College Football Postseason Changes: A Plus-One Isn't Enough
by Brian Favat on Jan 10, 2012 12:00 PM EST
in Boston College Football
Email
PrintIf you do nothing else today, read Eagle in Atlanta's epic BCS rant following Alabama's 21-0 victory over LSU in the BCS National Championship game rematch. / Co-signed.
Because the regular season totally matters, right?
On a more positive note, looks like last night's Crimson Tide BCS coronation may have finally been the result that brings changes to the BCS.
"NEW ORLEANS - Change may be coming to college football's championship structure.
Eleven conference commissioners will meet here Tuesday, the day after LSU and Alabama tangle in the BCS national championship game at the Superdome, to open talks about the way the sport selects its champion.
Implement a plus-one, a four-team playoff where semifinal winners meet for a championship?
Have the BCS get out of the major bowl business and just select the finalist field, with a rating formula or selection committee?
Or no change at all."
My money is on the BCS creating a plus-one, four-team playoff model starting in 2014, with the four BCS bowl cities rotating hosting duties for the national semifinals and the championship game. The BCS may also extricate itself from the process of selecting the bowl participants for the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls, allowing those four bowls to go back to their traditional conference tie-ins.
Unfortunately, the move to a plus-one only further entrenches the BCS status quo and really does nothing to further the playoff cause. In a four-team plus-one this year, No. 4 Stanford would have made it over No. 5 Oregon, the Pac-12 champ that beat the Cardinal by three touchdowns. Controversy remains, not to mention there are far too few spots in a playoff for a sport with 120+ programs.
If the sports powers-that-be are really serious about changing the sport for the better, here are a few suggestions on what needs to change.
1. Prohibit games between I-A and I-AA opponents. The only thing your program's annual I-A vs. I-AA game is good for is an extra Saturday of tailgating and your improved disposition after you finish watching your program put the hurt on a hapless I-AA opponent. Sure, the I-A vs. I-AA game has produced a few memorable moments over the years -- Michigan vs. Appalachian State, Virginia Tech vs. James Madison, and all those Duke losses to Richmond -- but those outcomes are few and far between. These games would still technically be allowed, but a program would not get credit towards the postseason.
2. Teams from power conferences (the BCS AQ conferences of the future plus Army, Navy, BYU and Notre Dame) can only play 1 non-AQ a year. This will be the most controversial, but what this does is essentially creates another tier within Division I-A. Apply the rule about I-AA opponents (and bowl eligibility) above and apply it to games against a team from one of the non-BCS AQ conferences. Can a program continue to play more than one non-AQ team a year? Sure, but don't expect the outcome of that game to count towards qualifying for the postseason (see below).
3. All Division I-A conferences are required to have a conference championship game. This levels the playing field a bit and would require the Big 12 (currently at 10 teams) and the Big East (will be at 10 teams) to stage a championship game. This could be achieved one of two ways -- further expansion to 12 teams, or relaxing the requirement that a conference needs 12 teams (scaling back down to 10?).
4. Make an AQ decision about Conference USA / Mountain West. This is only related to point 2, but ultimately will not affect the playoff format. If Conference USA and the Mountain West do go through with an all-sports merger, a decision will have to be made on whether they are to be a BCS AQ conference (in today's terms) or a non-AQ conference. Adding a merged Conference USA-Mountain West to the ranks of the AQs would push the total number of programs to 91 (14 SEC + 14 ACC + 12 Big Ten + 12 Pac-12 + 10 Big 12 + 10 Big East + 4 independents + 15 C-USA-MWC).
5. Create a 6-team playoff. There are numerous playoff-format proposals out there, but six seems pretty reasonable to me. No. 4 plays No. 5 and No. 3 plays No. 6, both games on the campus of the higher seed the week following the conference championship games. The top two seeds receive first round byes, which rewards top seeds and serves to place a greater emphasis on regular season results.
6. National Semifinals and Championship Game. Just like the Final Four, allow host cities to put in bids to host both the National Semifinals and the Championship Game. Don't restrict the locations to the sites of the four current BCS bowl games.
7. Six-team playoff field determined by selection committee. Compare resumes using measures like SOS, overall record and hell, reuse the BCS rankings as an additional metric if you wanted. Same as it is in men's basketball. Fairly straight forward, right?
8. Eliminate automatic qualifying conferences. There shall be no automatic berths awarded to the playoff. The selection committee will select the top six programs in the country. The committee's decision will be made a bit easier, however, based on every I-A conference having a conference championship game, eliminating games against I-AA teams, limiting games against today's non-AQ conferences and encouraging more matchups between BCS AQ conference members. This also allows programs like Notre Dame to remain independent. The Irish's overall resume would be compared against every other program's resume. The downside here is that you could end up with 4 SEC programs, but I think there would be a sufficient weeding-out process if you limited the number of creampuffs in non-conference play and encouraged more games between AQ conference opponents (because who else are you gonna play in those 3 other games?).
9. Let the bowl system continue to operate business as usual. ESPN wants 35 bowl games? Cool. Allow them to operate as they do today. The only change will be removing the BCS selection process from the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls, allowing those bowls to return to their traditional conference tie-ins. The National Semifinals and National Championship Game would be scheduled much the way the BCSNCG is today -- on a separate night to maximize TV ratings.
10. Eliminate bowl ticket guarantees. Because I'm pretty sure they are quasi-illegal.
14 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Saw this article in the comments of ATL’s article. It’s a must read. About 10 minutes of it and you’ll see what a joke the bowl system really is.
The downside with a formula is that they are always going to tweak it in response to some controversy or some team left out. Personally, I’d rather hockey go with a selection committee same as basketball and other NCAA sports.
Editor, BC Interruption
Obviously I’m biased , but your point #2 is arbitrary. I mean why not kick out the ACC sans FSU, Miami and VT based on the rest of the league’s BCS non-competitiveness?
No, it's not arbitrary
It serves to level the playing field when selecting teams for a playoff. This would prevent teams like Virginia Tech from playing a non-conference schedule of Appalachian State, East Carolina, Marshall and Arkansas State and earning a spot in the BCS / playoff … or Alabama from playing Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern.
It also encourages more games between BCS AQ programs, which would help weed out potential playoff teams and place a greater emphasis on the regular season.
Editor, BC Interruption
BC can still play UMass annually. Just not Maine, Stony Brook, New Hampshire, Weber State or other crappy I-AA program. And no more MACrificial lambs.
Editor, BC Interruption
That rule would have had a very minimal impact on the last 10 years of BC non-conf. schedules since we’ve scheduled Notre Dame, Syracuse, Northwestern, Army, BYU, etc.
Once you throw out all the I-AA games, the only years where this rule would have impacted BC were 2006 (Central Michigan and Buffalo) and 2009 (Kent State and Central Michigan).
Editor, BC Interruption
- is interesting, but in reality for this to work the semifinals would absolutely have to be on campus. For argument’s sake, let’s say it’s Alabama vs. Virginia Tech and USC vs. Ohio State in the national semifinals — and Indianapolis won the rights to host the “Final Four” two or three years prior. I think it’s a bit far-fetched to expect fans from Alabama, Virginia, and California to remain in a city for a week in between games, or come back on back-to-back weekends….Ohioans could probably pull it off based on proximity (again, argument’s sake).
I understand this is idea is supposed resemble an Bball Final Four, but in reality you cannot ask fans to do that for a week straight. Finding 10-20,000 people from a concentrated locale (spare me the national alumni argument) to spend a week in a certain destination to watch their team is asking a lot. I understand that fans absolutely make vacations out of their bowl trips, but this is a bit over the top. Any city can bid for the finals, that is fine, but the semifinals should absolutely be kept on campus.
Works the same, and places more emphasis on regular season by rewarding #1 and #2 even more with home field in semifinals.
Editor, BC Interruption
You make some very good
points Brian, and I generally have the utmost respect for yours and A.J.‘s opinions along with others here on the blog; but I was dissapointed by your sentiments on the game last night (This point references the previous post). Yes with two great defenses you are going to have a low-scoring game with a lot of field goals. I thought it was a fantastic game with two defenses who are putting over a dozen players in the NFL in the very near future. I hope you are not of the fantasy football obsessed, offense mongering Bill Polianites of the world who have helped make defense in the NFL a joke. One of the primary consistencies amidst the recent Boston College football nosedive has been a stellar defense year in and year out. I don’t want to be Baylor. I take pride as a Boston College, Ohio State and Alabama football fan in great defense (I’m from Western PA and my girlfriend is from Homewood, AL, hence my other loyalties).
I understand the problems with the BCS and I am completely behind a playoff system, but I think what gets lost amidst anti-SEC hysteria is still the fact that just about every pundit and expert in the college football agreed that these are the two best teams in college football. And they were. It would have been a shame in my humble opinion if Oklahoma State because of anti-BCS sentiment was voted into the National Championship game. All you had to do is beat Iowa State.
As much as the Boston College move to the ACC was absolutely the right move and shows leadership and shrewdness that I can’t believe this athletic department ever had, the ACC has been incredibly underwhelming on the football field since that time. That is not the BCS or the SEC’s fault. If the ACC or Big East, etc. had a team who was could run the table, especially for multiple years, I believe they would have had a shot at the National Title. I apologize I am at work so I am not able to flesh out my argument as well as I would like.
In summary, defense = good football, NFL = fantasy, arena football run amuck
BCS does a pretty bang up job given the shortcomings that is saddled with
Anti-SEC bias gets old and the rest of college football needs to start catching up (You hear me Gene and John Swofford?)
I am not disappointed in the game itself.
I’m disappointed that LSU was put in double jeopardy in the first place. You could still make the case — as one AP voter did — that Alabama only drew even with LSU yesterday, and that LSU deserves a share of the national title. The two programs are 1-1 against one another, but LSU won at Alabama on November 5.
In my mind, there’s no question which program has the better wins — LSU defeated the Pac-12 (and Rose Bowl) champ and the Big East (and Orange Bowl) champ already this season, in addition to six then ranked SEC opponents during the year — #25 Mississippi State, #17 Florida, #20 Auburn, #2 Alabama, #3 Arkansas and #14 Georgia. Alabama beat half as many ranked SEC opponents and the Tide’s lone non-conference marquee victory was at #23 Penn State.
Essentially, you’ve rewarded Alabama a national title because of when LSU lost — some 40 days after the regular season ended.
Everyone gets hung up on losses — “All you had to do is beat Iowa State” (nevermind the fact that the program was playing the day after another horrific plane crash took the lives of members of the athletics department) — but doesn’t put nearly as much focus or emphasis on the quality of wins. LSU had more (and more impressive wins) throughout the year. So did Oklahoma State, who arguably played in the toughest conference in the country.
The BCS hides behind the mantra “every game matters” and vehemently tries to defend the importance of the regular season. How did the outcome of the Nov. 5 game matter? The sport’s national title should be decided on the field of play, not decided based on the popular opinions of coaches, sportswriters and computer rankings.
Editor, BC Interruption
You make a good argument and understand and/or agree with
a lot of your points. I just think some of the popular arguments get a bit blown out of proportion. With a six team playoff, Alabama and LSU could meet again. Does one or two extra games prior really vindicate Alabama a whole lot more than their performance last night? My biggest problem with these types of arguments is there potential to discredit the SEC and what the SEC has accomplished. Let’s not have a race to the bottom. I really thought back in 2007 that Boston College was headed towards building something special for the long term. I base my college football utopia (as does GDF) on SEC football atmosphere and success on the field (yes the academics could be better, but those enterprises pour boatloads of money back into the school to pay for academic staff.) I feel like the flippin’ MLK of northeast college football, but one day I dream of tailgating for more than 3 hours before a game and being able to tailgate after a night game. I really don’t buy the argument that with a playoff the last six years of college football national champions would be tremendously different. I know I am a bit bias but I have a hard time with people discrediting the SEC and what Alabama has accomplished and not looking in the mirror first(I’m not saying any of you do this, but it is a pervasive ingredient in SEC haterade). I imagine you guys know this, but many do not know that Mike Slive was in favor of a “playoff” (+1) at the last BCS negotiations. The conference comissioners who opposed it were making a calculated move to try to restrain the number of SEC teams that could be in the postseason. Turns out their staff should have done all their homework. Again I am completely behind a playoff and acknowledge all the shortcomings of the BCS. However, I don’t believe the BCS is the grave injustice that people like to make it out to be.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
