Outfoxing The Foxes | 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Main TooSmartToFail page | Price and Probability | NEW!! PAP Blog!! | Ray Gordon's Blog!!
We
Need a 32-Team
Playoff in College Football!!
A playoff is
something most fans want in some way, shape or form
to decide the national championship in college football!!
2009 has
presented the most compelling argument yet as to why there needs
to be a playoff in college football. There were five
unbeaten schools (Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti and Boise
State) at the end of the regular season, along with a sixth
(Florida) that as the #1 ranked school in the BCS going into its
conference title game had to in that game play the school that
was ranked #2 in the BCS (Alabama) going in, losing that game and
finishing with one loss (the only school that didn't finish
unbeated to do so). The problem is, of course, there is not a
playoff, even though the vast majority of fans along with others
think there needs to be one. Although there will be two unbeaten
schools playing for the national championship on January 7, 2010
at the Rose Bowl, will whoever wins that game be truly considered
the national champion (and for that matter, will the loser of
that game have a claim on the #2 spot)? And for that matter, what
about the other three schools that finished the year unbeaten
(TCU, Cincinatti and Boise State), and perhaps even Florida, who
was #1 for much of the season before suffering their only loss
against Alabama in the SEC Championship game. Don't they deserve
a shot at proving they should be the national champion?
This is why
we need a 32-team playoff in college football!!
Unlike what you may hear or read on
another site, a playoff is not the problem some
may make it out to be:
As most
people who follow college football know, the college Presidents
have been in the way of there being any form of a real playoff in
what is now the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly Division
1-A) for varying reasons. While most believe it is about money
and the fear of dividing it up between schools that currently
don't get to take in the lions share of the Bowl revenue (other
than the "BCS Busters" of recent years), what is not
often said is there is a very small, but in some cases extremely
vocal group of professors who are completely anti-sports in some
instances that the same Presidents may very well be concerned
about making very angry if a playoff of any kind ever happened in
the FBS division of college football, and if so perhaps concerned
that such in academia would attempt to stage protests with others
who are not exactly fond of big-time college sports and have no
understanding of the importance of such.
Those in charge have gone as far as to launch a new website
called Playoff
Problem (http://www.playoffproblem.com), showing in their minds
WHY a playoff won't work, ranging from scheduling to hurting the
existing bowl system. This can easily be overcome with the
existing bowl system only having some tweaking, the exact method of which will come up as
this moves along (scroll down or click this link to
see the exact method).
The one noticible change that a 32-team playoff would bring is
that the regular season for FBS schools would begin one week
earlier than it currently does (meaning the season would begin in
most years on the last weekend in August) and in most years also
end one week earlier than it usually does, with in those years
that being Thanksgiving week. While in most years this would
force some traditional Thanksgiving rivalry games to other parts
of the season where the team(s) involved are in conferences that
would have to move (in most years) their conference championship
games up to Thanksgiving week (though in years where Thanksgiving
is not on the last Thursday in November, that would not be the
case), it is a trade-off that would be well worth it, especially
since in those years it would also mean there would be an
additional week of College Football at the beginning of the
season where it only has to compete with NFL Preseason games and
Baseball, and in most years the first weekend of college football
also not having to compete with the US Open Tennis Championships.
The
following are questions asked on playoffproblem.com concerning a playoff,
with answers immediately following the questions:
1. Who would
participate?
As proposed here, a field of 32 schools, mainly using the
existing BCS formula (with limited exceptions). In this proposal,
the existing BCS Top 25 would be expanded to a BCS Top 40 to as
best possible assure at least one school in all 11 FBS
conferences is ranked in a Top 40.
The question you may ask is why a 32-team playoff, when many have
suggested an eight or 16-team playoff? There is a simple reason
that 32 looks to be the right number:
A 32-team playoff gives everyone who even remotely deserves a
shot at the national championship the chance to play for it!!
That to is the overriding factor of this proposal. While a
32-team field will allow some four-loss teams and sometimes even
a five-loss team (that has played a very difficult schedule) into
the field, it does give the top teams some early round tests that
as long as they pass allow them to advance and play in the
existing BCS bowl games, while at the same time allow schools to
may have had a key injury to their squads early on the chance to
redeem themselves and earn their way up the ladder the hard way,
by playing on the road in the first two rounds if they get that
far.
2.
How many automatic qualifiers?
The 11 FBS conference champions would receive automatic bids.
With those automatic bids also comes a guarantee of no lower than
a #4 seed and with that, the guarantee of playing at least a
first round game at home. With allowances for special
circumstances (i.e.: an extremely strong conference or where
conference co-champions did not play each other in the regular
season), the top six conference champions (who would be seeded #1
or #2 in each of four regions) would usually be guaranteed to
play first and second round games at home (provided they advance
to the second round). There would also be criteria that would
guarantee any independents (Army, Navy or Notre Dame) who, as
long as they meet such critieria getting in with the treatment of
a conference champion (that will be explained in greater detail
in the next segment).
3.
What would be the criteria to qualify?
The criteria would be, as noted to win your conference and not
only be guaranteed a berth in a 32-playoff, but the right to host
at least a first round game if not a second round game (provided
you win your first-round game) in addition. There would also be
21 at-large bids, however, the (current, as of 2009) three FBS
independent schools could turn an at-large bid into an automatic
one by doing any of the following:
1. Win a minimum of nine games and have at least a .750
win percentage and not be in the final BCS Top 40. This simply
guarantees a berth into the field, which can be the lowest
overall seed and having to play the overall #1 seed in the first
round.
2. Win at least eight games, have at least a .650 win
percentage and also be in the BCS Top 40. The same rules
as #1 would apply otherwise, however.
3. Home field advantage for a first-round game for an independent
would be given for winning at least nine games, have at least an
.800 win percentage and finish in the BCS Top 25.
4. Home field advantage for first and second-round games for an
independent that wins at least 11 games, has at least a .900 win
percentage and finishing in the BCS Top 12 OR finishing unbeaten
(for at least an 11 game season) and in the BCS Top 20. If more
than two independents meet this criteria, then the top two
independents in the BCS standings would be guaranteed the second
home game, should they advance past the first round.
Excluding independents who meet any of the above criteria, the
at-large bids to fill out the field of 32 would solely be
determined by the final BCS Standings, which would again be
expanded to a Top 40 for that purpose.
4.
What would be the criteria for seedings?
The seedings
would be determined in the following manner:
1. The top BCS ranked school would be the overall #1 seed, with
the remaining three of four #1 seeds (as there would be four
regions) then determined, with preference given to a conference
champion in the BCS Top 10, although there would be limited
exceptions to allow for a very strong conference, especially
where teams in the BCS Top 5 have to play each other in a
conference title game before any playoff began. The four #2 seeds
would then be determined in a similar manner, usually set up to
where if the #1 and #2 seeds meet in any of the four existing BCS
Bowl games (that in this case would serve as
quarterfinals/regional finals), the overall #1 seed would face
the weakest of the four #2 seeds, the next strongest #1 seed
faces the next weakest #2 seed, etc. This can be tweaked when
possible to assure as much as realistically possible that current
conference affiliation with the existing BCS Bowl games can
remain in place as long as the top seeds win their first and
second round games, as will be noted further down.
2. The four #1 and four #2 seeds would be guaranteed to host
first and second-round playoff games, provided they win their
first round games. Schools with a #3 seed would be guaranteed to
host a first round playoff game, with the chance to host a second
round game should either the #1 or #2 seed be upset in the first
round, while schools with a #4 seed would also host a first round
game with the opportunity to play at home in the second round
should both the #1 and #2 seeds be upset in the first round.
3. Conference champions that finish in the BCS Standings between
16-25 would be guaranteed at worst a #3 seed and a first-round
home game (unless multiple independents and at-large schools that
meet criteria noted above make it in on such and would be seeded
ahead of such a conference champion to where such a school would
have to drop to a #4 seed, but still be guaranteed a home game).
4. Conference champions that finish between 26-32 would be
guaranteed a higher #4 seed and a first-round home game, while
such champions that finish outside the BCS Top 32 would only be
guaranteed a #4 seed that can be the #16 overall seed and the
first round home game that comes with it.
As noted, the #1 and #2 seeds would generally be set up so that
if the top two seeds in each of the four regions make it to the
BCS Bowl games, those would pit the overall #1 vs. the overall #8
(weakest #2) seed, overall #2 vs. overall #7 seed, and so forth, with
notable exceptions to (mainly) as much as possible keep the
current BCS Bowl affiliations in tact. The remaining seeds would be set
up in a similar manner, as shown in what would be
the 2009 first-round matchups using this example would be if it
were actually done (scroll down or click this link).
Note on seeding: Schools from the same
conference would not be allowed to play each other before the
second round except for where the overall #1 seed is playing the
overall #32 seed.
5.
Where would the games be played?
6. When would the games be played?
These will be answered together:
In this format, the first two rounds would be played at home
sites.
In most years, the first round would be played on the week after
Thanksgiving, most likely with at least two games on Thursday,
two on Friday, one on Sunday night and the others all on
Saturday. The earliest starting date for the first round of the
playoffs, however, would be where December 1 falls on a Thursday,
meaning in years where Thanksgiving falls on November 22 or 23,
the week after Thanksgiving would still be regular season and
conference championship games with the following week (beginning
with December 6 or 7) being the first round of the playoffs. This
would be done to best assure there would not be playoff games
during finals at most schools, or if there are, there would be
minimal impact on finals at worst.
After a one-week break (in part to account for finals and in part
to allow for schools to more easily make arrangements) the second
round would be played on the week after the Heisman Trophy
presentation (most likely with at least one game on Thursday, two
on Friday, one on Sunday night and the rest on Saturday). For the
second round, the lowest remaining seed in a region would play
the highest remaining seed, while the two other seeds would
simply play each other (for example, if the #1, #3 and #4 seeds
all win their first-round games in a region, but a #2 seed is
upset by a #7 seed in the first round, for the second round the
#1 seed would play the #7 seed while the #3 seed would host the
#4 seed).
The existing bowls would still
be played in this format, but as noted above with some tweaking:
First round losers along with schools that failed to make the
32-team playoff field would play in the lower tier bowls
(provided they are eligible), with the higher-seeded first round
losers getting the better of those bowl games. Second round
losers would play in one of the top four non-BCS Bowl games (Note:
The bowls noted here are based largely on general public
perception and history of the games, along with payouts to the
two schools that play in the games): The two highest seeded
second round losers would likely play in the Cotton Bowl, the
next two highest would likely play in the Capital One Bowl, the
two highest after that would likely play in the Chick-Fil-A
(Peach) Bowl and the two lowest seeded second round losers would
likely play in the Holiday Bowl. Each of those four bowl games,
along with what would be the top Bowl games for first round
losers (most likely the Gator, Outback, Liberty and Independence
Bowls) would be in a rotation that would every four years play
host to one of the two national semifinal games in addition to
their regular bowl game.
Meanwhile, the second round winners would move on to what are the
existing BCS Bowl games, which would be played as they are now
over the New Year's period. The only significant difference for
the existing BCS Bowl games is that there would now be
essentially be two four-team mini-tournaments (making up the
first two rounds) that would determine each of the participants
in each of the four BCS Bowl games. The BCS bowls would now be
considered regional finals, with the regions broken up as
follows:
Orange Bowl (East Region)
Sugar Bowl (South Region)
Fiesta Bowl (Midwest Region)
Rose Bowl (West Region)
Below is what the
first-round games, using the final BCS Standings for 2009 as the
primary guide would look like if this system were really in
place:
Sugar
Bowl Region
(8) Texas Tech (32) at (1) Alabama (1)
(7) Nebraska (25) at (2) Ohio State (8)
(6) Stanford (24) at (3) Georgia Tech (9)
(5) BYU (17) at (4) Troy (16)
Orange
Bowl Region
(8) Clemson (30) at (1) Cincinnati (3)
(7) Wisconsin (28) at (2) Oregon (6)
(6) Arizona (22) at (3) Virginia Tech (11)
(5) West Virginia (19) at (4) East Carolina (14)
Fiesta
Bowl Region
(8) Northwestern (31) at (1) Texas (2)
(7) Utah (26) at (2) Florida (7)
(6) Oregon State (23) at (3) Iowa (10)
(5) Miami (18) at (4) Penn State (15)
Rose
Bowl Region
(8) Houston (29) at (1) TCU (4)
(7) USC (28) at (2) Boise State (5)
(6) Oklahoma State (21) at (3) LSU (12)
(5) Pittsburgh (20) at (4) Central Michigan (13)
Notes
concerning the seedings:
1. Because Boise State beat Oregon and finished unbeaten while
Oregon had two losses, there was no way to justify being able to
elevate Oregon to a #1 seed as they have two losses, which would
have been necessary to allow for the Big 10 and Pac-10 to meet in
the Rose Bowl in this format (as both conferences are having down
years), especially since every team with fewer than two losses
(except for Florida) finished the season unbeaten. That is why
TCU has the #1 seed and Boise State the #2 seed the Rose Bowl
Region and neither the Big 10 or Pac-10 champion would be in such
(although if USC won what would likely be two road games,
including one at Boise State, they would be in the Rose Bowl). In
addition, because of TCU and Boise State finishing unbeaten and
in the BCS Top 6 and Florida finishing in the BCS Top 5 (only
losing its conference title game), Georgia Tech is dropped to the
top #3 seed and as a result is not in the Orange Bowl region.
2. Although Oregon State was ranked ahead of Arizona and Oklahoma
State in the final BCS standings, because Arizona beat Oregon
State head-to-head on the road and technically finished ahead of
Oregon State in the Pac-10, Oregon State is dropped below Arizona
for seeding and Oklahoma State and Arizona each move up one seed
spot in this example. Also, USC was dropped one notch in the
overall seedings because USC would otherwise have played
conference rival Oregon in the first round.
3. Since the BCS currently only goes up to 25, once the BCS Top
25 is exhausted, the remaining spots for this example are filled
out by using a combination of the polls that would best possible
mimmick the BCS beyond position #25.
As much as possible, the current
conference affiliation with bowl games would be used in the
following manner, with preferences given by the overall seedings:
In the case of the Rose Bowl, as long as either the Big 10 or
Pac-10 has a #1 seed and the other has a #2 seed as its
conference champion (or a second place team in either conference
is a #2 seed), as long as both top seeds win their first and
second round games (both of which, assuming they get to the
second round would be at home) would play each other in the Rose
Bowl. While this would be done as much as possible in this method
(including if necessary setting up the seeds so those two
conference champions meet in the Rose Bowl), there will be times
where it could not be done simply because of both conferences
either being too weak or too strong.
If it is because the Big 10 and Pac-10 both have schools
deserving of being #1 seeds (but not where the Big 10 and Pac-10
conference champions are the top two overall seeds), the Rose
Bowl would reserve the right to switch dates with the scheduled
host of one of the the semifinal matchups (and if necessary,
adjusting the dates of any non-BCS games potentially affected if
this were the case) if it gave the Rose Bowl the chance of having
the Big 10 and Pac-10 champions meeting in a national semifinal
with no chance of a Big 10-Pac-10 meeting in a New Year's Day
Rose Bowl (for example, if Ohio State and USC were both #1 seeds
but Oregon, because they have only one loss to USC is a #2 seed,
then the Rose Bowl would NOT get the opportunity to switch since
Ohio State and Oregon would be the #1 and #2 seeds respectively
in the Rose Bowl region, and if both win their first two playoff
games, again, at home, they would play each other in the Rose
Bowl while USC would be a #1 seed in another region). If however,
the Big 10 and Pac-10 between them have the overall #1 and #2
seeds, then the Rose Bowl would not be able to make any switches
since the overall top two seeds would be set up to meet in the
championship game.
For 2009, due to how the final BCS standings shook out, the fact
that two non-BCS conference champions wound up in the BCS Top 6,
the large number of unbeatens (five, plus a Florida squad whose
only loss was in the SEC Championship Game) and the fact the Big
10 and Pac-10 champions (plus the ACC champion) had two losses
each while other conference champions were unbeaten, it was
impossible to keep either the Big 10 or Pac-10 champion in the
Rose Bowl Region in this format.
In the case of the Fiesta Bowl, so long as the Big 12 Champion is
a #1 or #2 seed and wins its two first round games at home, the
Big 12 Champion would still play in that game for its
quarterfinal/regional final.
In the case of the Sugar Bowl, so long as the SEC Champion is a
#1 or #2 seed and wins its two first round games at home, the SEC
Champion would still play in that game for its
quarterfinal/regional final.
In the case of the Orange Bowl, so long as the ACC Champion is a
#1 or #2 seed and wins its two first round games at home, the ACC
Champion would still play in that game for its
quarterfinal/regional final (that is not the case in 2009 because
like the Big 10 and Pac-10, the conference is in a down year,
which, coupled with two non-BCS conference champions in the BCS
Top 6 is why Georgia Tech, the ACC champion is a #3 seed). The
Big East champion would also play in the Orange Bowl if it is a
#1 or #2 seed and is NOT on the same seeding line as the ACC
Champion and also wins its first and second round games.
The four BCS Bowl winners would advance to the national
semifinals. The two national semifinal games
would generally be rotated between the sites of the top eight
non-BCS Bowl games (most likely those noted above) in two
rotations of four, one of which would be the bowl games that
would pit second round losers while the others would be the top
four bowl games that would pit first round losers. These would
likely be rotated with (most likely using the sites noted above,
or others if not those sites) most likely for example the Gator
and Cotton Bowl sites getting the two semifinals one year, the
Indepenence and Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl sites in a second, the
Liberty and Capital One Bowl sites in a third and the Outback and
Holiday Bowls in the fourth and last year of such a rotation
(ideally, so one national seminfinal is in the eastern time zone
and the other is outside the eastern time zone). In most years,
the two semifinal games would be in prime time during the week in
between the NFL Wild Card and Divisional Playoffs, with exact
dates depending on the calendar and when the BCS Bowls are
actually played. Using the scheduled BCS Bowl dates for January
2010 in this example, one semifinal, pitting the Rose and Sugar
Bowl (New Year's Day Bowl) winners would be played on Monday,
January 11 with the other semifinal, pitting the Orange and
Fiesta Bowl winners the next night on Tuesday, January 12.
The winners of the two national semifinal games would
then play for the national championship, which in most
years would be scheduled in this format for the Saturday night
preceding the NFL conference championship games (in 2010, that
would be January 23). The national championship game (and
possibly a third place game between the semifinal losers the
night before) would be rotated between the sites of the four
existing BCS Bowl games as the BCS Championship Game currently
is.
This is likely the most fair way to decide the national
championship in college football. The fact that the "Big
Six" BCS conferences would be (in most years) guaranteed of
at least their conference champions getting two extra home games
(provided such win their first round game) would be enough of an
incentive to overcome opposition from the college Presidents,
especially since it would still be set up where in most years,
the "Big Six" would get a massive percentage of what
likely would be a much bigger revenue pie than in the present
system, especially with two rounds before and two rounds after
the BCS Bowl games. This would be especially since most, if not
all of the existing bowl games would still be played as in this
format, all 32 playoff participants would also be guaranteed a
bowl game (either a BCS Bowl if they win their first and second
round matcups, a top non-BCS bowl if they at least win a first
round game or a lower tier bowl for those that lose in the first
round) in addition to at least one playoff game, with the chance
to advance to play for the national title if they win a BCS Bowl
game.
While there would be the risk of a three or four (and in some
years even a five loss school as would be the case this year with
Clemson) getting hot and going all the way to winning the
championship, that risk is well worth taking because any school
that pulled that off would in all likelihood have to do the hard
way in winning first and second round games on the road
before reaching a BCS Bowl game. Especially in a year like 2009
that saw the regular season end with five unbeaten
schools (and a sixth with only one loss that came in a conference
title game where the top two teams in the BCS standings that were
both undefeated going in met), a 32-team playoff would be the
best way in all likelihood to give most fans what they really
want:
A TRUE
national champion!!
Want to comment? Do so by clicking here!!
Outfoxing The Foxes | 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Main TooSmartToFail page | Price and Probability | NEW!! PAP Blog!! | Ray Gordon's Blog!!