A playoff that saves the bowls and quiets the critics

We already have a BCS playoff system, we just don’t play it out. A simple plan could create a playoff while preserving and benefiting the existing BCS bowls. This plan would increase TV ratings and revenue, yet protect the existing bowls and their unique relationship with college football. With a rising tide of fan dissatisfaction and apathy beginning to loom over college football, adapting the current BCS into a playoff system could boost the sport to a level of interest rivaling the NFL. By offering financial incentives to all involved parties and addressing most expressed concerns, with negotiation a form of this plan could be implemented as early as next year.

Start by keeping the BCS and their four big New Year’s holiday bowls, but then take the four winners and pair them off in a semifinal round hosted by two of the surviving conference champs, followed by the National Championship game at a neutral site. That's it, how difficult is that?

The next modification is to add two on-campus qualifier games the weekend of the conference championships to determine the BCS at-large teams. Thus you create a ten team playoff (not counting conference championship games) that will include at least the top eight teams, with only four teams playing extra games beyond New Year’s. Some adjustments to changing demands and circumstances could eventually evolve this format into an 11-16 team system without adding any rounds or altering the basic structure.

Match the four BCS winners in semifinals games on the Saturday of the NFL conference championships. Play these as home games of the two highest surviving conference champs, to give added incentive and award to earning the conference title(and to mute the argument that a playoff reduces the meaning of regular season games and might result in star players sitting out games to avoid injury). Since Florida and PAC 10 teams have often had a home field advantage during bowl games of the past, objections based on an unfair weather advantage for January games in Lincoln or Ann Arbor should not be too formidable. Turning these into home games also insures a sellout and reduces administration and marketing expenses. The proposed timing would allow 2+ weeks for site preparation, logistics, and setup.

The Championship game could easily hold its own played at a neutral site on the Saturday night of the NFL off-week, and TV ratings would be comparable to the Superbowl. However there may be the potential to increase corporate ticket sales(and thus yield through higher ticket prices) and related participation by collaborating with the NFL on the Superbowl weekend. Play the game on the Saturday afternoon or evening at the Superbowl site. Although the NFL may be initially hesitant, such a cooperative venture could increase the attendance at the related festivals, reduce security and facilities costs, and entice even greater corporate interest by focusing on a single synergistic event, instead of competing destinations and weekends.

The most controversial remaining aspect of the BCS is the selection of at-large teams. By adding a qualifier round of playoff games the BCS could reduce the argument that a team capable of winning the national championship was excluded. This would not add any games beyond what the NCAA, University Presidents, and Conference Commissioners already allow, since they permit the conference championships. By playing on the same weekend, all bowls are still able to choose their teams 3-4+ weeks ahead of time. Let the two highest ranking teams host these games, saving on travel costs and not competing with the bowl games for fans’ vacation dollars. However if the logistics of only a week’s notice are considered too great to host games on campuses, the BCS could bid out two regional neutral sites every year, with the added benefit of increased revenue.

One of the biggest objections the BCS bowls make is that a playoff would hurt their attendance, because fans might choose to wait to travel to the semi-final games. This plan mutes that objection by playing the semifinal games on the home fields of the two highest ranked surviving conference champs. Thus the bowls remain the only games at attractive vacation destinations during the holiday period most conducive to vacation patterns. Further, the prestige of the actual national championship game will limit the amount of tickets available to the participating teams(similar to the Superbowl), and combined with the rough odds of 4 to 1 that a fan’s BCS team will not reach the championship game, reduces the likelihood that it would hurt attendance at the bowl games. Actually overall demand for tickets, interest, and ratings will increase, because all four BCS games, not just one or two, will have championship implications.

The four BCS bowls would still be given the option of having the national championship game rotated among them. A fifth bowl, such as the Cotton Bowl, could bid to be included in the rotation for the open fourth New Year’s game. Or the BCS bowls could opt to all remain New Year’s games, and bid out the National Championship game. Either way, an opportunity exists for additional revenue for the NCAA and BCS by cities or bowls bidding for the additional games.

Let the BCS bowls continue to choose among the BCS pool of teams the matchup best for the bowls. Utilize the BCS for determining playoff participants, rankings, host teams in the qualifying and semi-final rounds, reducing travel in those rounds, and as an advisory guide for the bowls(similar to the pairings and placements in the basketball tournaments.) By not reducing the BCS bowls’ flexibility in scheduling, this removes a major argument they could use against a playoff. Perhaps it could be a bit unfair to some teams, but with all teams needing three wins to become champion, no team will face a cakewalk.

The NCAA and ABC television also benefit from increased revenue opportunities. Three additional games on two different weekends in January that will outdraw any other sports offerings currently on the network. The level of interest in the existing four New Year’s game is heightened. Additionally, more games are available for broadcast during championship weekend in December (and potentially on a second weekend, as stated below.)

One argument has been that a playoff would take athlete’s out of the classroom. However by incorporating the bowls, only four teams out of the current 100+ play an extra game(two of which do not have to travel) and only two play a second extra game. Further, the time off of at least two weeks between the bowls and the semifinals ostensibly allows the athletes a break for their studies. Or simply play the semi-finals on the 2nd weekend in January, since many schools do not start back until after then, thus only 2 teams likely affected. As noted earlier, since the Presidents already allow teams to play in conference championship games, the teams playing a BCS qualifier game for an at-large invitation would not be playing an extra game beyond what is already permitted. Thus the current scheduling around finals exams would not be changed. Even schools with finals after the holiday break would not be affected.

Another objection is that a playoff would destroy the long tradition of the bowls, which have been so good to the colleges. This playoff proposal has zero impact on the existing bowls, by maintaining the status quo and operating outside of the current arrangements. No games are played within the current dead period between the conference championship games and the bowls, allowing the 3-4+ weeks off for fans to arrange their travel plans. No teams are removed from consideration by the other bowls, since still only 8 are chosen for the BCS.

Further, the playoff system would expand revenues with only limited increased expenses. With increasing demands and limited budgets, how can the Presidents ignore major sources of increased revenue from only minor modifications and with minimal impacts?

An unstated concern of the coaches is a playoff taking away the ability for so many of them to end the season with a win, and thus reduced fan satisfaction and job security. However this format preserves all the bowl opportunities. Nearly the same number of coaches will still be able to finish the season with a win, since only three additional coaches will have their last games as a loss. The impact should be minimal to a net positive, since these three additional coaches will all be able to take credit for at least one bowl and playoff win and a trip to the Final Four.

Another concern has been the physical wear on players. However only four teams have additional games, and at least two weeks to rest and prepare after the bowl games. At most a team would have 16 games in a season, versus the 14 a bowl team with a conference championship currently faces. I-AA championship teams routinely play 16 game seasons, proving the physical hurdles are not insurmountable.

An argument can be made that this format penalizes a team for playing in a conference championship game. A strong conference may believe that they have a better shot placing two or three teams in the BCS by not playing the conference championship game and instead sending their second and third best teams through the qualifier round. Yet because these conferences do not want to give up the additional revenue from the championship game, this proposed plan may be perceived as a threat.

One solution would be to require all conferences without a championship game to host a qualifier game. The benefit would be an expansion in the number of at-large teams included in the playoffs and a shot at the BCS bowls. This solution is currently not feasible because no conference would negotiate away their guarantee of a large BCS bowl payout. However, if some conferences expand and add championship games, a majority of them could bring pressure to implement this change.

A better solution would be to move the qualifier games to the next weekend,(the second in December), and allow the conference championship game losers a potential ‘second chance’ (since technically this could be interpreted not as a playoff loss, but simply a conference loss.) Of course these ’second chance’ teams would still have to be ranked high enough in the BCS to make the qualifier games. Whether or not the conference championship loss should count in the BCS can be debated. Its inclusion does penalize a team for earning a shot at the conference crown, but its exclusion ignores that its last game was a loss. Either way, a ‘second chance’ system could work.

