[Note: Read Part 1 of my college football solution here.]

I am writing most of this as the turkey brines overnight for another great Thanksgiving meal on Thursday. We, at CatNamedPig, hope you enjoy your day of feast, family, and football.

Speaking of football, as a follow-up to my last post when I answered some questions about a post-season, I am going to lay out what a college football playoff might look like, if the BCS group, college Presidents, and other money-hungry individuals associated with the game would break outside their gold-coated boxes and work to find a solution that a majority of fans want. I am still flabbergasted that the BCS group has gone on the offensive in defending their undefendable desire of not finding a playoff solution. Every time I see a new update on their Twitter feed or visit their website, I am more convinced that the guys from The Onion or Sports Pickle are actually behind it – you just can not make up their arguments in support of the current BCS system.

On to the currently mythical 16-team playoff and what the brackets would look like. Here are the latest rankings, 1-25. As some have argued for, if you put the top-16 in a playoff, based on the BCS rankings, here are the teams (and their conference) who would be in this week:

1. Florida (SEC) 2. Alabama (SEC) 3. Texas (Big 12) 4. TCU (Mountain West)
5. Cincinnati (Big East) 6. Boise St. (WAC) 7. Georgia Tech (ACC) 8. Oregon (Pac 10)
9. Pittsburgh (Big East) 10. Ohio St. (Big 10) 11. Iowa (Big 10) 12. Oklahoma St. (Big 12)
13. Penn St. (Big 10) 14. Virginia Tech (ACC) 15. LSU (SEC) 16. Oregon St. (Pac 10)

Not a bad group, but only 8 of the 11 conferences are represented, leaving out the best team from the Sun Belt, Mid-American, and Conference USA. You might say, “Who cares if they are left out?” Well, how about their schools, fans, and conference officials? Not to spend too long on this, but if this is how the playoff bracket was determined, knowing that no school from those conferences would ever appear in the top-16, these conferences should be totally removed by the NCAA from this level of competition. Put them in a lower division, where they would have a chance to compete in a playoff. The only other option, and a bad one, since the BCS pretty much only cares about money, would be to make the financial payoff nice enough to make them go away every year. Three of eleven conferences is 27% – these conferences would share 27% of the revenue generated by the playoff in this scenario.

Now, to my preferred option, where each of the 11 conference winners earns an automatic bid into the 16-team playoff, with the other 5 teams determined based on BCS rank, if they didn’t win their conference. Here are the teams that might make it into a playoff (please note: these are projections without seeding the teams, as there are games to be played in the next few weeks to determine actual champions):

ACC: Georgia Tech
Big 12: Texas
Big East: Cincinnati
Big 10: Ohio St. (already in)
Conference USA: Houston
Mid-American: Temple
Mountain West: TCU (already in)
Pac 10: Oregon
SEC: Florida
Sun Belt: Troy
WAC: Boise St.
5 at-large births, based on BCS rankings and did not win their conference: Alabama (SEC), Pittsburgh (Big East), Iowa (Big 10), Oklahoma St. (Big 12), Penn St. (Big 10)

There are your 16 teams. Changes from the first 16 above are the additions of Houston, Temple, and Troy in place of Virginia Tech, LSU, and Oregon St. I have no problem with this.

We love the underdog, just see March Madness when the crowd is really into it, when a #14 seed is up on a #3 seed in the second half. In this case, the three teams left out did not win their conference, most likely lost in their conference championship to the team that is in, so already had their chance to prove they were the better team. The Big 10 has three teams, which might be excessive, but if the BCS rankings have them in the top 16, then they have every right to be in the playoff.

Here is what I like about it, too, and try to follow me. The teams above, right now, are not guaranteed to be in the playoff (except Florida and Alabama who would make the playoff win or lose the SEC Championship game). Texas, too, is in, even if they lose the Big 12 Championship to Nebraska, which would then be in the playoff and Penn St. out. But Cincinnati, if they lost to Pittsburgh in the Big East Championship, might be on the bubble of getting an at-large playoff birth. What about Oregon (Pac 10), Georgia Tech (ACC) and Boise St. (WAC)? If they lost their championship games to Oregon St., Clemson, and Nevada, respectively, would they stay ranked high enough to earn an at-large birth? Fascinating speculation, and all determined on the field, as teams hold their own fate in their hands each week.

Imagine the drama as the season came to a close? One of the arguments the BCS group makes is that a playoff would render the regular season meaningless, and that the way it is now keeps every game important. I have not heard anything credible to back up the claim that a playoff would make games meaningless. They would all still be important, as teams would be fighting to get to the conference championship game and an automatic birth into the playoff. Also, knowing that a good season and a high BCS ranking could still get a team in, they would play their tails off each week, as a season with two or less losses might be good enough.

Another argument that the BCS group uses is that a playoff, no matter how many teams it is, would be controversial to those teams who were close to making it, but did not. They say, “In every sport, brackets began with a few teams. Then schools felt slighted, and so the brackets grew to accommodate more teams.” I am not buying this either, for two reasons.

First, the teams who would not make it in were not conference winners, and probably either would have lost to the conference winner during the season or lost more conference games. They should not feel slighted, they should be upset they lost more games.

Second, I really believe that “bracket creep,” as they call it when brackets expand, is mostly about the money that can be made, not giving “slighted” teams a chance. By expanding the brackets, more games are played, so more revenue for the sport. Look at college basketball’s March Madness. Really, this should be a 32-team field. Teams 33-65 and beyond will not win six games and the championship. They might make a nice run in the tourney, as George Mason (11 seed in 2006) and LSU (11 seed in 1986) did. But they did not win, and I do not believe teams 17 and above in college football are good enough, nor have shown they deserve a chance, to win the national championship. The underdogs we love to cheer for would come from the smaller conference winners and the at-large teams (8 of the 16-team field).

So there you go. Further explanation for how a 16-team playoff would work. Once they are in, the teams could be seeded using either their BCS rank or by a committee, but this should not be an obstacle. Higher seeds would host games in the first two rounds in December, with the semi-finals played on New Year’s Day and the Championship Game played a week later (an actual championship game determined on the field, not the “championship game” we have now).

All other teams not in the playoff, including those who lose in the 1st playoff round, can play in other bowls in December that no one cares about, and the teams who lose in the quarterfinals can also play in two major bowls on New Year’s Day. The NCAA and BCS group, including the conferences, who are so concerned about the bottom line, would rake in huge amounts of money from TV, ticket sales, and merchandise, since there are more games.

There is no reason this can not get done. I know that there are contracts currently in place between the NCAA, BCS and the bowl system, but if we work on an actual playoff now, new contracts could be worked out to either replace the current ones or for when they expire. And, my playoff scenario preserves the bowl system, as is.

College football, the players, coaches, and fans, need a playoff now. The status quo system currently in place will no longer do.

**********
Other links/videos of interest:

Sports Illustrated’s weekly 16-team playoff bracket

Until a playoff happens, enjoy this football action. I wouldn’t mind giving a ball to the BCS officials and letting this kid have a crack at them.

5 Responses to “Blow up the BCS: the college football playoff”

  1. BCS Hopeful Says:

    I guess I’m in favor of a BCS playoff, and this is the first legitimate model I’ve seen online about how one would even be possible.

    Having said that, adding potentially 4 more games to the College football schedule adds 4 more chances for kids with pro careers in front of them to get injured and no longer be able to perform at the level necessary to achieve pro status. It may be hypothetical now, but imagine Joe Schmo, the 2015 Heisman winner who is predicted to be one of the all time greats with all the physical tools necessary for being a big time NFL QB.Obviously his team was eilte, and the NCAAF playoffs are underway. Semi finals are here and Schmo’s team is down 14 with a quarter left to play. He scrambles out of the pocket and get’s hit by a D-lineman which fractures his vertebrae. Future career over, because there were 3 more (extra meaningful and extra high energy) games that he had to play in order to make it to the National Championship.

    It’s the same reason so many are opposed to possibly extending the NFL season 2 games, because when you add extra meaningful games to the schedule, you increase the chance that someone is going to be seriously injured…and that’s not good for the school, the NCAA, the NFL, and especially not the athlete and his family.

    That, and I attended Toledo. My junior year our team made it to the Motor City Bowl and won. We had NO SHOT at a National Championship, and as outlined above certainly would have been left off a playoff candidate list. However, the Motor City Bowl gave us something to look forward to, it was electric. And when we won, it was outrageous around campus. It was the best feeling the school had ever had, and my friends on the team told me it was the best experience they had had their entire tenure on the team. If you remove the bowls, you remove the opportunity for many team’s and athlete’s the experience something similar.

