It’s time for a playoff in NCAA FBS Football

What exactly is the BCS?

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:39:13 -0500

The BCS was started in 1997 after previous attempts to set up a championship game by its predecessors, the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Alliance. It was better than it’s two predecessors by including all major conferences in its pairings. It was created to pair the top two teams in the BCS rankings in a championship game, and provide compelling matchups in four other bowls. The rankings are a percentage composed of the USA Today Coaches poll, The Harris poll (comprised of former coaches and football experts), and an average of 6 computer rankings (comprised of strength of schedule and win/loss record among other components). The votes received in each of the polls are divided by the maximum number of votes (2850 for Harris poll and 1525 for Coaches poll) which can be received for a percentage, such as .993 (1514 out of 1525). The computers rank the top 25 teams, giving 25 points to the top team and one point to the 25th team (8). The highest and lowest computer rankings are thrown out and the remaining total is divided by the maximum number of points (100 points from 25 each of the 4 remaining computers). So, if a team received points of 23, 25, 25, 25, and 24, the 23 and 25 totals would be thrown out and the team would have 99 points out of 100 for a .990 percentage. The computer percentage, Harris poll percentage, and Coaches poll percentage are then averaged to create each teams BCS percentage. Teams are then placed from highest (1.000) to lowest (0.000) from 1 through 25 to create the BCS rankings. At the end of the season, the teams ranked #1 and #2 will face each other in the BCS Bowl which is rotated annually between The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and The Fiesta Bowl (1).

The BCS also gives the four aforementioned bowls compelling match-ups. Automatic qualifiers come from the conference champions of the Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, and the Pac - 10. Those six conferences are referred to commonly as BCS conferences due to their automatic qualifying team. Those six automatic qualifying teams take up six of the eight remaining bowl bids unless one of the conference champions is ranked #1 or #2. Automatic berths are also given to Notre Dame, if they are ranked in the top 8 of the final BCS standings, and the highest ranked conference champion from the Western Athletic Conference, Mountain West Conference, Mid-American Conference, Conference USA, or the Sun Belt Conference provided the team is ranked in the top 12 in the final BCS standings, or ranked in the top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champion (8). A team from these five conferences which automatically qualify for a BCS bowl are referred to as a “BCS Buster” as they are not considered as high quality teams by those BCS schools and were originally left out of the BCS process unless chosen by a bowl. The remaining bowl bids are then chosen from a pool of at-large qualifying teams which meet the requirements of winning at least 9 games and being ranked in the top 14 teams in the final BCS standings (2). These teams chosen are usually chosen for their ability to draw crowds and a television audience. The bowls are run to make money, a lot of money.

The BCS was created to get a national championship game in college football. In the past, teams played in bowl games in which their conference was affiliated. Sometimes this meant the #1 team playing the #6 team and the #2 team playing the #5 team. The Associated Press crowned a champion based on its final poll. The BCS gave fans and schools a true championship game where the top two teams actually played each other for an undisputed champion. Problems arose when more than two teams were undefeated heading into bowls and more than one team finished the season undefeated. While an improvement over the old system, the BCS crowns a national champion but not an undisputed national champion. Fans often refer to the winning BCS team as the MNC, or the mythical national champion.

What's wrong with BCS?

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:53:11 -0500

While the BCS is an improvement over the old ways of bowl season in college football, it is not without its problems. The BCS only works well when two teams are clearly better than the rest. Problems arise when multiple teams from BCS conferences finish their seasons undefeated, or less than two teams finish undefeated and multiple one loss teams seem worthy of competing for the title. How can the best two teams be chosen? Preseason rankings come in to play in these situations.

If team A and team B are ranked #1 and #2 to start the season and team C is ranked #21, it will be very difficult for team C to pass team A or team B unless one of them loses a game or plays poorly. Otherwise, team C will get no higher than #3 and be left out of the national championship game despite being undefeated. In 2004, Auburn started the season ranked 18th in the Coaches poll. That season, USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all finished undefeated (in addition to Boise State and Utah, from non-BCS conferences). Auburn was the team left out of the championship game partially due to its low preseason ranking. They defeated Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl and finished undefeated and behind national champion USC.

