One year it could be 2 clear-cut qualifiers: undefeated major conference teams who stood head and shoulders above the rest, like when Texas played USC after the 2005 season. Another year it could be a slew of one loss major conference teams and a few undefeated small conference schools, like this year. A selection committee this season may come up with 9 qualified teams: Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, USC, Penn State, Texas Tech, Utah, and Boise State. They'd be seeded and bracketed and off we'd go.
This isn't likely to happen because it could become a logistical nightmare and could aid the sportsmanship killing "style points" phenomenon, and there would be even less certainty surrounding the season. And the selection committee could become an Illuminati-like force, dictating by sheer will what would happen. But at least it would meet the need of fairly including all relevant teams. And it is interesting to think about.
Possibility #7: Leave It As It Is
(Just change the polls, of course)
The current format is why we're in this mess to begin with, so no one wants this possibility to come true. Except the people who are actually in charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment