Eight teams would begin the tournament. Traditionally, the conference bowl relationships will be intact, for at least the higher seeded teams in the tournament. In my example, LSU as the SEC champion would automatically go to The Sugar Bowl, Pac-10 champion USC would go to The Rose Bowl, and ACC champion Virginia Tech would go The Orange Bowl. Even though Florida is ranked # 1 (due to strength of schedule), LSU gets the Sugar Bowl bid as SEC champion. In my scenario, The Fiesta Bowl gets the last selection (as they hosted the national championship in 2007, remember?) and gets # 1 seeded Florida. The other teams in the tournament are matched up with their opponents, similarly to the NCAA Division 1 Men’s Basketball Tournament.
January 1st
The Fiesta Bowl: # 1 Florida (At-Large Selection) vs # 8 BYU (Mountain West Champion)
The Rose Bowl # 3 Southern Cal (Pac-10 Champion) vs # 6 Oklahoma (Big XII Champion)
The Sugar Bowl: # 2 LSU (SEC Champion) vs # 7 Ohio State (Big Ten Champion)
The Orange Bowl: # 4 Virginia Tech (ACC Champion) vs # 5 West Virginia (Big East Champion)
Once the tournament begins, the winners will move on to the next round of the tournament – in this hypothetical scenario, The Cotton Bowl in Dallas. On January 8th, game 1 could feature the winner of The Fiesta Bowl (ex: Florida) versus the winner of The Rose Bowl (ex: USC). In game two, the winner of The Sugar Bowl (ex: LSU) would play the winner of The Orange Bowl (ex: West Virginia).
January 15th would again be played in Dallas at The Cotton Bowl. The week between the semi-finals and the national championship would truly rival The Super Bowl for media scrutiny and fan enthusiasm.
What are the benefits to my system? Let us count the ways amidst the traditional arguments against a college football playoff:
What about "The Plus One" idea that was shot down recently? While I truly believe that The Plus One will be the first playoff concept to be eventually used, I do not believe it is the best. The reason why? You are still relying on the human element of rankings by the coaches and media. With my system, all 6 BCS conferences get an automatic shot, the best of the non-BCS conferences gets an automatic berth, and a wild card/At-Large team also gets a shot if they played a tough schedule.
What about a 16 team tournament so all conferences could be included? If I could do that, I would. The problem is it would dramatically increase the number of games in the season, which the university presidents are vehmently opposed to doing. I do believe having all eleven conference champions, plus five At-Large teams chosen by strength of schedule, would be ideal but unrealistic.
The regular season would be rendered meaningless with a playoff system: If the only sure way to get in to the playoffs was winning your conference, that makes those regular season games very meaningful, wouldn’t you say? And it would also behoove schools to beef up their schedules, not load up on creampuff schools, in the event that they did not win their conferences outright.
The bowls would suffer: How? The bowl system is still intact, with traditional conference tie-ins. And the other bowl games would still be determined in the manner that they are now – for those who get excited about The Papajohns.com Bowl or the New Orleans Bowl, rest assured, I have not affected that game or any similar to it. And as for the communities involved in the tournament, especially the national championship host city, can you imagine the economic windfall associated with having thousands of fans visiting the city for a week?
There is too much emphasis with the computers and the strength of schedule component: Strength of schedule would merely determine the seeding of the playoffs, as well as the non-BCS conference team and the one wild card/At-Large team. Again, if you win a major conference, you are guaranteed a spot.
The season would be too long – By one week? And the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament goes on for several weeks in March. Even the university presidents, the biggest obstacle to a playoff system, would have a tough time answering this one with a straight face. Next question.
What about the non-BCS conferences? – Again, the non-BCS conferences are guaranteed one spot of the eight in the tournament. In the current BCS system, the non-BCS conferences are only guaranteed if they are ranked in the top twelve teams. An important thing to remember – the fifth bowl game, and the non-BCS conference clause (have to be ranked in the top 12 teams) that is presently constituted in the BCS program today, are a result of a potential lawsuit threatened by Tulane in 2003. Under my system, the non-BCS conferences are being represented but this time it has nothing to do with rankings arbitrarily assigned by coaches or the media.
What about Notre Dame and its BCS exception? – See argument # 1. While Notre Dame had a major clunker season last year (3-9), traditionally Notre Dame has played a tough schedule. All that being said, Notre Dame would need to still play a tough schedule to get one of the coveted wild card berths. Last season, Notre Dame’s schedule ranked # 24. No more special rules based on poll rankings for the Irish under my system.
Fans won’t travel to all of these games – Probably the most valid argument of all. Then again, look at the loyalty fans display today when there is no playoff system. Look at the loyalty displayed by basketball fans during the NCAA Division 1 Men’s Basketball Tournament. And look at the loyalty some fans have when it comes to their teams for spring football – do you truly feel that the fans will not want to participate in a playoff tournament?
Just think about all of the issues associated with the BCS that would never have come to pass with a system such as this in place:
- 1998 - Ohio State has the same record as Florida State, yet Florida State gets the title shot against Tennessee. Yes, I know - Ohio State lost late in the year to an unraked Michigan State team, while Florida State lost early in the year to an unranked North Carolina State team. Under my system, all three teams would have had a chance with a playoff tournament like this one. And we haven't even discussed the plights of UCLA or Kansas State in this scenario.
- 2000 - Miami (FL) has the same record as Florida State and had defeated Florida State head to head that season, yet Florida State gets the title shot against Oklahoma. Why not a playoff tournament?
- 2001 - Nebraska gets a title shot against Miami (FL), despite being crushed by Colorado in the last game of the season and Oregon had the same record as the Huskers.
- 2003 - USC, LSU, and Oklahoma all finish with the same record, yet USC does not get a title shot, and the college football fans get a split championship with LSU and USC.
- 2004 - Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma all finish undefeated. Auburn does not get a title shot.
- 2006 - Michigan and Florida both finish with one loss. Florida earns a BCS title shot against Ohio State and wins, yet Michigan was ranked ahead of Florida in the polls before USC lost on the last weekend to UCLA. If USC had won the game as expected, USC would have had the title shot against Ohio State and Florida would never have won the 2006 national championship.
As the eloquent Stewart Mandel wrote in his book Bowls, Polls, & Tarnished Souls, "Rightly or wrongly, college football will turn to a playoff one day." (page 34 of hardcover version). After the 2006 season, Florida president Bernie Machen was quoted, "A playoff is inevitable".
If a playoff is inevitable, wouldn't it be nice getting a system in place like mine sooner rather than later? As always, I am anxious for your comments, and look forward to hearing from hopefully as many of you as possible.
I agree with a playoff concept (I personally like the 1+ idea) but I can't comprehend these rankings.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have only a feeble football mind, there are a few points that I just can't get past:
Based on last year, you have Florida with a 9-4 record above LSU with a 12-2 record. Okay, I can understand with different schedule difficulties and so forth one can argue that 12-2 and 9-4 could be similar. But wait, these teams played head to head and Florida lost. Hmmm, methinks that means that LSU is the better team.
But wait, there's less!
Florida loses to Auburn (in regulation)
Florida loses to Georgia (in regulation)
LSU beats Auburn
LSU beats Tennessee (Florida's conference champion that beat Georgia but admittedly lost to Florida)
Then, in the bowls:
LSU beats Ohio State (I like saying that) who had already beaten Michigan.
Florida loses to Michigan.
And you want me to believe that Florida should be ranked above LSU (whose two losses were in-conference and BOTH triple overtime)? This sounds like new math and I feel like Charlie Brown.
With all due respect to Joe Paterno, that ranking model has nearly erased my fomer skepticism regarding human based polls.
And, for the record, we did not split the 2003 National Championship with USC!
And the New Orleans bowl is amazing (how can you dis CUSA's #2 or 3 playing head to head with the champion of the powerhouse SunBelt Conference?)...and since I am getting picky, it's the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl (we have a sponsor, dammit)
tom grady - Outstanding points. Let me thank you for your contributions, and explain how it would work.
ReplyDeleteYou're right re: last year. LSU did defeat Florida head to head, and it seems puzzling that in my scenario (actually, Jeff Sagarin's computer rankings for strength of schedule), LSU is rated below Florida. Some other things not mentioned in your argument - last year, Florida also defeated Kentucky, a team that LSU lost to last year.
The point I didn't get to make in my post is that Ohio high school football computer rankings work in a manner where a team gets so many points for when they win. The team that wins over another team gets that other team's points - it would be possible to lose head to head early in the year, then come back into playoff contention by winning games at the end, thus improving a strength of schedule.
Another area where I am completely flexible and open on the idea is using multiple strength of schedule formulas. Thus, if a team won head to head, they could get a bonus versus Sagarin's that obviously does not include that type of criteria in his rankings.
You're right - for the record, LSU did not split the Coaches poll with USC in 2003. The AP did crown USC as their champion. Don't you think it would have been better to settle it on the field?
Yes, LSU did beat Ohio State last year. If not for the good fortune of watching Missouri and West Virginia lose the first weekend of December, LSU would not have had a title shot; same for Ohio State. Don't you want to earn it on the field? I know I do.
And have fun at R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl this coming December. Sounds almost as much fun as rooting for the New Orleans Saints...
Have a great weekend, and keep up with your posts and comments.