    College football is a competition, and one that is taken seriously. HOWEVER, it is more about being a collegiate athlete and growing while you learn – instilling maturity, team-work, and countless other virtues and morals along the way. It’s not about crowning a TRUE national champion because it’s not the professional level. You shouldn’t punish the schools who have to recruit against Florida and Texas and take away their bowl game. I agree that it has become too commercialized, and that it is an issue discussed in the media way to often…but would switching to a playoff system HELP the athlete’s themselves? because that’s really who it’s all about…90% of these kids aren’t going pro.

    I wouldn’t oppose a playoff, and I’m not really sold on the system that’s in place…but Changing it is a really tough thing to do and there’s just to many arguments for both sides…it’s not about making games less meaningful, it’s about destroying potential careers and allowing student athletes at slightly smaller schools to feel important.

  2. Matt Says:

    Injuries are definitely a concern, but I’ve always viewed them as an “at any time, in any place” concern. That stud QB could take the same hit in game 2 vs. their cupcake opponent. Remember, only a few teams would play the extra games: 16 play one more, 8 play two more, 4 play three more, & 2 teams would play the extra four. Flip side of the injury concern is that pro scouts get a chance to see these guys in more pressure-cooked situations, in highly watched games, so a guy who might be a borderline pro prospect gets an opportunity to show his mettle.

    And that is a great Toledo campus story. Following the Gophers (not attending) in the mid-December bowl games has never been like that, I don’t think. But in my solution, those bowl games stay in place. The 50+ bowl-eligible teams not in the playoff keep going to the bowls that are out there. It’s just the 16 that play in the playoff, with the first 2 rounds outside the bowl system.

    I’m just hoping we can move along the dialog, so this can actually happen. Bill Hancock, the new Executive Director of the BCS, seems like a reasonable guy with some great negotiating experience in sports. I just hope he isn’t there to spew BCS backers’ talking points. He could really shake this up.

  3. dave Says:

    You have not thought very much about this. Relistically – if you won the lottery of $20 million and someone offered to enter you into a “playoff” to actaully win your prize would you enter? If i’m VT and I win the ACC i’m going to the BCS i’m collecting $20mil win or lose. Now you want me to enter the playoffs – do not pass GO do not collect $20 million – and play more games to win that money instead? Money i’ve already won in the current system. Why would I agree to that? 6 conferences will laugh at you. You have to offer not one penny less than $20 million to no less than 6 conference champions up front to even get them to listen to you. Are you going to pay all the playoff teams up front? Where will you get the money? Or only pay 6 conference champs up front? That’s too obvious. So you want to raise money to add more teams to the BCS so you can get matchups the first week of teams like East Carolina vs Va Tech? Wait a minute – we already had that. So the first week of BCS will feature replays of many games from the first few weeks of the season that were far from exciting. What will we call it? The BCS Blowout Bowl Series?
    It’s funny that people arguing FOR a playoff system are whining about the Orange bowl being boring but look at the matchups you’re pushing to get?
    Here’s what we could realistically achieve: BCS already pushes for the conferences to become like Big12, SEC and ACC are now – 12 teams in 2 divisions with a conference championship game. The games that decide division winners and then the conference championship games become the first few rounds of the “playoffs” you’re looking for. Ideally what we’ll add is a way for teams like Va Tech, W Va, Boise or TCU – teams that could win their conference unbeaten and still never get a shot at the title – to have a shot. Let’s take BCS numbers 1 and 2 and let them “host” BCS games the first week against numbers 4 and 3 respectively (only 1 team from any conference allowed) in what we’ll call the BCS Championship Series bowl games. The other 2 BCS games proceed as they do now but we’ll add one more so that’s 10 teams just like now in BCS games the first week – same rules for getting in (yes – in order to play in a BCS game you have to be good enough to play in a BCS game). Then the winners of the 2 Championship Series games play each other in the NCG a week later. This allows 4 unbeaten champs to face off – not just 2. That should settle the argument in most years. That can realistically be achieved and would be good for not just the fans!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. uberVU - social comments
  2. matt weighs in » Blog Archive » Weekly Weight: College Football Needs a Playoff

Leave a Reply