Tweet
Polls and Bowls can be wed by a playoff system that does not upset the current system, but refines it. The writer of this article has the good sense to realize that you are not going to scrap the existing format, but that reforms could work. It appears in About.com's football section and is from 2002, so it can't account for some of the more recent changes to the BCS, none of which had anything to do with a playoff, so this article is still very valid.
Part 1 - BCS Inadequate
By Alex Giles
Date: November 19, 2002
Every year about this time in College Football, the BCS nay-sayers attempt to articulate all of the reasons why the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a system instituted prior to the 1998 season, is inadequate, unfair, or just plain ridiculous.
Heading into November, the BCS rankings featured eight undefeated teams that were positioning themselves for an appearance in the National Championship game. At that time, many observers felt this would surely be the season where public outrage would finally bring an end to the BCS...at least in its current format. Now, three weeks later, after several truly unexpected upsets, all appears to be fine again in the world of the BCS...right? We have only two undefeated teams, Miami and Ohio State, and they are ranked #1 and #2, respectively, in the most recent BCS ranking. Presumably, this sets the stage for a true National Championship game between the top two teams in the country, exactly what the BCS is expected to produce. Or does it?
Some will argue that Ohio State clearly isn't one of the top two teams in the country, despite its #2 ranking in the BCS - only .01 points behind first-place Miami. Some will even go so far as to say that Ohio State may not even be the best team in its own conference, siding with 11-1 Iowa instead. Even if you do believe that Miami and Ohio State are truly the two best teams in the country, in order for the BCS to escape serious scrutiny this season Miami and Ohio State will have to win the remainder of their games - Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech for Miami, and Michigan for Ohio State.
However, what happens if either Miami or Ohio State lose one of those games? Worse yet, what happens if both Miami and Ohio State suffer a loss before the end of the season? The simple answer is that College Football and the BCS would be right back where they were three weeks ago...prime for revamping...
Part 2 - Revamping the BCS
Naturally, when people talk about revamping the BCS, the leading alternative is some sort of playoff format since College Football is the only major sport that does not employ a bracket type finish to its season. While there have been several proposals that would accomplish such a Playoff format, all appear to completely discard the current BCS system. In doing so, proponents of these playoff alternatives lack the diplomacy necessary to sell the idea as they fail to factor in the legacy and importance of the major bowls, which ultimately ends up being the death nail of any such proposal. Therefore, any modification to the BCS to incorporate a playoff system has be exactly that - a modification, and not an outright dismantling of the current system.
For all of the real and/or perceived deficiencies of the BCS, it really isn't a bad system. For the most part, the BCS does an exceptional job in utilizing the AP and Coaches polls, the computer polls, a team's strength of schedule, deductions for quality wins, and so on, to identify the best 15 teams in the country. In fact, I am not aware of any BCS-bashers that would honestly disagree with this conclusion...most likely because they have never been asked to comment on that particular issue. When you consider the effectiveness of the BCS, however, no one currently judges the BCS on its ability to identify the top 15 teams, rather the BCS is judged on its ability to identify the top 2 teams at season's end. Unfortunately, that's where the BCS' problems lie.
The 2000 and 2001 seasons are prime examples. In 2000, the BCS ranked Oklahoma #1 and Florida State #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Miami was ranked #2 in both the AP and the Coaches poll and had beaten the Seminoles during the regular season. Likewise, in 2001, the BCS ranked Miami #1 and Nebraska #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Oregon was ranked #2 in both polls. This year, once again, it is conceivable that College Football and the BCS will face the possibility that there is no clear-cut, undefeated #1 and #2 team at the end of the season, and will be forced to select among a handful of teams with one loss that can all make convincing arguments why they should be deemed one of the top two teams in the country and be invited to play in the National Championship game...
