This is something I originally worked on post the 2006 season. I will amend it some, but it stands the test of one year IMO. It also includes responses to some initial concern and feedback I received on the twoplustwo forums.
I'm interested in a BCS solution that is best for the future growth and appreciation of college football as the best sport in the United States. I love the sport and wish it only the best.
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come
my question then becomes what is the right system:
well, I have a few requirements.
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.
OK...so here goes
8 teams
---conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
-----Review to maintain big 6 status: conferences would need to average one top10 team at the end of the regular season and 2 in the top18 over the previous 7 years.
---2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, etc as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-----maybe a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion: such as top15 in BCS rankings and perfect record guarantees a spot.
---BCS ranking system used for seeding: still important to be #1 rather than #4
1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed
two semifinal games rotating around the 4 BCS sites 8 to 10 days later
---similar to the championship game movement now
---should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
---only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot
national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 8-9 days after the semi
Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition of the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (2006 Wisconsin anyone?).
My proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.
The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.
Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl. Honestly, there are never enough tickets for the big schools for each bowl. I see little problem with Ohio State, Florida, or USC filling the stadium for multiple games though it might not be the same fans at each game. It will be tougher for those without a football tradition and smaller alumi bases like the 2006 Wake Forest or Louisville to fill multiple games, but I think that is a secondary concern.
The proposed solution restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.
The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.
The system will likely mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again. sorry Auburn
ummm...I rambled alot
I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.
I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.
Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?
that was the original idea
now, the follow-up and original feedback
--------------------------------------------
Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time
for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all
one week extra for 4 teams from the current system
I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl.
The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.
-----------------------------------------------
to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS,
here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years
there is alot of flux and small edges
with the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc
Current 2006 Conference
1 PAC-10
2 SEC
3 BIG EAST
4 BIG TEN
5 BIG 12
2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC
2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC
2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12
2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC
--------------------------------------------
responding to:I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.
reply: This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult, almost impossible task of comparing schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year, yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.
By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.
Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.
I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.
I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.
I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
responding to:My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).
reply: you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.
I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.
But, in principal, I agree with you
--------------------------------------------------
It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.
The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment