matt weighs in

[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.

[Note: Read part 2 of my college football solution here, after reading part 1.]

I will say it again: College football needs a playoff. Here, in the first of two posts, I am going to tell you why and answer some questions in the way of making it happen.

The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) has started Facebook and Twitter accounts to help make their case that the current system of finding the two teams to play for the “national championship” is the best way to do it. I tackled this back in January 2008, but I feel the need to tackle it once more. College football needs to get this right.

The questions that need to be answered are these:

• How many teams should be in a college football playoff?
• How should these teams be determined?
• When do they play the playoff games?
• Where do they play the playoff games?
• What happens to the current bowl system?

I will try to tackle these as quickly as possible.

How many teams should be in a college football playoff?
I am convinced that 16 teams should play in a college football playoff. Eight teams are too few, as there are 11 conferences, and 24 or 32 teams are too many. Just as in college basketball, where the lower seeded teams will not win the championship and there should not be more than 32 teams in March Madness, there are not more than 16 teams in college football that have a chance to win the championship.

How should these teams be determined?
Back in early 2008 when I first wrote about the BCS, my favorite option for determining the 16 playoff teams was to take the top 16 based on the final BCS rankings of the year. I now think that the right way to choose the 16 playoff teams is by taking the 11 conference champions, and then add the top five BCS ranked teams who did not win their conference. This way, the rankings, and playing a tough schedule are still important, since teams can still make the playoff by getting one of the five “at-large” spots. A committee can then rank them 1-16 to determine seeding in the playoffs (or, again, use the BCS rankings to determine seeding).

The conference champions have to be used, otherwise there is no reason for these conferences to exist in the top NCAA division. Troy and Middle Tennessee State play in the Sun Belt conference and Ohio, Temple, and Central Michigan play in the Mid-American conference. One of these teams will win their conference, respectively, yet none are ranked in the top 25 of any poll, including the BCS, so none have a chance to ever be the BCS “champion.” The BCS does not even include all teams or conferences in the top NCAA division there is? Is that fair? For what and for whom are these teams playing? The winners of all conferences need to be included. Teams in the major BCS conferences play each other every year, so their rankings will be inflated, since they are playing teams deemed to be tougher. Compete in your tough conference, or at least be ranked highly, and your team still has a good shot of making it in my playoff scenario.

When do they play the playoff games?
A 16 team playoff would need four weekends to determine a champion. Teams should play an 11- or 12-game regular season schedule with a conference championship game, if needed, played after to determine the winner. This can be done by the first week of December. Playoff games take place over the next five weeks, with a week off between quarterfinals and semi-finals. The semi-finals would be played on New Year’s Day and the Championship game played the week after. Here is what I wrote back in 2008, using the 2007 college season as an example:

There were 14 weeks between Saturday, September 1, 2007, and Saturday, December 1, 2007. This would have allowed teams to play 12 games, have one bye week during the season, and then have conference championship games on December 1st, if the conference chooses to do so.

Tell me this can not work. In that scenario, 1st round games would have been December 8th, quarterfinals on December 15th, time off, then semi-finals on January 1st and the championship game would have been January 8th. It won’t play out exactly like this each year, but the season start date can be moved around to accommodate this schedule each year.

Where do they play the playoff games?
The playoff games would take place on the higher seeded team’s home field in the 1st and 2nd rounds. The semi-finals and championship games would be played on neutral sites, pre-determined by college football. See next question.

What happens to the current college football bowl system?
My favorite part is that the current bowl system could still be utilized. Most of the college bowl games now are filled by teams who finished third or lower in their conference. These teams can still go to the Insight Bowl, the Hawaii Bowl, or the Chik-fil-a Bowl. But people, including the NCAA and BCS bo-bos are more worried ($$$$) about the major bowls played New Year’s Day and after – these are the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and National “Championship” Game. These can still be used.

Two of these Bowls can host the four remaining playoff teams in the semi-final games on New Year’s Day. The other two Bowls, whatever date they are set to play, can host the losers of the quarterfinal games. Each Bowl is guaranteed to host a game with great teams playing. The National Championship Game rotates to each BCS Bowl location now, and that could continue, so every four years, each bowl will host two major games, earning major dollars.

I think I will stop here for now. For my Daily Rave on Tuesday or Wednesday, I will attempt to break down how the current college football season will play out and which teams would probably get in my playoff scenario versus taking the top-16 teams in the BCS rankings. Since we do not have a playoff yet, this speculation is not perfect, but it is closer to getting it right than the current BCS system. I have said it many times before, and will say it again here, there is B.S. in B.C.S.

**********

Again, here are the links for the BCS Facebook and Twitter accounts. Have fun reading the savagery:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Inside-the-BCS/208135432288
Twitter: twitter.com/INSIDEtheBCS

Also, you will see me put “champion” in quotes whenever I talk about the current college football system of determining its “National Champion.” Sorry, the current “champion” is as mythical as a unicorn or Hogwarts.

Read Part 2!

How are we supposed to view all the bowl games played every year to end the college football season? I know many people would say, and do it quite loudly, that they are meaningless and not even the “national championship” game is worth the 30-40 day wait after conference play has ended. Others would argue that the bowls are an annual tradition and that they all need to be played to give college kids one last game to play as seniors and go out as winners. I completely fall into the former category, with much added venom towards those who say a playoff in Division-1 cannot happen.

The only traditional bowl anyone really cares about, as far as I can tell, is the Rose Bowl played on New Year’s Day in Pasadena, CA. There is a parade in the morning, and it has long been called the “Granddaddy of Them All.” Even when it isn’t a great match-up, the Rose Bowl prefers to have a Big Ten team face a Pac-10 team (this year’s game featured Illinois versus USC, which everyone correctly predicted would be a blowout), and it still is the most talked about bowl game there is, besides the “national championship” game.

Now, people have thrown out their versions of what the college football playoff would look like, the most recent of which I read in the Star Tribune on Sunday. In it, the columnist, Jim Souhan, argues that the big four bowl games all take place on New Year’s Day. These games would be the playoff quarterfinals, with the semifinals and National Championship to follow in the weeks after that. Not a bad option, but I don’t like it, because it would put the college playoff games up against the NFL playoffs in January, and as much as we like football, we don’t need the whole sports page covering football.

I would rather see the playoffs take place in December after the regular college season has ended. I am not sure exactly the best way to choose the teams, yet, but this is what I have come up with for a playoff, using this past 2007 season as an example, and it still allows for bowl games, as we know them, to continue.

There were 14 weeks between Saturday, September 1, 2007, and Saturday, December 1, 2007. This would have allowed teams to play 12 games, have one bye week during the season, and then have conference championship games on December 1st, if the conference chooses to do so.

The playoffs would be 16 teams – I see three ways the teams could be chosen. First, use the computer system currently in place for the BCS rankings and take the top 16 teams. Second, form a committee to choose the top 16 teams, such as they do in college basketball for March Madness. Third, and my least favorite option, include the conference champions and then somehow fill the rest of the spots with other teams (based on the computer ranking system or by a committee?).

I guess I prefer they use the computer ranking system to determine the top 16 teams and let the fun begin. Who could argue that the final BCS poll showing the top 16 teams to end the 2007 season do not deserve to be in the playoff? Going back to the dates on which the 2007 college football season fell, the 1st round (16 teams) would have taken place on Saturday, December 8th, the quarterfinal round (8 teams) on Saturday, December 15th, the semifinals (4 teams) on Saturday, December 22nd, and then to top it all off, you would have the National Championship played on New Year’s Day between the top 2 teams in one of the 5 major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange or Fiesta). The championship game would rotate year-to-year from each site and would take place in the evening on January 1st.

The other 4 bowls, played during the day on New Year’s Day, would then choose their teams from those who lost in the previous rounds of the playoffs. The semifinal losers would play in one bowl, the four quarterfinal losers would take two other bowls, which leaves only one major bowl to choose it’s teams, which could be from the losers of the 1st round. The other 6 losing teams form the 1st round would then be chosen for the lesser bowl games that take place from December 20th-31st.

This seems confusing in writing, but put it down in brackets on paper what I have proposed here, and you’ll see that it can work. There would be great match-ups, there could not be any debate about who deserves to be where, because it’s all determined on the field, and those greedy fools who are blocking this playoff from happening would still get paid, because all the bowls, as we know them, would take place (I would even allow the championship game to be played the day after New Year’s for maximum exposure). But the best part? You would have a true National Champion in college football.

Random thoughts on the sporting world heading into the last weekend of 2007:

* Has anyone cared about the bowl games, yet? You know a playoff is needed when the biggest story, so far, is whether or not a guy on the sidelines (not even a coach, player or trainer) touched a bouncing ball before his team recovered. Even if he didn’t touch it, shouldn’t they have been penalized for all those guys being on the field, which would give the other team the ball back anyway? Apparently, Chris Jessie is the head coach’s stepson and in charge of coordinating the team’s travel and hotel reservations. And he’s on the sideline of a bowl game. Oh well. There is a BS in BCS (one of my favorite sayings, by the way).

* KG won’t let the Celtics slow down all year. I doubt they’ll match the Bulls’ 72 victories from ’95-’96, but damn, he has lit something under Paul Pierce that will carry them to a #1 seed in the East and well into June 2008. However, is it possible that KG’s current team sets the all-time win record, while his former team sets the all-time loss record? Can’t wait to see the outcome of their Feb. 8^th game at Target Center (note to Laura: that’s close to my birthday).

* NBA season has 6 months to go? Maybe thoughts on that another time, although it is now more intriguing than it has been in years. I miss “NBA on NBC” – one of my favorite lead-in tv musical anthems of all-time. I know some of you are humming it right now.

* I believe the Vikings blew their season last Sunday night at home against Washington. Win and they were in the playoffs, which no one could have foreseen after 34-0 in Lambeau. I heard the guys on KFAN’s morning show (AM-1130 in the Twin Cities) talking after the Washington game that if it had been outdoors, instead of in the ‘dome, the outcome would have been different. Really? What part of this Vikings team is so tough that playing in 18 degree, snowy weather gives us more faith in them to produce in such a huge game?

* I think the Giants will beat the Patriots, leaving the Pats 15-1 on the year. I want them to go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl (since the Vikings will be out of it, of course), but the Giants seem to do something every year to save Tom Coughlin’s job. They’ll win this game, giving them 11 wins, then won’t do much in the playoffs, but he’ll still have his job and that constipation-type pained look on his face.

* Johan’s still here, so I have hope the Twins will re-sign him. By the way, less than 2 months until pitchers and catchers report.

Happy New Year to all and to all a big drink!