Part 3 - The Solution
In order to correct this possible nightmare situation that will continue to exist year after year, College Football should adopt a Playoff format that retains the strengths of the current BCS system. Specifically, the proposed new BCS/Playoff format should implement the following components:
1) The current BCS system for the most part would remain in place and would be used to rank the top 15 teams each week, starting with the third week in October;
2) All teams would play no more than 12 games during the regular season (this would include any conference championship games);
3) At season's end, the top 8 teams of the BCS would be playoff eligible and have a shot at advancing to the National Championship game, rather than merely the top 2 teams;
4) The 8 BCS/Playoff eligible teams would not necessarily include all of the conference champions from the 6 current BCS sanctioned conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC), rather they would be comprised solely of the top 8 teams from the season ending BCS ranking regardless of conference;
5) There would no longer be a limitation that only 2 teams per conference could be BCS/Playoff eligible;
6) The new BCS/Playoff format would continue to feature the current BCS bowls - the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Rose Bowl, thus preserving the major Bowl tradition;
7) Each year, the priority of the four BCS Bowls would rotate. Currently, the National Championship game rotates among the four Bowls so that once every four years each Bowl hosts the National Championship game. That will continue, but the remaining three Bowls will be ranked 2 through 4 each year. For example, this year the Fiesta Bowl is the National Championship game, the Sugar Bowl would be ranked #2, the Orange Bowl #3, and the Rose Bowl #4. Next year, the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Rose Bowl would each move up one notch and the Sugar Bowl would host the National Championship game. The Fiesta Bowl, since it hosted the Championship game this year, would rotate to the lowest ranked of the four Bowls in year 2;
8) The playoffs would begin at the end of the second full week in December, matching #1 vs. #8, #4 vs. #5, #2 vs. #7, and #3 vs. #6 in the Quarterfinals;
9) The winners of the four Quarterfinal match-ups would advance to the Semifinals to be played the following weekend. The winner of #1 vs. #8 would meet the winner of #4 vs. #5, and the winner of #2 vs. #7 would meet the winner of #3 vs. #6;
10) The losing teams from the four Quarterfinal match-ups would meet in the 3rd and 4th ranked Bowls for that year. Using the example articulated above in Paragraph 7, the losing teams from the Quarterfinals would play in the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl. In order to determine which teams would play in the Orange Bowl as opposed to the Rose Bowl, the two teams with the better BCS season ending ranking would play in the Orange Bowl whereas the other two teams who have the lesser BCS rankings would play in the Rose Bowl. Consequently, the regional tie-in requirement for BCS teams not in the National Championship game would no longer exist;
11) The winners of the Semifinals would advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl. The losing teams from the Semifinals would match-up against each other in the Sugar Bowl;
12) All BCS/Playoff Bowl games would be played during the first week of January, much like the current format;
13) The winner of the BCS/Playoff National Championship game would be deemed the National Champion regardless of its season ending BCS ranking...
Part 4 - Conclusion
In order to demonstrate how the new BCS/Playoff system would work, if the 2002 season were to end today, the Quarterfinal match-ups would be as follows: #1 Miami vs. #8 Southern Cal, #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia, #2 Ohio State vs. #7 Iowa, and #3 Washington State vs. #6 Notre Dame. For the sake of argument, let's say that Miami, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Washington State win their Quarterfinal games. Miami would then play Oklahoma and Ohio State would play Washington State in the Semifinals. Southern Cal, as the #8 seed, and Iowa, as the #7 seed, would play in the 4th ranked Bowl this year - the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame, as the #6 seed, and Georgia, as the #5 seed, would play in the 3rd ranked Bowl - the Orange Bowl.
Continuing on, let's say that Miami and Ohio State win their Semifinal games. Miami and Ohio State would then advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl and Oklahoma and Washington State would meet in the Sugar Bowl.
This BCS/Playoff proposal takes the best from both systems and creates a win-win situation for all involved - College Football, the BCS, the major Bowls, and most importantly, the fans who want an undisputed National Champion. The time has come for this holy union of the BCS and a playoff format.
Just a word of caution for College Football though, if you wait any longer before conducting the ceremony you may find yourself with the proverbial Shotgun Wedding.
End of Article
Why can't someone effectively present these arguments to university presidents and make them see that there could be even more money to be made with BCS playoff games? If all they are worried about is money, why can't someone project what they would make under a playoff system as an argument?
You hear a lot of people trumpeting a playoff system of some kind or another. Why won't the defenders of the current poll system of determining the top two step up and defend the system publicly?
Just dealing in present reality, here is an article from ESPN Jan. 2007 quoting the BCS Coordinator and SEC Commisioner Mike Slive, who was open to change after the 2010 deal expires. The best 8 teams could play in the Orange, Sugar, Rose and Fiesta (like they presumably do now), which would get it down to 4 teams and then you could have a Final Four that could be held over a two week period, at one particular site, which could rotate between one of the existing cities like it does now. The final four eliminates the travel between the semi and championship games, because it would be in the same city, just a week apart for obvious reasons. They just need one more game.
Part 1 - BCS Inadequate
By Alex Giles
Date: November 19, 2002
Every year about this time in College Football, the BCS nay-sayers attempt to articulate all of the reasons why the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a system instituted prior to the 1998 season, is inadequate, unfair, or just plain ridiculous.
Heading into November, the BCS rankings featured eight undefeated teams that were positioning themselves for an appearance in the National Championship game. At that time, many observers felt this would surely be the season where public outrage would finally bring an end to the BCS...at least in its current format. Now, three weeks later, after several truly unexpected upsets, all appears to be fine again in the world of the BCS...right? We have only two undefeated teams, Miami and Ohio State, and they are ranked #1 and #2, respectively, in the most recent BCS ranking. Presumably, this sets the stage for a true National Championship game between the top two teams in the country, exactly what the BCS is expected to produce. Or does it?
Some will argue that Ohio State clearly isn't one of the top two teams in the country, despite its #2 ranking in the BCS - only .01 points behind first-place Miami. Some will even go so far as to say that Ohio State may not even be the best team in its own conference, siding with 11-1 Iowa instead. Even if you do believe that Miami and Ohio State are truly the two best teams in the country, in order for the BCS to escape serious scrutiny this season Miami and Ohio State will have to win the remainder of their games - Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech for Miami, and Michigan for Ohio State.
However, what happens if either Miami or Ohio State lose one of those games? Worse yet, what happens if both Miami and Ohio State suffer a loss before the end of the season? The simple answer is that College Football and the BCS would be right back where they were three weeks ago...prime for revamping...
Part 2 - Revamping the BCS
Naturally, when people talk about revamping the BCS, the leading alternative is some sort of playoff format since College Football is the only major sport that does not employ a bracket type finish to its season. While there have been several proposals that would accomplish such a Playoff format, all appear to completely discard the current BCS system. In doing so, proponents of these playoff alternatives lack the diplomacy necessary to sell the idea as they fail to factor in the legacy and importance of the major bowls, which ultimately ends up being the death nail of any such proposal. Therefore, any modification to the BCS to incorporate a playoff system has be exactly that - a modification, and not an outright dismantling of the current system.
For all of the real and/or perceived deficiencies of the BCS, it really isn't a bad system. For the most part, the BCS does an exceptional job in utilizing the AP and Coaches polls, the computer polls, a team's strength of schedule, deductions for quality wins, and so on, to identify the best 15 teams in the country. In fact, I am not aware of any BCS-bashers that would honestly disagree with this conclusion...most likely because they have never been asked to comment on that particular issue. When you consider the effectiveness of the BCS, however, no one currently judges the BCS on its ability to identify the top 15 teams, rather the BCS is judged on its ability to identify the top 2 teams at season's end. Unfortunately, that's where the BCS' problems lie.
The 2000 and 2001 seasons are prime examples. In 2000, the BCS ranked Oklahoma #1 and Florida State #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Miami was ranked #2 in both the AP and the Coaches poll and had beaten the Seminoles during the regular season. Likewise, in 2001, the BCS ranked Miami #1 and Nebraska #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Oregon was ranked #2 in both polls. This year, once again, it is conceivable that College Football and the BCS will face the possibility that there is no clear-cut, undefeated #1 and #2 team at the end of the season, and will be forced to select among a handful of teams with one loss that can all make convincing arguments why they should be deemed one of the top two teams in the country and be invited to play in the National Championship game...
Part 3 - The Solution
In order to correct this possible nightmare situation that will continue to exist year after year, College Football should adopt a Playoff format that retains the strengths of the current BCS system. Specifically, the proposed new BCS/Playoff format should implement the following components:
1) The current BCS system for the most part would remain in place and would be used to rank the top 15 teams each week, starting with the third week in October;
2) All teams would play no more than 12 games during the regular season (this would include any conference championship games);
3) At season's end, the top 8 teams of the BCS would be playoff eligible and have a shot at advancing to the National Championship game, rather than merely the top 2 teams;
4) The 8 BCS/Playoff eligible teams would not necessarily include all of the conference champions from the 6 current BCS sanctioned conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC), rather they would be comprised solely of the top 8 teams from the season ending BCS ranking regardless of conference;
5) There would no longer be a limitation that only 2 teams per conference could be BCS/Playoff eligible;
6) The new BCS/Playoff format would continue to feature the current BCS bowls - the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Rose Bowl, thus preserving the major Bowl tradition;
7) Each year, the priority of the four BCS Bowls would rotate. Currently, the National Championship game rotates among the four Bowls so that once every four years each Bowl hosts the National Championship game. That will continue, but the remaining three Bowls will be ranked 2 through 4 each year. For example, this year the Fiesta Bowl is the National Championship game, the Sugar Bowl would be ranked #2, the Orange Bowl #3, and the Rose Bowl #4. Next year, the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Rose Bowl would each move up one notch and the Sugar Bowl would host the National Championship game. The Fiesta Bowl, since it hosted the Championship game this year, would rotate to the lowest ranked of the four Bowls in year 2;
8) The playoffs would begin at the end of the second full week in December, matching #1 vs. #8, #4 vs. #5, #2 vs. #7, and #3 vs. #6 in the Quarterfinals;
9) The winners of the four Quarterfinal match-ups would advance to the Semifinals to be played the following weekend. The winner of #1 vs. #8 would meet the winner of #4 vs. #5, and the winner of #2 vs. #7 would meet the winner of #3 vs. #6;
10) The losing teams from the four Quarterfinal match-ups would meet in the 3rd and 4th ranked Bowls for that year. Using the example articulated above in Paragraph 7, the losing teams from the Quarterfinals would play in the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl. In order to determine which teams would play in the Orange Bowl as opposed to the Rose Bowl, the two teams with the better BCS season ending ranking would play in the Orange Bowl whereas the other two teams who have the lesser BCS rankings would play in the Rose Bowl. Consequently, the regional tie-in requirement for BCS teams not in the National Championship game would no longer exist;
11) The winners of the Semifinals would advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl. The losing teams from the Semifinals would match-up against each other in the Sugar Bowl;
12) All BCS/Playoff Bowl games would be played during the first week of January, much like the current format;
13) The winner of the BCS/Playoff National Championship game would be deemed the National Champion regardless of its season ending BCS ranking...
Part 4 - Conclusion
In order to demonstrate how the new BCS/Playoff system would work, if the 2002 season were to end today, the Quarterfinal match-ups would be as follows: #1 Miami vs. #8 Southern Cal, #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia, #2 Ohio State vs. #7 Iowa, and #3 Washington State vs. #6 Notre Dame. For the sake of argument, let's say that Miami, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Washington State win their Quarterfinal games. Miami would then play Oklahoma and Ohio State would play Washington State in the Semifinals. Southern Cal, as the #8 seed, and Iowa, as the #7 seed, would play in the 4th ranked Bowl this year - the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame, as the #6 seed, and Georgia, as the #5 seed, would play in the 3rd ranked Bowl - the Orange Bowl.
Continuing on, let's say that Miami and Ohio State win their Semifinal games. Miami and Ohio State would then advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl and Oklahoma and Washington State would meet in the Sugar Bowl.
This BCS/Playoff proposal takes the best from both systems and creates a win-win situation for all involved - College Football, the BCS, the major Bowls, and most importantly, the fans who want an undisputed National Champion. The time has come for this holy union of the BCS and a playoff format.
Just a word of caution for College Football though, if you wait any longer before conducting the ceremony you may find yourself with the proverbial Shotgun Wedding.
End of Article
Why can't someone effectively present these arguments to university presidents and make them see that there could be even more money to be made with BCS playoff games? If all they are worried about is money, why can't someone project what they would make under a playoff system as an argument?
You hear a lot of people trumpeting a playoff system of some kind or another. Why won't the defenders of the current poll system of determining the top two step up and defend the system publicly?
Just dealing in present reality, here is an article from ESPN Jan. 2007 quoting the BCS Coordinator and SEC Commisioner Mike Slive, who was open to change after the 2010 deal expires. The best 8 teams could play in the Orange, Sugar, Rose and Fiesta (like they presumably do now), which would get it down to 4 teams and then you could have a Final Four that could be held over a two week period, at one particular site, which could rotate between one of the existing cities like it does now. The final four eliminates the travel between the semi and championship games, because it would be in the same city, just a week apart for obvious reasons. They just need one more game.
Comment