All-American solves the BCS problem

[All-American]

Well, not really, but here are a few thoughts that might just make things a little more interesting.

One of the fundamental problems with the BCS is the fact that it excludes the non-BCS conference to the tune of millions of dollars each year, even when one or more of the six BCS conferences are sub-par. There's talk of including the Mountain West as one of the BCS conferences; I've seen a suggestion that perhaps the Big East or ACC should be excluded so long as they are under-performing.

I suggest that the number of automatically qualifying conferences be reduced even further.

Namely, to zero.

Just think of that. No conference would be contractually guaranteed a spot in the big game or the check that goes with it. They would have to (gasp!) EARN it. On MERIT.

Rule change number one which I propose is this: the six highest ranking conference champions shall automatically qualify for a BCS game. You don't get in just because you're from the Big East. You don't get shut out just because you're from the WAC. If you earn it, you're in; otherwise, not.

There is the matter of the independents (i.e., Notre Dame), and of conference champions that may have excelled but find themselves just outside the six conference cut. Very well. Rule change number two: a team with no conference affiliation or a conference champion who ranks in the top 12 also automatically qualifies.

The danger in these rule changes is that a conference stands to lose millions of dollars if there is an upset in the conference championship game, which can often pit a top ten team against a team ranked in the twenties, if they are ranked at all. Rule change number three kills two birds with one stone: rather than pit the champion of two conference divisions against each other, the conference championship game may feature the two highest ranked teams in the conference. It is true that this may result in a rematch, but as it stands, the conference championship game of a twelve team conference has a fifty percent chance of being a rematch of a regular season game anyway. And just try to tell me that the nation wouldn't have been more excited to see Texas square off against the Sooners in last year's Big XII championship game instead of Missouri.

All this talk of conference champions brings up rule change number four: the teams chosen for the BCS championship game MUST be conference champions. No more runners-up. Every team that made it to the championship game after losing its conference has been blown away in boring fashion. If you are in a conference and you don't win the conference championship, you have no business being in the title game. End of story. (Rule change number three would, of course, largely render this point void.)

Rule change number five is, I believe, the least disputable of all: get rid of the system altogether and put in a twelve team playoff.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Rule change number five is, I believe, the least disputable of all: get rid of the system altogether and put in a twelve team playoff.

I have reached the point where I lean away from a playoff. I think the bowls are good and would like to see them stay. I don't think a playoff will ever work in college football and a 12 team playoff is far less equitable than the current BCS format.

As a side note whatever happened to the guy from CB/TBS that was launching the CF16 playoff? I can't remember his name I believe his name was Tom Curren.

[All-American]

I have reached the point where I lean away from a playoff. I think the bowls are good and would like to see them stay. I don't think a playoff will ever work in college football and a 12 team playoff is far less equitable than the current BCS format.

As a side note whatever happened to the guy from CB/TBS that was launching the CF16 playoff? I can't remember his name.

Why would a 12 team not work? It takes twelve teams out of bowl games, so six fewer bowl games. All conference champions in the top 25 get an automatic bid. Top 4 teams get a bye for the first round-- BOOM! Regular season relevant. What's not to like?

[ERCougar]

Why would a 12 team not work? It takes twelve teams out of bowl games, so six fewer bowl games. All conference champions in the top 25 get an automatic bid. Top 4 teams get a bye for the first round-- BOOM! Regular season relevant. What's not to like?

He didn't say it wouldn't work--he said it's less equitable, and I agree. Suddenly, anyone out of the top 16 doesn't get a penny (or more importantly, the bowl experience and the extra practice time that goes with it), while the top few teams (and conferences, however the whole complicated payout scheme works...) now get payouts not only from one bowl, but 3 or 4.

[TripletDaddy]

My adventures this past 2 weeks have taught me something as well.......it is draining to go on the road 2 weeks in a row. I cant imagine doing it 4 weeks in a row. Very expensive, hard to miss work, your body freaks out from all the time zone changes.

made me rethink my stance.

All of this is moot, since the BCS isn't looking for a solution. They BCS has zero problems, why would they want to change anything?

[beefytee]

He didn't say it wouldn't work--he said it's less equitable, and I agree. Suddenly, anyone out of the top 16 doesn't get a penny (or more importantly, the bowl experience and the extra practice time that goes with it), while the top few teams (and conferences, however the whole complicated payout scheme works...) now get payouts not only from one bowl, but 3 or 4.

The NCAA basketball tournament seems to figure it out having the same issues.

Are you saying that all team should play in a bowl game so things are equitable?

[beefytee]

My adventures this past 2 weeks have taught me something as well.......it is draining to go on the road 2 weeks in a row. I cant imagine doing it 4 weeks in a row. Very expensive, hard to miss work, your body freaks out from all the time zone changes.

made me rethink my stance.

All of this is moot, since the BCS isn't looking for a solution. They BCS has zero problems, why would they want to change anything?

Once again, it is the exact same scenario as the Basketball tournament.

4 weekends if your team makes the final four.

[TripletDaddy]

Once again, it is the exact same scenario as the Basketball tournament.

4 weekends if your team makes the final four.

no, it is not the same scenario. basketball arenas hold around 15-20K. BCS football venues hold 80-100K.

[beefytee]

no, it is not the same scenario. basketball arenas hold around 15-20K. BCS football venues hold 80-100K.

I considered this, but then thought that it wouldn't be hard to fill the stadium for a playoff.

