A few weeks ago, the commissioners of the BCS reached an agreement that will showcase a four-team playoff for college football's national championship. Under the new agreement, the BCS Bowl Games (Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, and Rose) will take turns hosting the semifinals for the national championship with the winners of those two games meeting to determine a winner.
Many college football fans have concluded that this is a "small victory" or "a step in the right direction" or at least that "it's better than before." And while I can't completely disagree with those sentiments, the reality is the bickering won't stop and college football fans will continue to be dissatisfied with the system.
Also, I think there is one thing about the new agreement that quite frankly sucks — especially for schools in weaker conferences. The first thing that struck me about this agreement was how the number of teams invited to the elite BCS bowl games has now decreased from 10 to eight. Six of those teams will be conference champions, leaving two spots available for at large bids. Chances are pretty good that those at large bids will be taken by the SEC, Pac-12, or the conference formerly known as the Big Ten. It decreases the chances that a team from the Mountain West or the WAC or any other weaker conference will get a team into a BCS Bowl Game — even if they are undefeated.
In the past, I have been criticized for making money too big of an issue as it relates to BCS bowl games. But I'm going to do it again. The Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Orange Bowl payout is $17 million dollars each. The highest paying non-BCS bowl is the Capital One Bowl which pays out a measly $4,550,000. BCS Bowls pay out over three times the amount of the next highest bowl game, making the decision to have two fewer teams eligible for such a payout a big deal in my opinion.
The solution is simple: have the Capital One Bowl (or the Outback Bowl, Alamo Bowl, or Cotton Bowl) become a BCS bowl. Keep the top 10 teams in the elite bowls.
That's a pretty simple solution to that predicament. But if the four-team playoff is a step in the right direction, we need to analyze where we are headed. Many have been proponents of an eight-team playoff, others are for a 16-team playoff, and I've heard a handful proposing a 12-team playoff that would look similar to the NFL playoffs. In my opinion, any proposal that requires four weeks ignores one major concern: the academic calendar.
Football is not a sport where playing multiple games in a week is a good idea, especially after a lengthy break and that break is going to stay no matter how many college football fans think it is unnecessary. Colleges and Universities will break from sports for Finals Week at the end of the semester. So ... sorry ... but get over it.
That being said, the eight-team playoff isn't out of the question because it can be done in three weekends and lets face it, the current schedule lasts longer than that anyway.
Is that where we are headed? An eight-team playoff? Would you be happy with that? Of course not! You'll be dissatisfied with the four-team system as soon as there is a fifth team that deserves a shot at the playoff. Then you'll be dissatisfied with the eight-team system as soon as there is a difficult decision between the eighth best team and the ninth best team. And you're not getting a 16-team playoff in the next 40 years, so what possible solution is there for this complete mess?
I have one, and I'd like to know what you think about it. It's a system that requires flexibility and contingencies — two things college football is not known for at all, making it a rather unlikely solution. But I find it to fit all of the current needs: college football fans need to have an undisputed champion, colleges and universities need to respect the academic calendar and have this process be reasonably short, and commissioners need to make lots of money and continue the bowl culture.
That solution is a variable-sized playoff field (from two teams to eight teams) which is determined at the end of each regular season.
The reason I propose this is because year in and year out I see that the needed size for a playoff field varies with each year. Four teams that stand out above the rest is rare. So is three. So is eight. There is no magic number. It depends on the year and therefore the system should also depend on the year.
So let's examine how a four-team playoff would have looked in the past five seasons, starting with last year. 2011 stands as the only year in recent memory when at the end of the regular season and conference championships, four teams stood above the rest: LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Stanford. Last year, a four-team playoff made a ton of sense. Play Stanford against LSU and Alabama against Oklahoma State and see who wins to face off in the championship.
Do you want an only conference champions rule? Fine, kick out Alabama and play a three-team playoff with Stanford playing Oklahoma State and giving LSU a bye to face the winner.
In 2011, drawing up an eight-team playoff would have been nearly impossible. There were the four previously mentioned teams, seven power conference teams with two losses — Houston and Boise State from weaker conferences and only one loss. That's 13 teams — not eight. The natural cutoff in 2011 was at four (or three if you only want conference champions).
In 2010, arguments could have been made in a few different directions. There were three undefeated teams and in my opinion, any playoff system that is put in place should include a stipulation that says all undefeated teams will be in the playoff. In 2010, I would hear arguments for three teams or seven. But how in the world would the BCS have chosen a fourth team to join the three undefeated teams in 2010? There were six one-loss teams — four of those from major conferences. A three-team playoff would have been my vote in 2010.
In 2009, five teams ended the regular season undefeated. How in the world does a four-team playoff deal with five undefeated teams? Truthfully, it can't. In 2009, I would have argued for a five or six teams in the playoff system, potentially adding one-loss Florida to the mix as the only one-loss team in the country at that time.
2008 is the most difficult year to analyze. There were seven powerful one-loss teams, along with Utah and Boise State both going undefeated. It was a year where being a conference champion had to carry more weight than previous years, meaning I would have argued for a six-team playoff taking only the two undefeated teams and the four one-loss conference champions, leaving behind the three one-loss teams that did not win their conference. But again, how does a four-team playoff solve a year like 2008? Are you really going to take four one-loss teams over two undefeated teams? Can you really take one undefeated team and not the other? If so, which one-loss team to you leave out? How do you leave any of those six out? What criteria can you possibly use to make such a decision?
2007 was also a difficult year to find the right number, but that problem existed because of inconsistencies in conferences choosing whether or not to have championship games. Ohio State and Missouri both ended their seasons 11-1. Missouri had to beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 Conference Championship Game, but failed. Ohio State didn't have to do anything more than its 12 regular season games. Had Missouri not been forced into a Big 12 Championship Game, they would have been an obvious choice for a National Championship Game against Ohio State. Instead, Missouri didn't even make it into a BCS Bowl Game. But I digress on the ridiculousness of how conference champions are decided.
A four-team playoff in 2007 would have seen Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma — four conference champions, three of which had two losses. It would have left out an undefeated Hawaii, and two-loss conference champions West Virginia and USC, as well as one-loss Kansas who didn't even play in their conference championship game. Not to mention the aforementioned two-loss Missouri, and other two-loss teams Georgia, Arizona State, BYU, and Boise State. In the end, I would have pushed for a seven-team playoff in 2007 with the six major conference champions and Hawaii. Sorry, Kansas.
A four-team playoff sounds better than a two-team playoff that only takes three hours, but the truth is it will probably be a more difficult decision in narrowing to four than it has been in narrowing to two. Arguments can always be made for more or less teams vying for college football's highest prize and while four might be better than two in some years, recent history assures us it won't slow down any bickering.
Leave a Comment