FanPost

College Football Needs a Playoff System and Not the BCS

Seeing as how we've recently had a minor playoff/BCS debate, I figured this wonderful post from Quinn had to be bumped to the front page.

I'm looking forward to the day 50 years from now when my grandson looks to me and says, "Grandpa, so is it true when you were young that college football actually would have computer and polls choose its national champion without a playoff system?" I'll have to respond, "yes, that's true and I can't explain why that was." To me, it seems like the opportunity to have a college football playoff would be a combination of March Madness and the Super Bowl. It would be amazing I'd like to share some thoughts on the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system in college football. As you can tell from this post's title, I hate the BCS. It makes no sense and borders on ridiculous. Currently, there are 32 bowls with 64 teams participating. So, in effect, 54% of the 119 Division I-A teams make it to the post-season, which is too much, while there is only one game to determine the national championship, which is too little.

To start, I think it would be important to give a little history on the bowl system. The crux of the bowls were created in the 1930s and 1940s in order to have the winners of various conferences play each other. So, as we know, the winners of the Big 10 and Pac 10 met in the Rose Bowl each year, and so on. So, in today's modern sports world, we are basing a champion on a system almost 70 years old. My favorite example demonstrating how antiquated this system is occurred in 1956 when Oklahoma won the national championship (according to the polls) without even playing in a bowl. This was because teams couldn't play in bowl games in consecutive years so Oklahoma had to turn down the invite from the Orange Bowl. Keep in mind, readers, that this is the "logic" that the bowl system is based upon. It makes no sense.

I think the single biggest catalyst to cause a playoff is what I call the "hissy-fit theory." There needs to be a coach (or team) that is so mad that his team got shafted from a chance at the championship (or a BCS bowl) that he very publicly criticizes the BCS and refuses to have his team participate. Kind of like boycotting the current system until a new one is put in place. I was hoping Tommy Tuberville would do this in 2004 when his ridiculous undefeated Auburn team didn't play in the national championship game and instead played Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Tuberville mildly criticized the BCS earlier this year when his team was ranked #2 and still facing a very difficult schedule. Rather than listening to the points he made, members of media shot back at Tuberville after they lost to Arkansas saying he jinxed himself by talking about the BCS. That concept reminds me of Moneyball when Michael Lewis described how scouts based their rankings of pitchers on how fast they throw and if they have the "look" rather than looking at actual historical data and trends. So instead of spending time to determine whether a playoff system would actually improve college football, everyone talked about Tuberville jinxing himself and being superstitious.

I suppose if you criticize the current system, you must offer an improvement. Here's my suggestion (which isn't original):

  • Start with an eight-team playoff system with the main bowls (4 BCS bowls plus Cotton, Gator and a rotating championship game) to host the seven games of the tournament.
  • Keep the roster of other bowls in their current format for the remaining games. Just because there is a playoff doesn't mean that the Sun Bowl, Humanitarian Bowl, Motor City Bowl and others have to go away if there's a playoff.
  • Make the college football season a standard 10 or 11 games so that the most games a team could play is 14 (11 regular season + 3 playoff games for finalists), which is the same number of games that many teams play today.
  • If administrators are so concerned about football players being distracted from class for an extended period of time, then they shouldn't have teams sit idle for the month of December awaiting the bowl season. If that's such a concern, then have the playoffs soon after the season ends. I don't wholeheartedly support this suggestion because I think college football championships will always be around New Year's, but I'm just trying to address a concern of administrators.
-Eventually build the eight-team tournament to include 16, 24 or 32 teams after everyone realizes how amazing the playoffs are.

There are several important constituencies involved in the decision-making process of whether to have a playoff system or not and let's take a look at each.

University Presidents - ESPN conducted a poll in 2002 which said that presidents and ADs prefer the bowls to a playoff 8:1. However, I think the biggest misconception involves the university presidents because this poll is quoted frequently but is dated information. If you examine the university presidents from the AP Top 25 schools from week 8, the median tenure of the group is only four years at the top post. In other words, these decision-makers at the "power" schools aren't 30 year veterans on the job who have spent years forming an opinion on the BCS and bowl system. Most of them had assumed their post since ESPN conducted the poll in 2002! The perception is that the presidents are a bunch of greyhairs sitting in a back room lighting their cigars with 100-dollar bills. Quite the contrary, the university presidents, as a whole, are new to the job and looking to serve the best interest of their college.

Players - Cnnsi.com's recent poll said 73% of players would like to see a playoff.  That seems low to me.  Two years ago, I suspect that Ohio State would have traded their bowl victory versus Notre Dame for a shot at Texas. Or what about Auburn's recent undefeated team that didn't get a shot at the championship game. Do you think their players would want a playoff system? Hmm...

Coaches - I'm a little confused why coaches are split on the bowl system. A lot of coaches actually prefer the bowl system due in large part to the "tradition" of the bowl system and the negative effects on the players due to an extended season (ie, injuries and time away from class). I'll address these issues later.

Fans - ESPN conducted a poll and an astounding 84% of fans prefer a playoff system. My anecdotal evidence is that 100% of fans want a playoff. How many times have you had a 30 minute debate on college football playoffs before you and your friends realize that everyone is in complete and total agreement that playoffs are best.

Athletic Directors - Similar to the coaches, this group has serious concerns about athletes missing class due to an extended season. They also stress the "tradition" of the bowls. However, the fact of the matter is that fan grumblings play a large role in the job security of the ADs so their opinion could be changed.

To demonstrate my overall point on the playoff process, I'm going to share a few miscellaneous thoughts as background:

Length of Season - One of the criticisms of the playoff system is that it would extend the football season too long. Right now, many teams play 12 regular season games, the bowl game and in many cases the league championship game. So some teams play 14 games. If a 11-game schedule was set for teams and conference championship games eliminated, then only two teams in the country (the finalists) would play 14 games.

Inequality - Sports are supposed to crown its champions through a balance, equitable path to the championship. The lack of equality in college football could be the most amazing thing about the whole debate because some teams and conference get preferential treatment. I laughed the other day when I saw the BCS website and noticed the conference logos at the top of the page. The logo on the right caught my eye because it's not the logo of a conference, but rather it's Notre Dame's logo. This school, one of 119 teams competing for the national championship, is treated as its own conference. Notre Dame is polarizing and is either loved or hated by every household in America and therefore can draw big ratings and garner special exceptions.

Besides Notre Dame, the BCS has other examples of inequality. In 1998, a loaded Kansas St. team (Michael Bishop and company) finished #3 in the BCS standings after getting nipped by Texas A&M in the Big 12 championship and losing the automatic berth. The BCS bowls didn't feel like K-St. was a worthy-enough team so they surpassed the Wildcats and chose Ohio St. (#4) and Florida (#8) instead.

Why Do Some Schools Even Field a Team? - I'd like to ask members of the Boise St. football team what their goal is each season. Their goal certainly isn't to win a national championship because that's impossible. Even an undefeated, unblemished, unscored-upon Boise St. team could never make it all the way to the top of the BCS standings. So is their goal at the beginning of the season to make it to the Liberty Bowl to play in 30 degree weather in Memphis in December? This year, I suppose, they have a chance to make a BCS game because of the additional fifth game, but what does that matter? Will they really feel great about finishing undefeated and 6th in the country? It just seems silly that teams can suit up for two-a-days in August and battle through the season knowing all along that they don't have a chance to be the champion, no matter how well they play.

What Does Auburn Tell Recruits? - A similar point to the above paragraph is amplified when you bring it into the context of bigger football powerhouses. Auburn, annually one of the best teams in the mighty SEC, did everything it needed to do in 2004. The Tigers went undefeated, beat four top 10 teams, beat Tennessee twice and had three of the first nine draft picks. In other words, the were perfect in the unbelievable tough SEC. However, the BCS didn't give them a chance because USC and Oklahoma were also undefeated and ranked higher. People in Alabama really care about their recruiting as evidenced by the detail on the individual recruits on this website. I'd like to hear the salespitch that they tell recruits. Certainly the recruiters mention the opportunity to play in the SEC, the opportunity to make it to the NFL and the opportunity to play in front of 88,000 fans. However, they can't tell the recruits that if they go undefeated that they'll play for the national championship. Because that's simply not true.

If Everybody Else Is Doing It, It Must Be Right - Administrators of college football must look around and wonder why everyone is so silly. That is, why are all these other leagues and other sports determining their champion with a tournament? Baseball, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and tennis, among numerous others, all have tournaments. Besides that, Pop Warner leagues, high school leagues, every other NCAA football division and the NFL all determine their champions on the field of play. What makes college football so unique that their way of choosing a champion is somehow better?

The League Championship Games Make No Sense - There's been a big trend in the last 15 years to build a 12-team league and have a final championship game to send a team to the BCS. I'm sure that these games bring in some pretty decent money for the conferences (no doubt that Dr. Pepper pays up for the sponsorship), but it seems like the risks for the teams are more costly. For example, let's say Florida was undefeated heading into the SEC Championship Game and #2 in the BCS standings. They have absolutely zero incentive to play this game because a loss costs them a chance at the national championship. It's nearly impossible to win a championship in college football with a loss so therefore teams should want to avoid all chances to lose. However, that's not the case because teams risk their entire seasons by playing an extra game against a dangerous opponent. If I was a Florida fan in the above example, I would be particularly frustrated because other conferences (Pac 10, Big East, others) can send a team to the national championship game without playing in a difficult conference championship game.

The System Does Not Encourage Teams to Improve Over the Season - To win a national championship in college football, teams need to be at their peak at the beginning of the season because a loss, at any time, squashes your chances. Look at UCLA's basketball team this past season. They weren't the second-best team in the country in November but improved throughout the season to make it to the championship game. This type of trajectory for teams isn't encouraged in college football because teams are punished for just one loss.

College Football Has Co-National Champions - Spend 10 seconds thinking about this and you realize how bad it is. There have been some split national champions in the recent past (Colorado/Georgia Tech and Nebraska/Penn St.) which would have been great to determine on the playoff. What frustrated me last year was hearing how USC was poised to "three-peat." Hmmm...how is that possible considering that LSU beat Oklahoma in the BCS national championship game two years prior? Oh wait, USC wasn't selected to play in the agreed-upon system, yet was ranked #1 in a different poll. What...a...joke.

Is Money the Issue? - There is the belief that the bowl system makes so much money that it could never be replaced. C'mon, this is America. If someone can't figure out a way to make more money than that with a playoff system, then shame on us. Just as a point of reference for your information, CBS paid $6 billion for an 11 year contract to cover the NCAA tournament while Fox paid $320 million over four years to show the BCS games. Granted the basketball tournament has more games / nights included and the football contract doesn't include the Rose Bowl, but it's an interesting comparison nonetheless.

Some Teams Have No Incentive to Schedule Tough Games - Again, college football teams need to avoid losses because it would cost a team a chance at the championship. As a result, many teams refuse to schedule difficult non-conference opponents. This is a philosophical difference compared to college basketball because in basketball coaches want to schedule difficult games to prepare the team for similarly difficult matchup later in the season (notably March). I always am confused when you hear that many football teams have difficulty filling their schedules. To me, it seems like every team needs to play a game each week so the matchups should all fall into place. Let's take a look at Texas. They have played Ohio State each of the past two years, even though the Longhorns compete in a very difficult conference. I don't understand why either team would schedule this game. If they go undefeated, there's a great chance that they will play for a title. However, this matchup automatically will give one of these contenders a loss. ADs will say that games like this are great for the fans. I'm confused, though, are you supposed to appease the fans or win championships?

On the topic of scheduling, I'm also confused why top teams schedule games against the very bottom of Division I-A (ie, Temple, Buffalo, etc.) or even I-AA teams. Those teams are only a terrible drag on your strength of schedule. Why wouldn't you simply play a decent middle-of-the-pack team (ie, Oregon St., Southern Miss, Northwestern, Wyoming) that you have a high degree of confidence that you will beat, but won't hurt your computer ratings. Again, looking at Texas, their non-conference schedule consisted of a huge opponent (Ohio St.) and three weak ones (North Texas, Rice and Sam Houston St.). Wouldn't a non-conference schedule of Oregon St., Southern Miss, Northwestern, Wyoming give the Longhorns a better chance to be undefeated and probably be better in the computer ratings as well?

Are We Trying to Find the Best Team or the Team with the Toughest Schedule - All the time, you hear people saying, "this team isn't any good because they haven't beaten anybody" or "Team X stinks because they haven't played anybody." This makes no sense to me because the "best" team doesn't necessarily have to beat the top opponents to be the best team. For example, say the Chicago Bears suited up as Northern Illinois and played in the MAC conference. They would beat each opponent (of course) but few people would give them much credit because their opponents weren't good enough. Certainly they would be the best team in America, but wouldn't get a chance to play for the title because the strength of schedule component of the BCS rankings would hurt them. So, basically, the BCS standings measure the teams with the best schedules, but not actually the best teams.

The "Tradition" of the Bowls is Actually Pretty Thin - Everyone (especially the ADs) will talk about the steep tradition of the bowl system that they don't want to disrupt. However, of the 32 bowls this year, only 14 of them have been in existence since 1991. Sure, I admit that the Rose Bowl (since 1902) has a great deal of tradition and so do the Orange, Sugar and Cotton which have been around since the mid-1930s. But I don't think that is enough to impair the development of the college football playoff system because you can't mess with the Rose Bowl parade. Plus, I speculate that the other 18 newer bowls are teetering on profitability and are always at risk at being around next year. However, even with an eight-team playoff system, many of the secondary bowls could still occur each year. For example, the Liberty Bowl could still exist in its current format with teams outside of the playoff.

In summary, I think it is pretty obvious that the playoff system is the most appropriate method of choosing a national champion. To get this to occur, the decision makers need to be convinced that the combination of March Madness and the Super Bowl would be a good thing for college football. The quickest way to do this, in my opinion, would happen when a top team boycotts its invitation to play in a bowl which does not lead to a shot at the national championship.