Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Fixing the BCS - It Is Within Reach

By Joe Giansante,

Joe is a former Sr. Associate Athletic Director at the University of Oregon now working in private business in San Diego. He has also spent 20-years in television sports as a manager, nightly sportscaster and play-by-play announcer for various networks.  He oversaw media, tv and radio contracts, multi-media rights and merchandising contracts, as well as marketing and brand management at Oregon.


Oklahoma State 2011, meet Oregon 2001.  Its simply amazing that 10 years later the same discussions, disgust and distaste are rampant with the BCS after a selection  that puts a team that didn't qualify for their conference championship game in the national championship game.  

How many times have we been here before?

The most egregious BCS snub of the last 10 years has to be from 2001.  It is oft-forgotten, but shouldn't be as this year's calamity could have been avoided if those in charge had acted on the injustice then.

Remember?  Nebraska had just been blown off the field by Colorado in a game that determined the Big-12 championship. Both polls, the coach's poll and the AP poll listed Miami #1 and Oregon #2.  When the computer polls weighed in...somehow they found a way to override the results on the field and lifted Nebraska into the #2 spot despite not winning the title game.  It is the first and only time a team ranked 2nd in both polls didn't play for the national title.  Of course, Nebraska went on to get demolished by Miami in the Rose Bowl, as Oregon did the same to Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.

One of the pillars of the BCS system is the mantra that "every game counts".. right now, that isn't true.  The fix seems so simple to fans and others in the media, but they fail to take into consideration the longstanding relationships the bowls have with conferences, university presidents and others.  ESPN has certainly applied pressure in the past, and is again to find a way to get a true national champion - which will happen.  But what formula is ultimately picked is likely to bring its own set of controversy to the process. 

So in an effort to look at the solution, its important to throw off the table what WON"T happen under any circumstance.  Wasted time working on solutions that have too much red tape and contractual stickiness in front of it only prevents us from getting to the desired spot.

A full playoff with 32 teams WON'T happen.  Too many presidents like sending their teams to bowl games, its good exposure, good for donors, and the student athletes, etc.  Using the existing minor bowls won't happen either, as the sponsors have no interest in it, nor do the leagues and lower division schools that profit from these games.

A "plus one" with four seeded teams won't work either and will be dead on arrival because of the current bowl structure, as the BCS bowls that are left out certainly will not agree to it.  As will an eight team seeded playoff using the four major bowls in which teams are selected using the same criteria as we have now.  Several influential people at ESPN are in favor of this, including Kirk Herbstreit. Simply put, the Pac-12 and the Big 10 will not go for anything that eliminates the Rose Bowl from their mostly annual tradition. Not to mention that solution still keeps the process in the hands of computers and voters and off of the actual results on the field.  

To fix the system one fundamental principle must be accepted; that being a league champion in a BCS conference is the most critical component to be selected for any "playoff".   I'm not sure why that is so novel, ALL other leagues place their league and division champions in the playoffs.  Here's  how it should and can work:

The solution sits easily if conference commissioners can push that their league championships, like in every other sport, do in fact mean something- but this must come from the conference commissioners who wield great power.  To retain a regular season that means something and to mitigate scheduling your way to the BCS, as is done now, rewarding the six major conference champions and two at-large teams  with BCS games is the only way to accomplish all the goals and deliver us a champion.

 In this plan,  the Pac-12 champion would ALWAYS meet the Big 12 champion in the Rose Bowl.  That takes care of the issue with those two conferences which should not be underestimated.  The Big12 Champion plays an at-large in the Fiesta Bowl,  The SEC champion plays an at-large in the Sugar Bowl , and the Big East champion plays the ACC champion in the Orange Bowl.  Sounds like 1985 right? All of the traditional bowl ties have been re-established here.  Conference champions, like in other sports, make the playoff.  Two others who are deserving are afforded the opportunity as "wild cards" selected by the human polls.    


Now, here is how you get a real champion and where the seeding comes in.  AFTER these games are played, the four winners are seeded with 1 playing 4 and 2 playing 3 in a double header the next week on January 8th as a "final four" in the same location, which rotates every year.   Then on January 22nd the two winners play in Dallas or a rotating site, like the Super Bowl is played, and we have a true national champion.

Three extra games. Four Teams.   It is that simple.

This minimizes lost class time, and continues to keep kids on campus during school, so that argument against doesn't work  The revenue generated from a final four day and a championship game should approach, or even exceed $200 million, which could be used in a variety of ways to fund scholarships, post graduate support, title ix enhancements, etc. 


And here is how it potentially could save college football, and many athletic department budgets through early game payments, ticket sales, etc... It encourages teams to schedule important non-conference games that people want to see, rather than the current system or a seeded system which discourages it. (think Oregon vs. LSU this year.. where would Oregon be if they had scheduled New Mexico State instead of LSU? - maybe in the title game).  A seeded 8 team playoff will ruin the entire month of September for college football with a steady stream of California vs. Cal Poly or Stanford vs. Samford. 

It is simply  four teams for one more week..two teams for two weeks.   Right now, the championship game is on January 9th.  Extending for an additional week or two fills a gap before the Super Bowl  and would be fantastic.  

In this scenario, everyone gets what they want.  As a bonus, the big bowls which have enormous power are actually ENHANCED by the fact that they actually mean something.  The traditions that are so important stay in-tact, and we get a true national champion.

Hopefully this is the direction college football moves after the current deal is done in two years, because really its the only system that serves all entities. 


Would certainly enjoy hearing your thoughts or debate points, just click comment below.

14 comments:

  1. Sacramento State - 29
    Oregon State - 28
    Oregon State is just fine with the current system for two reasons:
    1. It does not affect them as they have a sheeps chance of making it out of an OSU convention in actually making a BCS game.
    2. They currently have a playoff system, as they marginally compete with all of the other FCS teams.

    Sincerely,
    Project B.O.O.B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the idea in theory, but in practice it seems to pose just as many problemsas the current system. For example, consider the 8 teams that would be selected under your format. Let's assume that the two at-large teams, based on this year's human polls, would be Alabama (#2) and Stanford (#4). We would then have a lineup as follows:

    Rose Bowl: Oregon v. Wisconsin
    Sugar Bowl: LSU v. Stanford
    Orange Bowl: West Virginia v. Clemson
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma State v. Alabama

    This is a compelling lineup and would make for some great football. But the appearance of West Virginia and Clemson significantly diminishes its importance. Can one really say that West Virginia and Clemson are better football teams than Arkansas, Boise State, South Carolina, Kansas State, or USC? The argument can be made that those teams are even better than Wisconsin, Stanford, or Oregon. Winning the Big East or ACC should not automatically qualify a team to participate in a proposed Final Four.

    There is also a problem in the claim that this "encourages teams to schedule important non-conference games that people want to see". It does nothing of the sort. If winning your conference is the main guarantee of obtaining a chance to compete for the final four, then teams will simply try and create cupcake schedules. There will be no reason for Oregon or West Virginia to play LSU, as they did this year. An 11-1 Stanford team that played a weak non-conference schedule this year would make it in even without winning the Pac-12.

    There is also the problem of a lengthy season for student athletes. Currently, every team in the FBS plays 12 games. Conference champions contenders play 13, plus an additional bowl game. The format you've suggested would have the championship contenders play 16, which is the equivalent of a full NFL season. It would also cuts into two academic quarters/semesters, depending on the institution. That does not end the argument as you have suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SportSanity,

    The proposed system would be the best system. The best 8 teams play in a playoff and a true national champion emerges, which is the goal everyone is striving for. Outside those 8 there isn't anyone who deserves to be there. How can you argue that Boise State deserves to be there over clemson, oregon, wisconsin and west virginia? They are BCS conference champions, boise was the second place MWC team. As far as the ACC not deserving an automatic bid, Miami and Florida State have more than made an argument for that conference. Also, there is plenty of reason for teams to play bid non-conference games, oregon recieved nearly 2 million dollars for playing LSU this. Marquee matchups also have huge recruiting implications; kids want to play in big games. Do some research next time; your oregon state education has failed you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think SportsSanity is spot on. Fixed playoff positions will utterly destroy the regular season and will actually be more of a deterrent to play big games with much more at stake.

    Here's my proposal. I've been tinkering the past couple days so there are still some holes...but it's the best way I can see fit to crown a true and fair "national champion".

    First, six 12-team conferences as we know them now (six 10-team conferences and a round robin would be better, but not possible now). The season also starts earlier than September. The champions get the first six spots in a seeded, 8-team playoff. The last two are given to 4 at-large teams. In pro-leagues, two wild cards work. They only have 30 teams. NCAA has 120. Having 4 at-larges isn't even debatable in my mind. These 4 will have a play-in game in December. This will allow a non-AQ team a chance to prove their mettle and overcome their patsy conference schedule. It will also show who is a pretender.