A potential drawback would be that a few bowls and the losers of these qualifier games would only have 2-3 weeks to prepare, but that would never be more than four teams. On the other hand, more games and a second weekend would translate into more revenue for the NCAA and the TV network(s).

Additionally, this could reduce scheduling conflicts. Four (or more) games could be held on a Saturday, but there would either be some overlap, or a late finish for the fourth game, especially if all were on a single network and some games ran long (start times of noon eastern, 3:30, 7:00, 10:30.) More feasible perhaps would be three Saturday games and one on Friday or Sunday nights(although the NFL would not be excited about this.) However, if additional conferences expanded and added championship games, the NCAA would have to choose between overlap or expanding to the second week in December.

Games on the second week of December would impact finals week. But again, only two to eight teams would be affected.

Conference championship game winners can also be rewarded by giving them the first tiebreaker when determining the host for a semi-final game. Besides attempting to win support for a playoff format, encouraging conference championships would also potentially hasten a merger between two of the BCS conferences. Not only would this reduce the chances of an untested team with a weak schedule reaching the BCS, two more wildcard teams could play for the new third at-large BCS slot.

While the details can be refined by the involved parties, the basic plan can be adjusted to address various concerns, priorities and scenarios. The number of playoff teams is large enough to include almost all teams with a realistic chance of winning the national title, yet with only 4-6 wildcard teams strength of schedule is still extremely important, and rewards tough non-conference schedules. This plan thus preserves the importance of every week in the season, each game, and conference championships. The bowls are protected, expansion of games are minimized, and revenues increased substantially. Bottom line, there no longer are serious valid reasons preventing the adaptation of the BCS to a playoff system.

To better illustrate, here is how the system would have worked this year under several scenarios. First lets use the basic formula, which is the most easily implemented. The BCS would have named four qualifier teams Sunday December 2nd, with Nebraska and Florida hosting Stanford and Oklahoma on Saturday the 8th, or perhaps at the neutral sites of the TWA Dome in St. Louis and the Meadowlands in New Jersey. (In the basic plan, the qualifier games are played the same week of the conference championships, though with the disruption this year, the Big 12 and SEC championships were on different weekends.) Left out bubble teams are Washington State, South Carolina, and Washington, and not too many would argue that they had much of a shot at running the table. Texas and Tennessee might have a legitimate gripe about how Nebraska and Florida could back yet they were not allowed to, however that debate would pale in comparison to the bitter discourse actually taking place today over the lack of a playoff.

Let’s say Nebraska and Florida advanced to the BCS, so the same eight teams would be involved as exist now. But the pairings would probably be different(and better). The Orange might host Miami/Florida, The Sugar would match Colorado/LSU, Nebraska/Maryland would be in the Fiesta and Oregon/Illinois in the Rose. I’ll say Florida pulls the upset, while Colorado, Nebraska, and Oregon advance. Oregon hosts Nebraska while Florida travels to Boulder on January 26th. Odds say that Oregon and Florida then meet in New Orleans on February 2nd. Satisfying, at least 5 additional heavyweight non-conference matchups, and settled on the field.

Now move the qualifier games to the week after the conference championships, so that no conference is penalized for a championship game. On Saturday December 15th Nebraska would have hosted Tennessee, and Texas would have been at Florida. Bubble teams left out are Stanford and Oklahoma. I’ll say that Major Applewhite leads Texas to the upset, while Tennessee prevails. The BCS bowls might be Miami/Colorado in the Orange, LSU/Texas in the Sugar, Tennessee/Maryland in the Fiesta, and Oregon/Illinois in the Rose. Winners are Miami, Texas, Tennessee, and Oregon, with Oregon hosting Texas and Tennessee at Miami. Applewhite leads the surging Longhorns to New Orleans against Miami.