Do you think they will have a hard time filling the stadiums?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I don't believe in the "must be conference champions" mantra unless you're dealing with a situation like Nebraska 2001 and deciding on a slot in the National Title game. If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be playing in the National Title game (or whatever bowl game it was that year). As for other BCS bowl selections, the bowls should be allowed to pick who they want as long as they meet a certain threshhold regardless of whether they're a champion or not. Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Florida and Georgia would all easily win the MAC or Sunbelt conferences this year, why should a champion of some weak-ass conference get in ahead of the second place SEC team? I realize the same argument has been used against the MWC before, but there is definitely a qualitative difference between the MWC and the MAC/Sunbelt. I've just never understood the need for people to include champions of all the conferences in some playoff. It works for basketball because you can have 65 teams in the tournament. In football you have to have fewer teams because you have to have fewer rounds and games have to be a week apart. If you have 16 team playoff that includes all the conference champions (11 teams) then you'll only have five at-large bids while you're inviting some shitty school like North Texas or Central Michigan. You're simply not going to have the upsets in a college football playoff that you get in the NCAA basketball tournament. The MAC/Sunbelt champions are just never going to take down the #1-3 teams. However, an at-large #16 seed could take down a #1 team and I'd bet we'd see it periodically.

I'm in support, initially, of an 8 team playoff. The top 4 seeds get home games in the first round and there's a final four that go to neutral sites (bowl games?) for the final two rounds. Three rounds of neutral site games would probably be too much, but I think four sets of fans could make it to the semifinal games and two sets of those fans would be willing to go to the national title game.

I would limit the number of auto bids to 2,3 or 4 and auto bids would be awarded based on the strength of the conference. OOC W-L record would be weighted equally with the OOC opponents' records so the SEC can't monkey with the system by each playing the directional Louisiana schools. More Ohio State- USC matchups would occur.

[All-American]

He didn't say it wouldn't work--he said it's less equitable, and I agree. Suddenly, anyone out of the top 16 doesn't get a penny (or more importantly, the bowl experience and the extra practice time that goes with it), while the top few teams (and conferences, however the whole complicated payout scheme works...) now get payouts not only from one bowl, but 3 or 4.

Then keep the bowls. A 12 team playoff would eliminate six bowl games-- basically, replacing the BCS and one other game. The other teams keep their bowls.

As for the money generated by the playoff, very well: come up with an equitable arrangement for the money flow. There are already kickbacks from the BCS conferences to the non-BCS conferences. Do the same thing with the playoff. Kick back however much you need to to make it "equitable."

[All-American]

My adventures this past 2 weeks have taught me something as well.......it is draining to go on the road 2 weeks in a row. I cant imagine doing it 4 weeks in a row. Very expensive, hard to miss work, your body freaks out from all the time zone changes.

made me rethink my stance.

All of this is moot, since the BCS isn't looking for a solution. They BCS has zero problems, why would they want to change anything?

In a twelve team playoff, only the two teams playing in the championship game would play more than two games (unless a team seed 5 through 12 pulled off big upsets).

[TripletDaddy]

I considered this, but then thought that it wouldn't be hard to fill the stadium for a playoff.

Do you think they will have a hard time filling the stadiums?

Yes. The face on most BCS games is now between $125-$150. Airplane tickets without advance purchase discount are expensive. And these BCS bowls/local economies make much of their money by relying on a Thurs-Sun game crowd. Most fans can't get off that much work 3 or 4 weeks in a row, esp these days.

The demand for walk-up gate is traditionally not there when teams are not local. How many non-alum would swing by the Rose Bowl to watch a Round 2 matchup between B12 Champ Oklahoma and CUSA Champ Marshall? Not many, I would presume, esp not for $120.

Many of the BYU and Utah fans complaining about a lack of a playoff are also purchasing season tickets with a face value of $15 per game. How many would actually travel for 3-4 weeks straight paying playoff ticket prices? Not many.

[TripletDaddy]

In a twelve team playoff, only the two teams playing in the championship game would play more than two games (unless a team seed 5 through 12 pulled off big upsets).

and?

Ohio State and Michigan fans (fanbases that travel well) can afford to to fly out with a month's notice to the Rose Bowl. That doesn't mean they can subsequently afford to fly to 2 other bowls with less than a week's notice. The further along in the playoff, the more critical it is to fill those 90K seats per venue. And the less likely it becomes because the alumni base is now all tapped out of funds.

You couldn't make it out to one game in Dallas, with months of advance notice, unless someone paid for everything for you. You aren't being practical.

[All-American]

Yes. The face on most BCS games is now between $125-$150. Airplane tickets without advance purchase discount are expensive. And these BCS bowls/local economies make much of their money by relying on a Thurs-Sun game crowd. Most fans can't get off that much work 3 or 4 weeks in a row, esp these days.

The demand for walk-up gate is traditionally not there when teams are not local. How many non-alum would swing by the Rose Bowl to watch a Round 2 matchup between B12 Champ Oklahoma and CUSA Champ Marshall? Not many, I would presume, esp not for $120.

Many of the BYU and Utah fans complaining about a lack of a playoff are also purchasing season tickets with a face value of $15 per game. How many would actually travel for 3-4 weeks straight paying playoff ticket prices? Not many.

But we're not talking about 3 to 4 weeks. If a 5 to 12 seeded team pulled off multiple upsets and made it to the championship game, then ONE team would play four games. If they made it to the semifinal round, then three teams would play three games. Most would play one or two games.

You may further alleviate the travel concerns by playing the playoff games at the home field of the higher-seeded team (until either the championship game or the semifinals).