I've already told you I won't discuss politics here, so really there's only one thing this could be about. For those of you who don't remember, Obama commented on the need for playoffs in college football just prior to and then again shortly after the election: "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system...I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this."
While I'm not sure that every fan of college football agrees, I certainly do. This year shows, once again, why the current system is not enough. Yes, we are guaranteed to have the top two teams play each other at the end of the season, which is far beyond where we were at the beginning of the 90's, but determining which two teams play is still problematic. Is there anyone who can reasonably argue for complete exclusion of Texas, Texas Tech or Oklahoma from title contention? The newest BCS ranking place Oklahoma above both of the other teams (including Texas, who beat them by ten points), meaning that it will require near-miraculous circumstances to allow either of the other Big XII schools into the title game. In addition, three teams from mid-major conferences (Utah, Boise State and Ball State) have gone or are looking to go undefeated, but none of them will make the title game and likely only Utah will get to play in one of the BCS bowls. Should these teams not have a shot? The only way to make sure everyone has a reasonable chance at winning the title is by having playoffs.
How would I do it? I'm hardly breaking new ground here, since just about every fan has his or her own plan, but here are the rules I would use.
The playoff would be a 16-team, four-round playoff, just like the FCS (or Division I-AA, if you prefer) uses.
All teams must be a member of a conference. (Sorry Notre Dame, Army and Navy. Go join the Big 10, Big East and Big East, respectively.)
All conferences will institute a championship game.
Each school will play 11 games in the regular season (meaning 12 if they are in the conference championship).
The first 6 spots in the bracket will be filled by the winners of the current BCS conferences. This can be evaluated in the future, but at this point these conferences have proven that they deserve to be in the running every year, while the winner of a mid-major conference like C-USA may not.
The remaining 10 spots in the playoffs will be filled by the next 10 highest ranked teams. The BCS rankings as currently established could be used, but adding the Associated Press poll back into the formula would be beneficial. This system would assure that any mid-major team ranked within approximately the top 16 would be given a spot in the playoffs.
There is no reason to eliminate bowl games. Any team not advancing beyond the first round, including those with a winning record who did not make the playoffs, would be eligible for a bowl game. This will serve as a reward at the end of the season just as it does now. Optionally, larger bowl games such as Cotton, Rose, Sugar and Orange can be used as the late round playoff games.
Other ideas which would be helpful, but which would require further work include expansion to a 20-team playoff, as is planned for the FCS, and conference reconfiguration: There are 120 teams in the current FBS, a number perfectly suited to 10 conferences containing two six-team divisions. This would require some current conferences to contract, some to expand and one to be eliminated (sorry Sunbelt).
I know. I can already hear the same exact complaints that come up every time someone suggests a playoff.
"It's already a playoff that starts in August. Every game counts and it wouldn't if you had playoffs." First, if you think that every game counts right now, just ask Texas about how much the Oklahoma game counts. Second, a limited playoff system would not mean that every other game doesn't count. You would only be playing 11 games prior to the playoffs and losing even one would dramatically impact where your team would land in the playoffs. Every game would still count, but your ability to make up for a mistake (the team's or the voters') would increase.
"I love the bowls and the tradition." Really? A big fan of the EagleBank Bowl are you? There is no reason to eliminate all the bowls if people still want them. There is no reason not to integrate them with the playoff, in fact I'm all for that. But even if bowls had to go away completely, the only thing you'd be trading is one game with a name for an unnamed game that has much more meaning. the argument for tradition in bowl games went out the window when I had to watch the OS/2 Fiesta Bowl.
"These are student athletes, and a playoff would extend make them play too many games." I honestly don't know how to respond to that one other than to call it a complete lie. The playoff system I described requires an 11-game season (one less than the current season) followed by a conference championship game and a four-round playoff. That is a maximum of 16 games. While a few schools would play more games, most would play the same number or possibly one less. In addition, the FCS currently has a four round playoff after teams play schedules of up to twelve games. So, if playing 16 games is too much for these student athletes, why isn't it too many for the ones in lower divisions? Is their academic progress less important?
"It won't make enough money." Go talk to the people in charge of the NCAA basketball tournament and see if the playoff system there is making them any money. Does anyone really believe that you can get a company to sponsor a bowl game between the 4th ranked team from the WAC and the 7th ranked team from the Big 10, but you won't get any money from playing a series of games featuring the top 16 teams in the country? The issue isn't about whether it will make money. The issue is that the people making the decisions are predominately from BCS conferences and they are afraid that a playoff means that more money will go to someone else, and they won't make a move until it is absolutely forced.
Like I said, this is hardly breaking new ground. It's just one fan's ideas, but I believe the ideas are sound. So, Mr. President-elect, if you are going to "throw your weight around a little bit" and get this done, and you need somebody who has thought about this a little too much, I'm your man. Of course, you could always go with someone who's actually qualified instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment