A playoff that saves the bowls and quiets the critics

A beautiful mind ^ | 1/3/02 | Van E. Tee

[Diddle E. Squat]

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

[bray]

Anything would be an improvement over the Bull Crap System! My idea would be to take the top 8 Conference Champions and put them in the BCS Bowls and make that your playoff. If nothing else you could have the winner of the top 2 Bowls, (this year the Fiesta and Rose) then let the winners play.

Pray for GW and the Truth!

[Numbers Guy]

Better than other proposals. I'm against all playoff proposals myself, but if we're going to have a playoff, make it be after the bowls and restore the traditional bowl matchups. This post-sundown Rose Bowl just for TV really makes me sick.

[Roebucks]

bumping for a more thorough read tomorrow. One question, is this your own analysis? If so, why don't you submit it for publication in Sporting News or some such? Anything to get the ideas flowing...

[Happy Valley Dude]

Big 10 adds a Notre Dame, Syracuse, or Pitt.

Their name is already incorrect enough (they currently have 11 schools).

[Fury]

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...

[Fury]

Anything would be an improvement over the Bull Crap System! My idea would be to take the top 8 Conference Champions and put them in the BCS Bowls and make that your playoff. If nothing else you could have the winner of the top 2 Bowls, (this year the Fiesta and Rose) then let the winners play.

What do you do about the indie teams such as Notre Dame, etc.?

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Not a big fan of the BCS, but this is college football and America loves a winner. A major part of "the product", and money is TV revenues. Under a real playoff system, fate could give us one possible scenario having Cellar Dweller U. playing Loser State for the national championship. Hardly anyone would watch. A group of games like this, and it would finish college football.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[FirstFlaBn]

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!

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[Delphster]

Every other Division in college football has a national champion playoff with at least 16 teams. Starts right after the last game and played every week until the National Championship game. So much better because there is not the 30-45 day layoff the teams go without playing a game. Make the players decide the National Championship not a computer or some bogus poll

[L.N. Smithee]

I don't know what is wrong with the current playoff system used by the NCAA in all other divisions of college football except that the same people won't rake in the cash.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[afuturegovernor]

Okay, every once in awhile a team from a mid-major (C-USA, Mountain West, WAC) conference does really well. What if a BYU, Fresno State, Louisville, East Carolina, Southern Miss, TCU, ect goes 11-0. Will they be hurt by this format?

I would like to think that all Divison 1 teams would have the change to win the national championship.

[Sideshow Bob]

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."

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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).