As usual, college football's quest for a champion is a train wreck. For once, the BCS isn't what caused the derailing. Seemingly, it's not anyone's fault but a fluke three-way tie that no system would have resolved without casualties.
But there is fault, or at least negligence. And unsurprisingly, the culprits are the major conferences and their myopic quest for revenue.
And the conferences (and as far as I've seen, the entire media) ignored not only the symptoms, but also a painfully obvious solution: remove divisions from the championship game equation.
As it is, either Texas or Oklahoma (looking like Texas) will sulk off to the Fiesta Bowl. And that team will have a legitimate gripe that they should be in the national title game instead. Barring a Missouri upset of Oklahoma in the Big 12 "Championship" Game, there isn't going to be any new separation established before Oklahoma heads off to Miami for the BCS title game. And the BCS has one thing right: the gap between the two is thinner than the ice Charlie Weis is skating on.
It was just a matter of time, too. By definition, the current conference championship format (two six-team divisions, winners meet for the title) is flawed. Statistically, the best and second-best teams, all things being random and equal, are going to be in the same division nearly half the time (about 45 percent, to get technical). In the Big 12, imbalance is inherent based on traditional program strength in the South, so it happens even more that an undeserving team (from the North) plays in the title game. It happens at times in the SEC and ACC, too.
So cut the crap and just put the top two teams in the conference in the title game. Texas vs. Oklahoma. Done. BCS and Big 12 settled.
Seriously, why not? What argument could there possibly be? That Missouri deserves to be there? They are, maybe, the fifth best team in the conference and everyone knows it. Especially in the Big 12, where the title game hasn't been within two touchdowns since 2001 and the South is 8-4 overall, including four in a row. Maybe a shakeup is in order?
Sure, a rematch becomes slightly more likely without divisions. So what? It's going to be a rematch half the time even with divisions anyway.
As for scheduling, the divisions give teams in the same division five common opponents and reduce travel. But even as is, the scheduling will never be balanced anyway, and you could keep the scheduling the same if you really wanted to save the money.
Even if you have to be stubborn and keep divisions, at least install a rule that if a second-place team finishes two games ahead of the other division winner, they go to the title game. Divisional strength isn't going to be the difference between 7-1 and 5-3. The 7-1 team is probably better. Show me one example where this wasn't true.
Ironically, this cloudy sky happens in a year where the SEC title game is the clear, one-vs.-two tilt that the game was designed for. But here's the thing; under a no-division format, guess what still happens? Florida still meets Alabama in Atlanta. That's called having cake and eating it, too.
Is Texas getting hosed? To me, Oklahoma has an edge, but the distinction is one we shouldn't have to make. Oklahoma has been the best team in football since that fateful loss to Texas in the Cotton Bowl. Their recent performances against Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, the other two top-15 teams in the division, were both superior to Texas'. They also beat down a good Mountain West team in TCU and Big East champ Cincinnati out of conference. And Oklahoma's one loss came against a higher-ranked team.
Unfortunately, that team was Texas. Texas beat Oklahoma. Neutral field, too. They have the same record as Oklahoma. Their only loss came against a team that also went 11-1, and it was on the road in a stadium no other team won in, either. Texas has been dominant, not lacking style points either, at least since their lapse in Lubbock. As a reward, they have to pray the fifth-best team in the conference upsets the Sooners.
(Sorry, Texas Tech fans, you don't have a quality road win, and were absolutely throttled in a way neither of the other two were.)
The point is you can make a strong argument either way. I won't even bother comparing their ludicrously impressive statistics or margins of victory. This kind of over-analysis is for meaningless chat room trash-talk fodder, not choosing a national title game participant. Yet this over-analysis and argumentation will determine who goes to Miami.
We expect this from the BCS and inter-conference debates, but not from within a single conference that played it out.
Some voters will manipulate ballots to maximize the boost they give to the team they believe should go. Meanwhile, coaches tightrope-walk the line between fighting for their team and shameless campaigning. And you thought election season was over.
This could all be avoided with a simple rule change that improves competition and fairness, creates more entertaining games, and doesn't touch a bottom line. After all, the purpose of a conference championship game is to DETERMINE A CONFERENCE CHAMPION. And love the conference championship game or hate it, the Big 12 sure could use one right now.
Too bad they aren't going to get one. Like Texas, the conference will have to wait until next year to get satisfaction. And I like Texas' chances better.
December 3, 2008
Anthony Brancato:
Actually, the root cause of this whole mess is the existence of overtime during the regular season! If some games were allowed to end in a tie, euther one of the three head-to-head games involving the three 7-1 teams would have ended in a tie, or at least one of the three teams would have tied some other conference game, leaving that team, at 6-1-1, a half-game behind the other two, whose tie could then be broken simply by the result of their head-to-head game.