    Once the 8 teams are decided, they are then seeded using a heavily tweaked BCS formula. A formula that rewards OOC SOS and not as much conference SOS. Conference Champs go 1-6 then the two at-large. This is where mine may differ from others' playoff formats:

    Each conference designates their own championship location. Pac 12 to Pasadena, Big 10 to Indianapolis, SEC to Atlanta and so on. If your conference team is seeded 1-4, you get "home-field advantage". Just more incentive to play and win big games at the beginning of the year and reward your region with a big game, yet it will be still a somewhat neutral site for fairness purposes.

    Winners move up to a "final four" and will play at one of the BCS venues that will rotate every single year. Winners go to the BCS championship, losers go to a 3rd place game. That way every BCS game is included in this format and all will mean something.

    Can you think about the excitement that would bring? I understand this would destroy the "tradition" of the Rose Bowl. But if it means the players and us fans get a shot at a real championship, than rename the game the "Toilet Bowl" and replace the rose with a big turd and stop living in the past because I couldn't care less. That's just one man's opinion.

    I'm sure I left some things out...but it's early in the morning, haha. I'd love to hear some feedback on what you guys think!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You literally just described exactly what Joe proposed but without the great tradition that makes college football special. You've obviously never been to the rose bowl if you're saying you don't care about it. It's without a doubt one of the best atmspheres in all of sports.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey appreciate the comments.. couple of points that project B.O.O.B. already made:
    1. IF a seeded 8 team playoff happens, it will ruin the entire month of september, there will be no desire at ALL to play a real game. If winning a conference title gets you to the BCS, strapped athletic departments will grab the 2 million per game for a big game, bonus the coaches for playing them, and use them to drive ticket sales. You have to look at the "conference champion model" against the "seeded model".. and don't underestimate how much most departments NEED the money.

    2. Every other sport has weak league champs, etc..just look at the AFC West this year.. it is cyclical

    3. This system would make conference championship games essentially the "Sweet 16"

    Right now the champion will play 14 games (alabama this year is an anomaly because of not being in the conference title game).. Having 4 teams play 14 games, and 2 teams play 15 games is not an undue burden when you look at nearly 120 division I college football teams.. especially when you consider the revenue attached.

    Don't make it too difficult.. Four teams one more week, 2 teams 2 more weeks. The final four of football in a dallas, indy, etc. would become one of the greatest sporting events in america. The championshp game would be a massive television event. The bowl game ratings would go up because each game has meaning.

    Thanks for the comments!

    ReplyDelete
  7. also Eric.. you are underestimating the Big Ten and Pac-12 alliance with the Rose Bowl. They wield tremendous power in that, and likely will not go for any idea that doesn't include something that looks like automatic bids on nearly all occasions from those two conferences. The ideas are all good, the point though was what is "possible". What you describe just couldn't happen due to the Pac-12 and Big Ten Rose Bowl alliance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eric/Sportsanity,

    As self imposed exile mentioned please realize that the proposed system in the article creates a sweet 16, elite 8, final four and so on atmosphere. The excitement and revunue this would create would rival the NFL playoffs. It would no longer just be the rose bowl, it would be the rose bowl + and opportunity to play for a spot in the national title. This would also (with the exception of the 2 at large bids) eliminate the east coast bias in the polls as all BCS conferences would be guarenteed an opportunity to play for the national title. This would also free teams to play giant non-conference games as they would not need to be undefeated in-order to make the NC game. This would create a great September of football and the revenue generated would increase the entire college football plain. Your system would encourage everyone to schedule portland state and north texas in september. No one would risk an unnecessary loss or play a game that would jeopardize that coveted top-8 seed. If you cannot see this then please go back to your OSU blog and marvel about your wrestling team.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You missed what I was going for. I guess it was more of a hypothetical...but it could work. My proposal was looking for the most logical way to make a champion a "true champion" in the most fair and equal way. It wasn't supposed to appease presidents, for they are the ones who put us in this position in the first place. I'm biased in that way...but instead of proposing a "patch" for the BCS system presidents will be instantly okay with, I'd rather start with a fix. A starting point to bring all presidents on board, in a perfect world.