In 2008, no BCS team finished the regular season undefeated. Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida were the front runners along with USC, all with one loss. Texas defeated Oklahoma by a score of 45-35 on a neutral field, but lost on the final play of the game at Texas Tech, 39-33. Oklahoma destroyed Texas Tech in Norman, OK 65-21. Utah was the lone undefeated team that season. While Utah was from a non-BCS conference, the Mountain West, they claimed victories over BCS teams at Michigan and against Oregon. They also claimed victories over #12 TCU and #14 BYU. The difficult situation of who would play in the championship game was very muddled and complicated. Florida appeared to be the top team, but the remaining teams were very close together. When the final BCS rankings came out, Oklahoma edged Texas by the smallest of margins for the final spot in the BCS Bowl. Texas defeated Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl, USC defeated Penn State in the Rose Bowl. Utah defeated #4 Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. Utah proved they could play with the BCS schools, yet finished the season ranked #3 behind Florida and USC.

The 2004 and 2008 seasons prove as excellent examples where it is not clear which teams should play for the national championship. Should non-BCS schools such as Utah be taken more seriously and be given the chance to play for the championship? Texas defeated Oklahoma and finished with the same record against similar opponents, yet Oklahoma was ranked higher in the end. Should Texas have been given the chance to play Florida instead of Oklahoma? USC destroyed then #5 Ohio State 35-3 early in the season and lost a close game at Oregon State for their only loss. Maybe they could have beaten Florida in the championship. The BCS doesn’t give any help in these situations, it is only designed to pit #1 versus #2.

BCS bowls generate a lot of revenue. Last season, BCS teams reaching a BCS bowl earned a revenue of $17 million for their conference. If a conference puts two teams in the BCS, the conference will receive an additional $4.5 million. Notre Dame on the other hand, receives $4.5 million if it reaches a BCS bowl or $1.3 million for its participation in the BCS process, as Notre Dame is an independent, non-affiliated with a conference. $9 million goes to non-BCS conferences, to split as a whole. If a team from a non-BCS conference reaches a BCS bowl, an additional $9 million is paid out to split among the conferences with the conference which placed the team getting about two-thirds of that amount (6).

As you can see, it is a very big deal to get into a BCS bowl. The conferences decide what to do with the money, some equally dividing it between the schools and others giving larger amounts to those school which reach the BCS games. For the non-BCS schools, this is a substantial amount of revenue. Consider San Jose State, a member of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), who is having financial difficulty in their athletic department. If Boise State were to become a BCS buster, San Jose State would receive $375,000(5). That amount of money is huge for the school. San Jose State isn’t alone. Many schools are in their position as well. In the BCS system, the rich get richer, or the big schools stay big and the small schools continue to struggle.

Teams like Utah, Boise State, and TCU continually are in position to be BCS busters, yet only one of these schools is guaranteed a BCS bowl regardless of how good their team may be. The BCS bowls will choose schools for their at-large bids based on how popular the school or team is. Texas and USC draw much bigger crowds and television ratings than small schools such as Boise State, Utah, Hawaii, TCU, etc. Therefore, the schools receive money, and consequentially more exposure, based on their popularity not necessarily their talent. The BCS bowls are viewed as having the top football teams in the nation go against each other, yet that isn’t always the case. Boise State and the Mountain West Conference have repeatedly called the system unfair and many others have argued that the BCS should be allowed to call its champion a “national champion” because the system doesn’t really provide an equal chance to every team.

Another problem with the BCS system is that the BCS rankings are composed of human voting. The problem with human voting is that humans can be persuaded and others may be biased. Television networks such as CBS and ESPN have contracts with conferences to televise their games. These networks have a lot to gain if teams from those conferences are highly ranked as fans nationwide continually tune in to watch top ranked teams more than those teams which are ranked lower. Humans can’t watch every game either. There’s only so much time one can devote to watching and evaluating college football games. Last season, one voter even admitted that he never even saw undefeated Utah play. This leads one to believe that some pollsters are voting based on what their hear or history or what is happening in their area.

Consider CBS. CBS televises only SEC games. Their network analysts could conceivably push SEC teams and players and try to promote their teams in the rankings. a better example would be ESPN when they have the rights to broadcast the BCS games. ESPN is one of the most popular college football distributor and could influence many voters. Obviously if a team from Los Angeles or a team with a huge fan base such as Notre Dame were to make a BCS bowl, ESPN would have a bigger television market to boost their ratings. This could come in to play as ESPN could try to position USC or Notre Dame to a higher ranking, getting them in position to qualify for a BCS bowl. These situations are hypothetical, but in a world dominated by money it is a realistic situation.

The most talked about, and most plausible solution to this is a College Football Playoff.

Playoffs

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:56:21 -0500

Every major NCAA sport has a playoff system. Even NCAA division II & III have football playoffs. Former NCAA Division 1-AA, now called FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) also has a playoff system which crowns a true champion. Conversely, the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision), crowns a “mythical” national champion because of its inability to truly create a fair opportunity for all teams.

A playoff system would allow a high number of deserving teams a chance to claim a national championship and give all teams a fair chance at hitting the money given to teams in the playoffs. Playoffs would require those schools to play a few more games, but given the long, sometimes 6 week break between the final regular season game and the bowl game, this is completely plausible (9).

Additionally, a playoff would create a true national champion, like in college basketball. College basketball’s playoffs are so much fun and create such a buzz that they are referred to as “March Madness” because of the upsets and cinderella teams (9). This would also be the case in college football. Imagine a team like Houston upsetting Southern California and Florida on its way to a national championship. It would create a huge interest among fans and television viewers. It would also eliminate the one game wonder teams such as Boise State, who defeated Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl with a slew of trick plays, including one on the final play of the game to claim victory. They may be able to beat a team like Oklahoma once, but not back to back teams. If they were able to win these games, there would be little doubt as to their relevancy and talent. Defeating teams consecutively leaves little doubt about a team’s talent.

Playoffs aren’t without its supporters. Some of the biggest coaches in College Football support a playoff system of some sort. Joe Paterno, College Football’s winningest coach of all time, has repeatedly said he supports a playoff system. His Penn State teams have gone undefeated numerous times, yet can only claim one national championship. Joe Paterno is one of the most respected coaches and has been coaching at Penn State since the 1950’s. Another coach in support of a playoff system is Texas’ Mack Brown (3, 4). He questionably campaigned for his Texas team to play in a BCS game at the Rose Bowl and successfully jumped a California team which had won its final game. This is another big reason for a playoff. Coaches no longer like to campaign for bowls. One way to do that is to win convincingly, running up the score. Mack Brown is one of the old school coaches who thinks its good enough to win and go easy on a defeated team by throwing his reserves out on the field in the fourth quarter with a big lead. This debate has led to playoff talk as well. Brown also questioned the system last year when his team finished third in the BCS polls behind Oklahoma, whom they beat on a neutral field (12). Head to head should trump any computer rankings. A playoff system would take care of that.

DeLoss Dodds, Texas’ Athletic Director, was asked in a chat prior to Texas playing Oklahoma this year what he personally thought about the BCS and the way it operates. Here’s his resonse:

“I'm a playoff guy and I've always been a playoff guy. I just like the idea of eight teams playing it off. I think it's the fairest way for the kids. It's the only sport I know that doesn't have a true championship. But the BCS is far better than what we used to have. It's kind of a middle ground and certainly makes a stab at getting the right two teams in the championship game (7).”

Perhaps the biggest supporter of a playoff system is USC’s Pete Carroll. He has repeatedly suggested the NCAA go to a playoff to determine the best team in the nation. He felt that his team in 2008 was deserving of a title game shot, but never got that chance. His teams have been both the beneficiary and the odd team out in the BCS system, playing in 3 championship games and being left out of another. He refused to campaign for his team to move up in the polls to have a chance to play as he feels its inappropriate to do so. Instead, he says, College Football should take care of it with a playoff.

Its had an ear in politics as well. Even President Barrack Obama has said the college football needs a playoff and mentioned it as he was running for President of The United States (11). When asked what he would change in sports he said he’ like to see playoffs in college football and said that he would look into it at some point, although it was not at the top of his priorities (10).

Recently a Political Action Committee (PAC) was formed to boost attention for a playoff in college football, arguing that the money distributed among conferences was unfair to those non-automatic BCS qualifying schools’ conferences (13).

The big question on a playoff is how would it work?

How Playoffs would work

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:50 -0500

My proposed playoff system would be a 14 team playoff. BCS conference champions would get an automatic bid and higher seeds than at-large/wild card teams. The #1 and #2 ranked teams in the last rankings of the regular season would earn a first round bye. The remaining 12 teams would consist of those conference champions and the top 6 remaining teams in the BCS rankings. The conference champions would be ranked #3-6 or 8 depending upon whether or not the top ranked teams are conference champions or not. The seeding would take place following the conference championships. For further clarification, let’s look at last years BCS rankings.

1. Oklahoma (12-1)
2. Florida (12-1)
3. Texas (11-1)
4. Alabama (12-1)
5. USC (11-1)
6. Utah (12-0)
7. Texas Tech (11-1)
8. Penn State (11-1)
9. Boise State (12-0)
10. Ohio State (10-2)
11. TCU (10-2)
12. Cincinnati (11-2)
13. Oklahoma State (9-3)
14. Georgia Tech (9-3)
15. Georgia (9-3)
16. Brigham Young (10-2)
17. Oregon (9-3)
18. Michigan State (9-3)
19. Virginia Tech (9-4)
20. Pittsburgh (9-3)

Now, the top 20 are listed here because #19 ranked Virginia Tech wins the ACC thereby getting an automatic playoff berth. This pushes #14 Georgia Tech out of the playoff picture, but Virginia Tech defeated GT in a head-to-head matchup earlier in the season. Based on the BCS rankings, Oklahoma and Florida gain first-round byes, and #1 and #2 seeds, by virtue of their #1 and #2 respective BCS rankings. Seeding continues with the conference champions by order of BCS ranking. Texas and Alabama were not conference champions so we skip them and go to USC. They earn the #3 seed by winning the PAC-10. Utah is not in an automatic BCS qualifying conference and Texas Tech did not win its conference. They are then skipped and Penn State gets the #4 seed by becoming the BigTen champions. Boise, Ohio State, and TCU are skipped for Big East champion Cincinnati for the #6 seed. Those 6 teams are the automatic qualifying conference champions. The final 8 seeds are then chosen in order of remaining BCS rankings. Texas would be seeded #7 followed by Alabama, Utah, and Texas Tech to round out the top ten. The final four remaining teams would be Boise State, Ohio State, TCU, and Oklahoma State. Again, we see that #14 Georgia Tech loses their berth because a conference champion, who is ranked lower, has taking the remaining spot. There is little controversy in this instance though because Georgia Tech plays in the same conference as Virginia Tech and had the opportunity to earn this berth on the field and was unable to do so. Even though automatic berths are not given to every NCAA FBS conference, three teams from non-automatic qualifying conferences have earned playoff berths, including two from the Mountain West conference. The Big East, PAC-10, and ACC conferences all end up with only one team representing their conference. The SEC and Big Ten each have two representatives while the Big 12 rounds out the 14 team playoff with four teams.

The first round would consist of the 8 v. 9, 5 v. 12, 4 v. 13, 7 v. 10, 6 v. 11, 3 v. 14. These are the seeds, not the BCS rankings. The rankings were used to create the seedings. The winner of the 8 v. 9 would advance to face the #1 team and the 7 v. 10 would advance to face the #2 team, tournament bracket style. This format is unlike the NFL (national football league) where the top ranked team always plays the lowest ranked team. This way, bowl schedules can be set. These four games would be played at the four major BCS bowls, the Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, and Rose. First round games would be held at the higher ranking teams home field, to possibly boost revenue for those home teams, or they could be played at the bowl fields which would have lost out on their team. The championship game would rotate through those four bowls every year. This format maintains the revenue for these bowls and for the bowls which would lose out on their teams. Each major BCS bowl would have 2 games played at their location, with one bowl having its game played during the first round.

Let’s take a look at last years BCS race and put it in this new playoff. Under this scenario, Virginia Tech would be able to seize a playoff spot by virtue of winning their conference championship, which would otherwise have gone to Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech, in this case, couldn’t really be too upset about it as they had their chance against Va. Tech and lost in a head to head matchup in conference play.

Looking at the playoff bracket using last years results, we can see some compelling matchups right away. Alabama vs. Utah wouldn’t look like much, but from last years Sugar Bowl, we know that Utah won. Ohio State vs. Cincinnati is a matchup that Ohio fans have been hoping for for years. On the other side, we immediately see Texas vs. Texas Tech. Who would win at the Cotton Bowl in a rematch? Don’t tell me the Cotton bowl wouldn’t love that matchup. The Holiday bowl would be able to continue its PAC-10 vs. Big 12 tradition and get a USC team it wouldn’t normally have any hope to have. The playoff round scheduling would be something like this:

Rd. 1 - Dec 20
Rd. 2 - Dec 27
Rd. 3 - Jan 3
Champ - Jan 10

This puts the championship just two days after the Jan. 8th date it was originally played on. Additionally, the players get an extra week of preparation for finals following their conference championship games. Top ranked teams would get three weeks to rest and be in top form with their hard earned bye. The games are all played on Saturdays, but could be changed for traditional January 1st dates and so forth.

Giving the top two teams a bye, forces teams to continue playing through the final game of the season. One argument against a playoff is that it would de-value the regular season. With this method, teams would be rewarded for being ranked so highly. Winning the conference also helps the school by allowing them to move up in seeding or jump into the playoffs, if they are outside the teams, by winning their conference. As we saw earlier, Virginia Tech was able to take advantage of this and get in over Boston College in the ACC championship game (Georgia Tech was doomed as the #14 ranked team, the highest in the ACC, since they did not make their conference championship). The regular season would not mean any less as a loss can put you far enough out of competition or give that team a poor seeding. Even if the last game didn’t mean as much, the extra games due to a playoff would more than make up for it.

Another mark against a playoff is that players would have games during their finals. Basketball teams are able to pull this off and there is a long time between bowl games and a teams final regular season game, sometimes 6 weeks. With the BCS bowls being on New Year’s Day, and the championship a week later, it means the first and second round games have three to four weeks to be played. A week can be taken off for finals and easily fit the playoff schedule in.

Another question is the money conferences receive from the BCS games. Just thinking rationally, wouldn’t two or three extra games be worth more money than one? The problem would be that more non-BCS schools would sneak in and take some of that money. The thing is, is that they would deservedly do so. Congress is already looking into the BCS and its fairness concerned to non-BCS conferences. The money would still be there in this playoff system and administrators would just have to deal with competing with everyone, instead of always getting a huge paycheck for the status quo.

Bowl traditions would continue for non-BCS bowls. As I said earlier, those bowls losing teams to playoffs could host the early rounds. Those schools qualifying for a bowl, but not the playoffs, would continue to play their bowl games. This is important for two reasons. One, it gives those schools revenue. Two, it gives the players and coaches a postseason to continue to play for and showcase their skills. Would it devalue those bowls? Sure. Sometimes change isn’t always bad, and some things must be sacrificed, but in the end it will be much more enjoyable for everyone.

Conclusion

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:07:37 -0500

The BCS did its job. It put the top two schools on the same field to determine a championship. That was the first step in fixing college football. What’s the next step? A playoff.

The BCS works perfectly when there are two teams, clearly better than everyone else. The problem is that it rarely happens. What does happen is upsets. They’re great for college football, they’re great in bowl games now, and they would be great in playoffs. Bowls choose teams based on revenue flow, not on talent. That should not be our version of choosing which team is best because it’s essentially a popularity contest. That’s also why a plus-one systems wouldn’t work, but this isn’t about that.

The playoff system would continue to put an emphasis on the regular season, rewarding the top two teams and those teams which win their conferences. It would reward the top 14 teams (unless a lower team wins their conference) and give them all a fair chance to be crowned a national champion. In addition, it would give meaning to the term “National Champions” instead of cans calling in the MNC.

The playoffs work fabulously in the FBS and in other sports, and actually generate a higher percentage of money than their regular seasons do. The playoffs are the next step. Sometimes older generations are reluctant to change, but change can be good. The BCS was debated and worked for a while but it isn’t perfect. The playoff system isn’t perfect either, but it will work for a while before it would need to be tweaked. The playoffs are the next in an evolution of college football’s postseason.

REFERENCES:
4. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/16/Sports/Playoffs_still_trump_.shtml
3. http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/11/25/1125texfoot.html
2. http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility
1. http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/history
http://www.volnation.com/forum/tennessee-vols-football/5278-athletic-budgets.html
5. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2009/10/26/boise-state-the-bcs-and-the-wacs-revenue-distribution-model/
6. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm
7. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-09-09-ten-changes-playoff-pros-cons_x.htm
"BCS Bowl Facts." Fox Sports on MSN. 3 December 2008 <http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/facts>.
8. "The BCS is ..." Fox Sports on MSN. 1 December 2008 <http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition>.
9. http://espn.go.com/melkiper/s/2001/1210/1293013.html
10. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/obamas-options-on-bcs-limited/
11. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3697109
12. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3708348
13. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/political.football/index.html
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/30336140/
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/3564/931836?cpt=8&title=football&wpid=0