Just the same, no one would want to see too many tie games. The solution: Run a 15-minute clock during the overtime (in regular-season games only), whose present rules would not otherwise change; and if the time expires and the score is still tied, that’s the way the game ends.
December 4, 2008
Anthony Brancato:
Another possibility is a three-division setup! In the Big 12, that could involve a Southern Division consisting of the four Texas teams (Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech), a Central Division consisting of the four Kansas and Oklahoma teams (Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State), and a Northern Division consisting of the remaining four teams (Colorado, Iowa State, Missouri and Nebraska).
In this format, the number of “regular-season” conference games is reduced from eight to seven (with each team playing its three division rivals every year and the teams from the other two divisions every other year), with the three division winners and one wild card team advancing to the conference semifinals, at the sites of the two division winners with the best records, the winners therein to meet in the championship game, which would continue to be held at a pre-determined venue.
As for the eight conference teams which do not qualify for the semifinals: All of the other major conferences that currently have two-division alignments could switch to the three-division format, and these teams could play one another, so that no team plays one fewer game (Arkansas, for example, could agree to play one of the Texas teams that does not advance to the Big 12 semifinals, in years where the Razorbacks also don’t make it to the SEC semifinals. Pairs of teams in the SEC and ACC, etc., could forge similar agreements).
This way, if any team goes 6-1 in conference play, they are essentially certain to make the new conference semifinals as at least a wild card. Try it.
December 4, 2008
Kyle Jahner:
In college football, we have to focus on simple solutions, because the college football world is generally incapable of even the most menial of tasks. They are also risk- and change-averse, so this could never happen. The other logistics problem is that those are a lot of unplanned games, and neutral site or not, that’s going to be tough, esp for the bottom teams.
That said, we aren’t bound by the idiots here, so lets look at it. It would be an interesting experiment, moving up some rivalry games. First, the pairings are all correct. I would consider going with Ok, Ok St, Col, and Neb. in a West div, and Kan, K-St, Mizzou, ISU in the East. It doesn’t break up your North with a ton of travel across Kansas. It also keeps a Mizzou/Kansas rivalry together, and reunites in division the OU-Neb rivalry, which has a ton of history.
If balancing program strength is important, you couldn’t do it, though. The East would be wretched, with no true power programs. Neb and Colo are both historically stronger than the East, and sticking them with Ok and Ok St would be cruel to all involved.
But, Ok and Ok St with Iowa St and Mizzou might work best, with a West of KSU, KU, Neb and Col. No annual Neb-to-Iowa treks and the balance is restored. Mizzou would get the worst of all this, drawing tough OK schools and no rival in division. (ISU is no ones rival). OU has no Texas or Neb; just OSU/Bedlam, so they are not thrilled rivalry-wise, either.
Just too convoluted. Still say simple is better. But fun to ramble through little fantasy worlds.
December 5, 2008
Anthony Brancato:
It wasn’t my intention to debate the merits of one specific alignment over another, and this would not be confined exclusively to the Big 12, as the SEC, ACC and the Big Ten, should Notre Dame finally see the light and join the latter conference, would be in the same scenario as well.
And if the unplanned games do pose an insuperable problem, then all 12 of the teams in these conferences could simply add one more non-conference game to their schedules, to make up for the one fewer conference game; and if this means the four teams who do make the semifinals in these conferences end up playing 14 games or whatever, then so be it - isn’t the NFL now all but certain to go to an 18-game regular season by 2011 at the latest? (At least my translation of Goodell-speak convinces me that the NFL is indeed headed in that direction).
Simplicity is for the simple-minded - and besides, this is hardly calculus we’re discussing.
December 6, 2008
Kyle Jahner:
First, simple-minded seems to quite accurately describe the people running college football.
As for catchy sayings, there are also sayings like: the simplest explaination is usually the right one, and that the most brilliant ideas are often the simplest ones. Adding complexity usually does two things- creates unforseen consequences, and creates more mechanisms and moving parts with the potential to not work.
The problem is simple. The best two teams aren’t in the B12 title game. The reason is simple. A weak division winner automatically qulifies. The solution is simple. Put the best two teams in the title games. Divsions don’t matter.
Your first post brought in OT. Neither team played an OT game this year, so how is that relevant. Then you posted a three division scenario that could theoretically have an even weaker team in the playoffs, a shorter conference schedule/unplanned finale with potential to be half empty, among other things. If the breaks are squeaky you don’t need to replace the car. Just get the breaks fixed.