    Tradition is just a word that sugarcoats the inability to change. I'm well aware of the Pac 12's and Big 10's need for the Rose Bowl to stay the way it is...but if given the choice between tradition and a better college football, I'll always go with the latter. I hope you would as well. And personally, I don't think a tradition of screwing deserving teams to benefit a few universities is something I want preserved. I proposed an 8-team tournament that fixes far more of the BCS injustice than Joe's did.

    I see what you're saying about September games, but as a fan, I think it's terrible. In Joe's system, there is ZERO incentive to play a good OOC. You just said a seeded 8-team playoff would destroy September, but gave the reasoning that makes Joe's format falter with OOC games. In Joe's system, win your conference, you're in. Lose 3-4 OOC games, you can still win an NC with ease. In my system, you get all the benefits of Joe's system, with an added incentive to schedule and win big OOC games. You could still lose all your OOC games and win the NC, but it will rightly be more difficult. In my tweaked BCS formula, winning against a cupcake OOC opponent isn't as good as losing to a great one. A conference being able to host their own first round (elite eight) game and get better seeding in the final four is the incentive. If Project B.O.O.B. does not understand this, then I know a few good elementary schools you should think about attending.

    The flaws in Joe's system are as follows:

    1. Why should the Big 10, ACC, Big East, and Pac 12 have to play a 1st place conference champion every year while the SEC and Big 12 are allowed to advance playing a 2nd place team?

    2. The potential for a 3, 4, or 5 loss national champion increases. Shouldn't a team losing OOC and conference games be forced to at LEAST work a little harder for an NC...compared to the team that took care of business all season? A "road" game to start out is a good spot to begin.

    3. Two at-larges is too few. Every year there are around 3-6 teams that deserve consideration outside of the champions. Grabbing 4 and making them play for the chance to be one of the two at-larges is far better from almost every standpoint. One non-AQ and three AQ teams. More people are happy.

    4. The "Sweet 16" isn't a Sweet 16. There's 12 teams, the winners moves on to the BCS and then two at-large teams, who may not have made a CCG, get to bypass the "Sweet 16". Or worse, they lose the "Sweet 16" and still get a bid in the "elite 8".

    Like I said, this isn't to please presidents. I know they're the ones that need to be pleased, but I don't want to accept mediocrity at the hands of their approval. We the fans drive this sport and if we can't have a say, as long as our say is as financially viable as what the presidents want, then the sport will always be broken. Sometimes fixes aren't always simple and will require work. But to say my proposal can't be tweaked to accommodate tradition and university needs while maintaining equality is false. Perhaps this is the wrong forum for this, but thanks for reading.

    And Project B.O.O.B., you've failed to grasp even the simplest bits of my format, and where they differ greatly from the original poster. If you're not going to take the time to read, then don't comment. That's all I ask.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric,

    It's very obvious you just don't get it. I can no longer debate with you as you do not have the mental capacity to understand the dynamics of this topic. I also do not have the patience to sit here and spell everything out for you so that you may begin to understand. One final point, if you do not think the pac-12 is innovative and striving for change then you have been living under a rock for the past year and a half (triggering conference realignments and 3 billion, yes that's billion, dollar TV deal). Maybe you would be better suited debating this in your living room with your family so that all of you can ignorantly agree and pretend that you're smarter than everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yay for so many reasons. At the very least, a passive thinker with regards to this issue would be grateful for the opportunity to see more college football. The active thinker would likely see the utilitarian purpose of your ideas. Sounds like it should be a closed case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the reply Joe,

    I still need some clarification on how your system encourages non-conference games that people want to see. I absolutely agree that big, non-conference games can be a boon for athletic departments, especially with recruiting. But, once again, your model does not encourage these games to be played. How do big time, non-conference games figure into your system? Let's say Oregon schedules Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech for their non-conference schedule. The result of those games is meaningless in securing a Rose Bowl berth. They could win or lose all three of them, but they will have no impact whatsoever in determining the conference champion. It could have an impact in determining an at-large bid, but once again that would encourage teams to schedule easy teams to run up their win total. If Oregon schedules Fresno State, Portland State, and let's say Michigan State as the one challenging game; wins all three; but goes 8-1 in conference and that one loss ensures they didn't make the championship game, then they would be 11-1. If they had the tougher schedule mentioned previously, and say beat Virginia Tech but lost to Oklahoma and Arkansas, they'd be 9-3. If there are a host of schools that are sitting at 11-1 and 10-2, why would Oregon be favored ahead of them in an at large bid, even if they did play a tougher schedule but lost.

    I agree that your format would only affect a small number of college athletes in terms of extra games played. But that's true of many of the suggested playoff formats. A seeded 8 team playoff, with teams determined after conference championships have been played, would mean 3 extra games for the two contenders and 16 in total (3/4 non-conference and 9/8 conference games depending on the conference, plus the 1 conference championship game, plus the 3 extra for the championship contender). Your system would function with the same total. I'm not sure how you come up with 15, unless the regular season were shortened to 11 games. Correct my math, but wouldn't there be 12 regular season games (3/4 non-conf. + 9/8 conf.), plus a conference championship (13), plus a bowl game (14), plus two more games in the four team playoff for the championship contenders (16)?

    As for "Project B.O.O.B.'s" comments....disagreeing with your or Joe's suggestion doesn't mean an individual lacks "mental capacity". It means they disagree with the premise of your argument. The claim that "Miami and Florida State's" past should guarantee the ACC an automatic berth to participate in this bowl playoff system is absurd. In the 8 years Miami has been in the ACC, it has never won the ACC championship, has never finished in the top 10 in polls, and never won 10 games. They had an amazing run from 1983-2003. The same rings true for Florida State, with an absolutely incredible run under Bobby Bowden from 1977 to the early part of this decade. But in the past five years, why should an ACC team automatically gain a berth to this proposed national championship tournament. The same goes for the Big East. Growing up in the Northwest, I love the Pac-12 as well as the run Boise State has been on this decade. Why should West Virginia or Clemson, by virtue of their conference affiliation, get an opportunity to prove they're the best team in college football, while teams like Boise State, Utah and Texas Tech in 2007, or Wisconsin in 2006 be left out?

    Look at how this format would have played out in past years, assuming 6 conference champions earn bids, plus the two highest ranked at-large teams from the final BCS standings

    ReplyDelete
  13. 2010
    Rose Bowl: Oregon v. Wisconsin
    Sugar Bowl: Auburn v. TCU
    Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Connecticut
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Stanford

    Virginia Tech (13th) and get in over Ohio State (6th), Arkansas (8th), Michigan State (9th), Boise State (10th), LSU (11th) and Missouri (12th)
    Connecticut (unranked) gets in over a dozen of better teams.

    2009
    Rose Bowl: Oregon v. Ohio State
    Sugar Bowl: Alabama v. TCU
    Orange Bowl: Cincinnati v. Georgia Tech
    Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. Florida

    Boise State (6th) is left out, after finishing ahead of Oregon (7th) and Ohio State(8th) (and beating Oregon earlier in the year)

    2008
    Rose Bowl: USC v. Penn State
    Sugar Bowl: Florida v. Texas
    Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Cincinnati
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Alabama

    Utah (6th), Texas Tech (7th), Boise State (8th), Ohio State (10th), and TCU (11th) all miss out, though they finished ahead of Cincinnati (12th) and Virginia Tech (19th)

    2007
    Rose Bowl: Ohio State v. USC
    Sugar Bowl: LSU v. Missouri
    Orange Bowl: West Virginia v. Virginia Tech
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Georgia

    Kansas (8th) finished ahead of West Virginia (9th)

    2006
    Rose Bowl: USC v. Ohio State
    Sugar Bowl: Florida v. Michigan
    Orange Bowl: Louisville v. Wake Forest
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. LSU

    Wisconsin (7th), Boise State (8th), Auburn (9th) finished ahead of Oklahoma (10th)
    Notre Dame (11th), Arkansas (12th), and West Virginia (13th) finished ahead of Wake Forest

    2005
    Rose Bowl: USC v. Penn State
    Sugar Bowl: Georgia v. Ohio State
    Orange Bowl: Florida State v. West Virginia
    Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. Oregon

    Notre Dame (6th) finished ahead of Georgia (7th)
    Miami (8th), Auburn (9th), and Virginia Tech (10th) finished ahead of West Virginia (11th)
    Florida State finished (22nd)

    2004
    Rose Bowl: USC v. Michigan
    Sugar Bowl: Auburn v. Texas
    Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Pittsburgh
    Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. California

    Utah (6th) and Georgia (7th) finish ahead of Virginia Tech (8th)
    Boise State (9th), LSU (10th), Louisville (11th), Iowa finish ahead of Michigan (12th)


    The proposed system has plenty of strengths. But it poses just as many problems by leaving qualified teams out. The goal should be to have the best teams in college football compete in a playoff to determine the champion. Joe's system gets us close, but has flaws which leaves it lacking.

    ReplyDelete