A Modest (Playoff) Proposal
In what is almost certainly our most commented-upon post ever, Charlie gave an impassioned defense of the BCS structure as it stands today. While his opinion is certainly valid, and is one he shares with a number of other college football fans, I tend to see the debate in another light. For me, the only suitable way to crown a champion of NCAA Football is to play it out on the field. It shouldn’t come down to numbers, and computers, and subjective voters. Rather, we must allow 8 teams to make their case where it matters: on the gridiron, not on paper.
Charlie’s arguments are succinct enough. First, he claims that a team is only as good as it’s competition. Teams in BCS conferences typically face schedules with multiple ranked teams, and a conference schedule in which virtually every game is a potential upset. On the other hand, a BCS-busting team like Utah, Boise State, or Hawaii merely has to face watered down competition in their pursuit of perfection. And in the case of determining the top 2 teams in college football, Charlie might well be right, that usually, that team will come from one of the six power conferences.
Yes, it’s unlikely that one of the best two teams in college football in any given year will come from a mid-major conference. But it is also impossible to know whether this is fact or merely fiction. The old adage states that you can’t control who you play. Well, in college football this is mostly true, as each team’s conference slate is completely out of their hands. And though Charlie offers it as a throwaway option, joining a power conference is simply not an option for the majority of mid-major teams.
However, a weakened conference slate isn’t necessarily a reason to write off a team’s strength of schedule altogether. For instance, Central Michigan supplements their MAC schedule with games against Michigan State, Boston College, and Arizona, all three of which are on the road. Those three games are just about as tough as Penn State’s three toughest, playing Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan State or Illinois. And the Chippewas aren’t the only mid-major team who have been ambitious with their non-conference scheduling. Fresno State has games set up against Illinois, Wisconsin, and Cincinnatti. And while Utah’s schedule wasn’t that difficult last season, they still had to defeat Oregon State, who finished one win away from a rose bowl bid, Michigan, who certainly seemed more difficult in the preseason, and TCU, who was consistently ranked in the AP and Coaches Polls. You can’t totally dismiss the schedules, especially in a time when the Big Ten and Big East don’t boast much heavier competition. And add in the fact that the Mountain West Conference, which you dismiss so, went 6-1 against the Pac-10 in regular season play, and you have something that is far short of being cut-and-dry.
Furthermore, the whole strength of schedule argument is bogus in and of itself. While it’s not easy to compare two sports, we need look no further than the NCAA March Madness Tournament to understand why reduced competition doesn’t lessen a team’s championship potential. Memphis and Gonzaga, for instance, come from two of the worst conferences in college basketball. The skill level, aside from those two teams, in the WCC and Conference USA is simply an absolute joke. The two leagues are consistently one-bid conferences, with those bids going to the perennial powerhouses. But that doesn’t stop Memphis and Gonzaga from acheiving significant success in the tournament, with each team reaching the Final Four in recent years, and Memphis coming a miracle three pointer away from winning the NCAA Championship. If these teams can, given the opportunity, achieve significant success, why couldn’t the same thing happen in college football?
So if we’ve established that strength of schedule probably shouldn’t come into play, what other arguments exist for leaving the mid-major teams out of a championship proposal? Could it be money, in the form of attendance figures and advertising rates? T.V. ratings? Frankly, if the BCS exists to crown a champion, and not to make money, then each of these arguments hold less water than a bucket with a hole in it. It shouldn’t matter what conference a team is in, or who they’ve played, or how much revenue they pull in if they’re truly great team. And I, among many others, consider Boise State’s and Utah’s efforts, in recent years, to be just that.
Are you going to claim that Utah, who has the same 2 BCS wins since its inception as Penn State is truly a lesser program? Sure, 
they’ve dominated lesser competition, but they’ve beaten real good teams in big games. I won’t dismiss that blowout win against Alabama (the same Alabama team that came one game away from playing in the BCS Chanmpionship Game), as easily as you, nor will I discount their beatdown of Big East champion Pitt back in 2005. And how about Boise State, whose win over Oklahoma in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl might be the best game of football I’ve ever seen. That’s pure excitement right there. And I imagine it could’ve only been better if it meant the opportunity to move on and play for a championship. Sure, Hawaii got killed against Georgia in 2007, but that shouldn’t ruin it for everybody else. Non BCS-conference teams are 3-1 since the inception of the Bowl Championship Series. ACC teams are 2-9. When they’ve had the chance to compete on an equal playing field, it’s clear that non-BCS schools are just as good as their power conference counterparts. Why leave them out of an opportunity to play for the Crystal Football and the Championship? Because no matter how good that Utah or Boise State team is, they’ll never get the chance to be in the top 2. Charlie, you might see any school that isn’t fortunate enough to play in a BCS-conference as inferior by nature, but that’s just not the way it works. What system could possibly be less American than the BCS? If this is the land of opportunity, how can we tell the majority of schools and their football programs, and their fans, that no matter how good they’ll be, they’ll never be good enough to prove themselves worthy of the biggest stage in college football?
And that hasn’t even brought us to the equally ass-backwards thinking that has kept multiple legitimate, in your eyes, BCS conference teams from competiting for a chance at the championship. In 2004, LSU, USC, and Oklahoma each had 1 loss and an equal claim to stake for a spot in the championship game. Yet the BCS only allowed two of those teams to play on the field, resulting in a split national championship in which no consensus was reached, by fans, by voters, and by the media. But, no, having a playoff system to conclusively decide the situation is far less appealing than incurring controversy.
And that situation was topped the very next year, when an undefeated SEC team, in Auburn, was denied the chance at the NCAA championship game. Was it their fault that pollsters and computers deemed Oklahoma and USC more worthy of a title game appearance? What’s your answer, Charlie, and what’s the answer of BCS apologists for a damned good team from a power conference to get the shaft?
The only question is who’s next to get screwed. Penn State plays such an easy schedule in their nonconference that it’s not inconceivable to see them missing the championship game, even if they do run the table. When the media, in ESPN and it’s subsidiaries continue to spread the idea that the Big XII or the SEC are the best conferences in football, and that the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten are undeserving of being in their presence, when coaches with their own allegiances and computers which run on secret formulas are deciding the only two teams who can have a shot at the championship, then frankly, how can we even imagine that the BCS is beyond reproach? How can we begin to consider the idea that picking two teams, almost at random from a pool of deserving contenders, is more suitable for crowning the NCAA’s Champion than allowing 8 teams to play it on the field?
What follows is simply the easiest possible playoff scenario for the NCAA. Take the 6 BCS Conference Champions, the highest-ranked non-BCS school, and one at-large team. Seed them by BCS ranking. Let each of the playoff games be held at current bowl sites, and here’s the kicker: let the first round games be played at the nearest bowl destination to the higher seeded team. Sure, it makes the odds a little more difficult for the underdog, but it makes it easier to fill up arenas for three rounds. Think about it, if Penn State or Ohio State were to make the top 8 teams, and were ranked in the top 4, wouldn’t it be easier to fill up the Motor City Bowl in Detroit or the Eaglebank Bowl in Washington, D.C. than the Cotton Bowl in Dallas or the Peach Bowl in Atlanta?
Whether you re-seed after each round is immaterial. Let the semifinals and finals rotate amongst the current BCS bowls. But make sure to start this thing in the middle of December, and we’ll have our Championship Game on January 1st, when the college football season is meant to end.
This is the easiest scenario to envision gaining acceptance. The BCS Conferences will still get their revenue and auto-bids, the BCS Bowls still get the chance to host meaningful and championship games, and the mid-majors finally get their chance to break through and win a championship. And we, as fans, get to benefit from finally seeing a true college football champion crowned. For everyone who says the regular season doesn’t matter, well, you’ve lost your argument. With the exception of one team, you’re going to have to win your conference championship to get a chance to play for the title. And instead of just a small handful of games that truly matter to us fans, we now have 7 games that become must-watch material.
Sure, there may be some flaws in my proposal, but not nearly as many as exist in the collective minds of pro-BCS arguments. Let the record show that in the mind of this fan, the BCS is just one letter too many, if you’re trying to determine who’s really the champion of college football.
If a playoff system is good enough for college basketball, for college football at it’s other divisions, and for every other sport, pretty much, that exists on the planet, why should Division 1 college football be the lone outlier? Why must college football continue to invite controversy and arguments from those of us who think that any team that gets left out is one team two many? If it’s for money, which it probably is, then how can we possibly consider it a legitimate enterprise?
The short answer? We can’t.
Releated Posts:
- Explaining the BCS or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Orange Bowl
- Penn State’s Wild BCS Dream Scenario
- What now?
- Los Insight Bowl partners with ESPN to increase prestige and exposure
- The Tornado Alley Divide: MWC vs Big East
Beat me too it I see. Oh well.
I actually like the 16 team format, where each conference champion gets a shot at the big prize, and the best teams not to be named champs get a chance.
Oh well, the truth is nothing is likely to change in the near future in the form of an actual playoff format, no matter how many members of congress and the senate cry foul about it. It's all about money.
Devon, very well thought out post. Thanks for sharing. I can tell you really did weight cause and effect before you took your stance, and I respect that. Don't get me wrong, I do not respect the non-BCS conf. teams who schedule weakly (i.e. Boise State). Did you know Boise State's win over Oregon last year was its first EVER road win over a BCS-conf. team?
I agree with Kevin. The only fair playoff is one that lets in each conference champion. If it's an 8-team playoff, there's still some person or computer that has to choose between deserving teams.
One point I didn't even bring up in response to Charlie's post was the recruiting edge a school gets just from being in a BCS conference. Not only does Fresno State regularly beat Pac-10 teams right now, but if the Bulldogs ever joined the Pac-10 it would open up a whole new pool of recruits who thirst for BCS-conf. play. Then, maybe Fresno State doesn't have to go undefeated every year to have a shot at the national title.
By the way, in 2005, when Fresno State lost to No. 1 USC at the LA Coliseum by 8 points (after two late interceptions in the end zone by USC), there was talk the 'Dogs might still be BCS-worthy even with two losses (the other was to a top 10 Oregon team on the road). But Fresno State is the only non-BCS conf. team who garners that type of respect… and that's because Pat Hill will schedule “Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere.”
USC will probably never play the 'Dogs again after seeing the frightened look on Pete Carroll's face that night. Heck, that was the first time they'd EVER scheduled Fresno State despite the schools being a 3 1/2 hour drive away. How can that not be looked at as cowardly?
A really well thought out post in support of a playoff system. But let's not write off how it might devalue the regular season so quickly though. Let's take FSDogs1's example. Had USC lost that thrilling game to Fresno State at the end of the 2005 season, what difference would it have made had there been a playoff? Absolutely nothing.
USC, Texas, Penn State, Florida State, Georgia, West Virginia, and Ohio State would have been seeded into this proposed playoff. Had Ohio State won that 2005 playoff, that thrilling 17-10 win in Happy Valley would have meant little to nothing. How about if Florida State (the ACC champion that year) with 4 losses ended up winning the playoff? Can we really declare the Seminoles, who had lost to Virginia, NC State, Clemson and Florida during the regular season the undisputed college football champion by just winning this post season tournament?
Then let's take the 2006 season ending “game of the year” between the Buckeyes and Wolverines. It was the final game of the year and #1 Ohio State was set to battle #2 Michigan. Had your playoff been in place, heck if any sort of playoff were in place. That game would have meant as much as an All Star game in terms of significance. The only difference that game would have made would have been in determining which team would get the Big Ten automatic spot and which team would be the at-large. It wouldn't have mattered who won, or who lost. They were ranked #1 and #2 to end the season and the worst that could have happened is if there was a potential rematch in a playoff.
And had the Gators been upset in a playoff system by Wake Forest (lost to Louisville in Orange Bowl), Oklahoma (lost to Boise State in Fiesta Bowl), USC (who lost to UCLA to end the season), or even Michigan (lost to Ohio State), would a Oklahoma, Boise State, USC, Michigan, or even Notre Dame (lost in the Sugar Bowl that year) winner of your playoff be less controversial than the Gators?
Does a playoff provide a “fairer” way to determine a national champion? Probably yes, but possibly no. It sure provides a chance for teams that haven't done their best in the regular season to redeem themselves in the post season.
The Giants sure weren't undisputed 2007 champions, heck they didn't even win their own NFC East conference. Let's not forget they ended the season losing to the Patriots at home. But by stringing together 4 wins in a row, the Giants won their third attempt against the Patriots, and somehow they are considered the best team in 2007? I don't think so.
But in this BCS system, if a team hasn't shown its worth in the regular season to ensure a spot in the top 2, the team is as much to blame as the system. As a Penn State fan I am extremely nervous about missing the title game should we go undefeated this year, but I won't blame the BCS for it. We seemingly went out and picked the worst team from each division to play this year and expect to get a free ride into the title game when we have 4 automatic wins against high school caliber teams?
When teams get left out in our current system, the controversy should not be blamed on a system that does an infinitely better job than the old bowl tie-ins in creating a championship matchup, but on the teams itself. The 2004 Auburn Tigers had the same flaw that our 2009 Nittany Lions will face should they go undefeated. Their non conference schedule consisted of ULM (U of Louisiana Monroe, I had to look it up), The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. They ended up only facing 3 ranked teams during the regular season before the SEC championship game.
Should they have been given a shot at the title game? Probably, but you don't play a schedule like that and be in the position to demand anything. Penn State's basketball team learned that the hard way last year.
I applaud your great argument for a playoff, but it would destroy what I love about college football and render it a mini version of the NFL where I don't bother watching the first half of the season anyways. And people have to come up with a better argument than “an unfair way to determine a national champion” to ruin the sport I love. I have no problem with ending the season being declared Rose Bowl champions rather than College Football Playoff Second Round participants any day of the week.
A play off would do nothing to hurt the regular season, in fact it would probably enhance it. You enjoy watching the first part of the season right now? Yeah watching Florida destroy FCS teams three straight weeks in a row is as thrilling as it gets. If college football had a play-off than team like Florida would be more likely to schedule other big name schools because it wouldn't hurt their NC chances if they lost.
You say it would give teams a chace to re-deem themselves (which isn't a bad thing). Yet this last year, two teams with losses were playing for the NC while the ONLY undefeated team was in the Sugar Bowl…. A play-off simply does this: It's lets the players (from all deserving teams) decide on the field who goes home as champions. Which is infinitely better than letting a bunch of old men “decide” the two best teams.
Enhance it how? By reducing the importance of Florida actually needing to destroy those FCS teams? With a playoff, Florida could lose to one FCS team and no one would need to blink twice as long as they win the rest of their division. You are only contradicting yourself by claiming a playoff enhances the importance of the regular season, but it allows teams schedule tougher because a loss wouldn't hurt their title shots. Doesn't that in fact devalue the regular season?
If anything, it allows them to set up more compelling match ups because it does in fact devalue a loss in the regular season making it more acceptable. How would turning college football into the NFL where a few losses are negligible be good for the sport? It is the notion that a loss at any point of the season whether it be the season opener to Appalachian State, or a late season loss to Iowa that means the life or death of a team's playoff chances. Once that happens, the fate of the teams are left up to backroom dealings and media politicking. That my friends, is the sport I love. Like I said, I would much rather be remembered as Rose Bowl champions, than NCAA Division I-A Playoff Second Round participant any day of the week.
The problem is the conference inequity. What we need is a super conference realignment that weeds out legit contenders from others and puts every team in a conference that's on an equal playing field. Obviously Idaho, for example, doesn't belong in this realignment with a tiny stadium and tradition of losing almost every game.
But for cryin' out loud bump the teams like Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, BYU, Utah, TCU, Colorado State, Air Force, etc. up to an equal level because those schools have all proven that they can compete at that level.
And, yes, BAN the games against Division I-AA teams!
The teams you just mentioned. Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, BYU, Utah, TCU, Air Force would make a great conference. I'd leave out Colorado State though. Even in 2009 that conference would be highly competitive against the ACC and Big East. Unfortunately like many have pointed out due to my earlier sarcastic recommendation, conference realignment is not as easy as waving a wand. But imagine the possibilities of this new conference consisting of those schools. I'd include Bowling Green and East Carolina too.
I never said a play-off would enhance the importance of the regular season, I was implying that a play-off would make the regular season more fun to watch because we would see alot more match-ups between the big name schools instead of watching FCS teams get slaughtered for the first 4 weeks. he current system is already like the NFL (if your in the right conference). How often do we have two undefeated teams in the NCG?
I would rather see kids decide who takes home the NC trophy on the field, rather than watching one hand-picked game for it and 4 other exhibition .
I never said a play-off would enhance the importance of the regular season, I was implying that a play-off would make the regular season more fun to watch because we would see alot more match-ups between the big name schools instead of watching FCS teams get slaughtered for the first 4 weeks. he current system is already like the NFL (if your in the right conference). How often do we have two undefeated teams in the NCG?
I would rather see kids decide who takes home the NC trophy on the field, rather than watching one hand-picked game for it and 4 other exhibition .