Or consider the opposite, that the Big 12 and SEC dropped their championship games. Texas and Tennessee would have replaced Colorado and LSU as conference champs, and your qualifier round games December 8th would have seen Colorado at Florida, and Stanford at Nebraska. I’ll say Florida and Nebraska earn the at-large bids, producing a Miami/Florida Orange, Tennessee/Texas Sugar, Nebraska/Maryland Fiesta, and an Oregon/Illinois Rose. Florida pulls the upset, Chris Simms leads Tennessee to victory, while Nebraska and Oregon advance. Tennessee hosts Nebraska, while Florida travels to Oregon. Oregon and Tennessee clash in New Orleans the day before the Superbowl.

What if the system had been in place for awhile, and more conferences had expanded and added a conference championship? Say the ACC and Big East combined, dumping some lesser teams. Big 10 adds a Notre Dame, Syracuse, or Pitt. Pac10 adds BYU and Utah, or Colorado State. Championship Week would have seen Miami beat Maryland in Charlotte, LSU over Tennessee in Atlanta, Illinois get revenge on Michigan in the Hoosier Dome, Colorado upset Texas in Dallas, and Oregon evens the score with Stanford in San Diego. The BCS then announced the wildcards of Nebraska, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Stanford. (However, if the conference championship losses were not fully weighted by the BCS system, Stanford and Maryland would still finish ahead of Oklahoma.) Texas travels to Florida, Oklahoma to Tennessee, and Stanford to Nebraska. Texas, Tennessee, and Nebraska earn the at-large berths(the two team per conference maximum would have to go in a playoff system.) The BCS would have a Miami/Colorado Orange, LSU/Texas Sugar, Nebraska/Tennessee Fiesta, and an Oregon/Illinois Rose. Miami, Texas, Tennessee, and Oregon advance, with Texas at Miami and Tennessee at Oregon. Texas wins a track meet shootout to play Oregon in New Orleans.

Of course the above scenarios are all simply educated guesses on my part. But that is just as legitimate as what we have now, where 2 teams out of 100+ are subjectively ‘chosen’ as the two best. The odds of actually selecting the single best team out of 50+ are far lower than those for identifying the best team out of 10 or 12. As some freeper so aptly put it, without a playoff its all just figure skating.

So please through out your strongest criticisms. I believe this to be a flexible and sensible compromise to which no logical or reasonable argument could be made against, nor against implementing it in the next year or two. So hit it with your best shot, I bet I can refute any argument you through out.

BTW, here are the keywords, for those in need:

BCS CORRUPT BOGUS FRAUDULENT SNAKE-OIL STINKS OUT LOUD FOR COLLEGE FOOTBALL IN THE TAMMANY IVY HALLS

Eh, I wanted to drink a beer after that drubbing!

A good idea, but the NFL is the biggest stumbling block. Any system that is held in the same week as NFL games will face, in my opinion, fierce opposition from the NFL. The NFL will not want to share any advertsing revenue with the NCAA. Add to that, and the NFl can say this is not the case, but gambling dollars will then be split with a playoff system.

The deal to have the NFL cooperate with the NCAA would have to be so good, that I wonder if it would at that point not benefit the the NCAA far less than hoped.

The NFL has the biggest contracts with networks of all the major sports. That means that any deal will have to go through the NFL. And I just can't see them agreeing to something that will cut into their revenue stream...

Good points, but the games can be played without conflicting with any NFL playoff games. Saturday of the conference finals(no NFL games), or Saturday and Sunday nights of the semifinals(no NFL night games). But as you point out, there is still the argument that it takes away ad dollars from the NFL just from being on the same weekend.

Two ways to combat that arguement. First, the NCAA can play a little hardball and threaten to go to a 16 game December format, that would directly compete with or limit the opportunity for NFL Saturday afternoon and Sunday night games. But the stronger hand is the fact that the NFL is not on NBC, so they would be glad to bid on these 3 playoff games. NBA might not be excited, but there would be no comparison in the viewership numbers. FOX and CBS might be loyal to the franchise, but ABC would also likely bid on the playoffs(a natural extension of their BCS monopoly and bowl dominance). NFL isn't gonna yank MNF, so at worst ABC loses two NFL wildcard games for 3 college football playoff games, a net $ plus for ABC.

We've differed in the past, but I do appreciate the effort and thought you've put into your plan. Here's my objection: it cheapens the regular season. Second, I looked it up - at my school booster contributions and ticket sales account for 75% of football revenue, TV something less than 30% (and that's in the SEC, with the best TV payout of any conference). I think you perhaps overestimate the importance of TV money. Would be interested in any informed opinion about the total TV revenue take from your system, though.

The regular season is a big deal for the people who pay the freight. My conclusion is that support for a playoff comes mainly from sportcasters (who fly in the day before and out immedialtely after the game - at somebody's else's expense - and thus, have no knowledge of the social aspect), fans of marginal teams whose season would be made by upsetting a top team in the playoffs, and couch potato fans who haven't bought a ticket since college, but want more games for TV. Can you show me any evidence (not opinion) showing a great interest among boosters at the perennial powers for a playoff? If not, I'm afraid you might be out of luck.

Finally, as I've said before: look at it as a political issue. What happens in politics is that when an issue gains traction, defenders of the status quo will move slightly towards the innovators and thereby coopt the support of the mild supporters of the new plan. To me, that's partially responsible for the SEC and Big 12 having championship games. That certainly describes how the BCS developed. Best bet: look for more incremental changes.

With it being the Rose Bowl's first chance to host the game accompanied by Oregon's complaints, any immediate major change would have to originate from the PAC-10. If it doesn't come form there, it won't, in the short run, come from anywhere else.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking post. Now I can't blame not cleaning out the garage on college football. I can't wait 'til August 31!

Notre Dame simply has to be ranked high enough to make the BCS at-large cutoff(2 teams, 4 if a qualifier game, 6 if two conferences combine). This reduced ability to bring in Notre Dame would be the biggest concession the BCS bowls would have to give up, but what they would get in return is involvement and commitment from the NCAA in the renegotiated contract for several more years after 2006. Or they could hold firm on the present system and quite likely be shut out or lose much control after 2006, not a good gamble.

And thank you for your lengthy response, I was hoping that you would reply, you made several good points. No, I don't have access to any of those types of figures, nor really the time to delve deeper. This is simply a catalyst post, at most perhaps I might e-mail it to several sports media types here in Dallas(who probably have already received thousands of similar proposals, but what the hey, ya never know.)

IMHO, the importance of the regular season is preserved by the limited number of non conference champ teams involved and the home-field factor of the semi-finals almost always being rewarded to conference champs(which is huge). There is very little difference from the current BCS, the major difference is the extension after the bowls, but almost nothing changes prior to January 4th.

Agreed on the incremental approach, but the basic plan here is only two steps beyond what we have now. The most likely scenario is that in Feb. or April the BCS will announce some lame tinkering with the formulation, hoping it will hold off the hounds for several more years. But sooner or later there will be another debacle, and then they'll take the firs step, one game after the New Year's bowls. Either way, my gut says whoever gets the next TV contract will insist on at minimum an extra 3 games of playoffs after 2006 as part of the contract. Hence my proposal for the BCS bowls to stay ahead of the curve, do just enough to pacify most of the major criticism, and control their destiny.

So who knows, but I'm willing to bet good money that something close to my basic formula is in place by 2007. And I'll strongly bet for pride that it is implemented before the current contract expires. Time will tell.

Nothing is wrong with the 16-team playoff format used in every other division, EXCEPT that so many involved parties have a vested interested in continuing the status quo and would face some risks in a major change. Hence the compromise approach. Communities benefit from the bowls, so let them keep 'em. Fans benefit from the vacations, so keep 'em. Coaches and players benefit, because so many can end the season on a positive note, so the coaches are gonna fight any reduction in these redeeming opportunities. So integrate them into a playoff system.

Bottom line, a compromise approach can protect so many of these interested parties, yet still select a champion on the field.

FWIW, here was my proposal prior to the BCS matchups being announced from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/582553/posts

*** The NCAA should sit down with the major bowl organizations and say, "OK fellas, here's how it's going to work and if you don't like it, we will cut you out of this proposal entirely!"

The 10 Division 1 major conference champions (including the MAC, WAC, Conference USA & Mountain West) plus the top 6 non-champion teams from the BaloneyComputerStandings make the playoffs and are seeded as closely as possible into their traditional bowls. The brackets would look like this:

Rose - Big Ten vs. At-large
Orange - Big 12 vs. At-large
Sugar - SEC vs. At-large
Fiesta - Pac 10 vs. At-large
Gator - ACC vs. At-large
Cotton - Big LEast vs. At-large
Holiday - WAC vs. Mountain West
Liberty - Conf. USA vs. MAC

Round 2 could be played the following Thursday & Friday, seeding Round 1 winners according to the pre-bowl BCS numbers: 1 (best BCS rank remaining) vs. 8 (worst BCS rank remaining), 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6 & 4 vs. 5.

Round 3 could be played the following Thursday & Friday with 1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3.

And the "National Championship" Game could be played the Saturday before the Super Bowl.

Just look at how the teams would match up this year:

Cotton - Miami vs. Oklahoma
Fiesta - Oregon vs. Texas
Orange - Colorado vs. Stanford
Rose - Illinois vs. Florida
Gator - Maryland vs. Tennessee
Sugar - LSU vs. Nebraska
Holiday - Fresno St. vs. BYU
Liberty - Louisville vs. Toledo

It's similar to what you proposed and I think these matchups (with more playoffs to follow) look a whole lot better than this year's set.

I have one major point of disagreement with your proposal. The Big Ten & Pac 10 shouldn't be forced to have a conference championship game just because the Big XII and SEC were greedy and bastardized their conference "championships."

Nope. Had BYU gone undefeated, they would have qualified for a BCS at-large berth(7th, IIRC), but that doesn't mean they would have been chosen under the current format. Under mine they would, and by adding 2 more teams for an at-large qualifier game, a Louisville has a much better shot. But they have to go undefeated, or their conference has to greatly improve. Still, with a brutal non-conference, and with a loss to say a top 5 team, they still might make one of the 4 proposed at-large qualifier berths.

Forgot to mention in the original post one concession from the NCAA that might hasten BCS bowl approval: Guarantee sell-out revenue to the BCS bowls. Of course certain provisions would have to be spelled out, the NCAA wouldn't want to make the guarantee and have the bowls triple their ticket prices, but a solution is workable. Now you've taken away a potential threat from post-bowl playoff games.

Interesting plan. I could live with it, with a couple of changes, primarily being seed the teams. An at-large team is usually gonna be stronger than a mid-major conf. champ, so the big conferences would oppose it without seeding. Why should Miami have to play an Oklahoma, while Louisville gets a likely much easier opponent in Toledo? And gotta insure that the Big 6 get at least as much payout as they do from the current system($11 mil. per BCS team).

Actually my plan provides for some conference champ games or none. So the Pac 10 wouldn't be forced to play one, its each conference's choice. However I think a conference playing one should be rewarded, as it is in effect(in one scenario) an additional playoff game. Further, the expansion and consolidation necessary for more conference champ games might lead to the elimination of the weakest major(such as the Big Least). This would force every team to play a tough conference schedule, and also open up two more at-large qualifier slots(and one at-large BCS berth).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.