Monday, December 29, 2008

WE NEED A PLAYOFF DAMNIT!!!

I just read an article that made my blood boil. It contains all the usual crap about why a playoff makes no sense and why a playoff won't work. I'm not going to cite the author's points but I'll give you the key information and a link just in case you are interesting in reading his b.s.

College football playoff makes no sense
Teddy Greenstein ON COLLEGES
chicagotribune.com
December 29, 2008

I wasted no time in posting a comment, as follows:
The bowl system wouldn't be a problem if the BCS or the media (ESPN, AP, etc.) didn't anoint a national champion. You cannot have a champion without a playoff. There simply is not enough interconference play in a short season to be able to compare one conference to another. Conference championships have meaning.

Unfortunately, this national championship b.s. started a long time before the BCS was ever devised. The media took great pride in declaring a national champion and people nodded yes, what a great team. But other schools that didn't get the TV coverage that Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State and Michigan got started to yell FOUL! We're better than them. But the way bowls were aligned with conferences prevented a true matchup of the top teams, or of teams that were potentially the best.

This is why there is a cry for equality, a call for a playoff. It is about freedom and democracy and earning the title. If there had not been discrimination in the polls, where teams got their rankings because of tradition and history, there wouldn't be a cry for a playoff. But the truth of the matter is that kind of discrimination DOES exist. We might as well choose a national champion by the first school's logo that Punksatony Phil sees on February 2nd, or have a watery tart rise from the lake and present a sword to the best looking quarterback in the land. After all, it is a beauty contest where style points count more than points allowed, margin of victory, and strength of schedule.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

BCS SHOULD LISTEN TO CRITICS

The author of the following blog article is Jordan Kobritz, a former attorney, CPA, and Minor League Baseball team owner. He is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Eastern New Mexico University, teaches the Business of Sports at the University of Wyoming, and is a contributing author to the Business of Sports Network.

Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Guiding Light of Sports Business

Everybody’s talking at me

I don’t hear a word they’re saying

Only the echoes of my mind.

Everybody’s Talkin’, by Harry Nilsson


The song and words made popular by Harry Nilsson in the 1969 movie, Midnight Cowboy, accurately describe the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conference commissioners. Everyone is talkin’ at them and they don’t hear a word they’re saying.

The controversial manner in which the BCS conferences anoint a football champion – through a myriad of complex polls that would make a derivatives expert blush – is the basis for frequent and vocal criticism. Even President-elect Barack Obama got in on the act, threatening to “throw my weight around,” as he put it, in a post election interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes. Like so many other college football fans, Obama believes a national football champion should be determined by a playoff.

Such a concept isn’t unique. A playoff is held in every other football division and every other NCAA sport. But the BCS isn’t affiliated with the NCAA. The six conferences that comprise the BCS broke away from the governing body in the aftermath of a 1981 lawsuit brought by the Universities of Oklahoma and Georgia.

The major football schools wanted to divvy up the TV and bowl money among themselves, without contributing to the NCAA’s revenue sharing arrangement. Any reversal of course that includes a playoff system would most likely require the participation of the NCAA. Which makes the idea of a playoff a non-starter for BCS schools.

Now, I’m no fan of the NCAA. Their pious blatting about the welfare of student-athletes rings hollow when their actions over the years clearly prove otherwise. But in this case, there is no rational reason why the NCAA administers all national collegiate championships – 88 annually - save one.

BCS commissioners are quick to defend the status quo, arguing it protects the tradition and sanctity of the bowls. They even admit to leaving millions of dollars on the table by eschewing a playoff system. But if the extra money is distributed by the NCAA to non-BCS schools, the thinking goes, why bother?

Even worse than their unwillingness to share the wealth with their less fortunate brethren, BCS conferences don’t even maximize their own revenue potential under the current system. A survey of tax documents by Yahoo!.com uncovered what can only be described as gross overspending and mismanagement on the part of bowl committees, at the expense of BCS schools.

The Sugar Bowl, for example, took in revenue of $12.9 million in 2006 and paid only $6 million into the BCS pool (participating teams will receive $17 million for a BCS bowl appearance this season, but much of that amount is derived from TV contracts). The majority of the remaining revenue was spent on such “necessities” as entertainment, media relations, decorations, committee meetings, gifts, bonuses and employee compensation, including $453,399 to Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan.

The Sugar Bowl isn’t alone. The Orange Bowl took in over $17.9 million in revenue in 2007, and after their contribution to the BCS pool, spent most of the remainder. The Arizona Sports Foundation, which staged two BCS games in 2007, did the Sugar and Orange Bowls one better. They took in $19.7 million and still managed to “lose” a million dollars. \

The reality is BCS conferences don’t need the bowls, whether they use the present system to determine a “national champion” or conduct a playoff. They proved as much when they began staging conference championship games - in effect creating their own “bowls” - which have turned out to be extremely profitable. To wit: The 2007 SEC championship game grossed $13.7 million in revenue and distributed almost $12 million to conference schools, according to Yahoo!com.

So why allow yourself to be ripped off by the existing bowls? The answer has nothing to do with tradition or the sanctity of the bowls. The current system suits the BCS conferences just fine. They get to decide who gets how much money and they don’t have to deal with the NCAA. In this case, power is more important than money.

Those who argue for a playoff, including the President-elect, be damned. Despite all the talkin’, the BCS commissioners don’t hear a word they’re saying.

Here is the comment I left: Jordan, thanks for your perspective. As a fan of the sport of college football, I want to see a playoff. I am sick and tired of the mathematicians being told by the BCS what factors they can and cannot include in their rankings. I am sick and tired of polls by a small number of voters who, for the most part, 1) don't have the time and energy to study enough of the games, 2) base their opinion on whhat biased ESPN pundits have to say, and/or 3) have ties or biases to specific teams or conferences.

I agree with the congressmen who submitted the bill essentailly accusing the BCS of false advertising.

This year there are too many good teams and there is just no way to decide who is the best without a playoff. There just is not enough interconference play to rank the conferences against each other.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 9 - As I See It

It may surprise you to hear me say "I hate the BCS. It is past time for a playoff system." I have been involved in this debate on several message boards for the last few years. This is the last you will hear from me on this subject for this year (maybe).

The current system is way better than the system we had before the BCS where all the bowl games were played based on conference alignments and the media declared a National Champion based on a totally subjective call. Teams would get the title because of their historic reputation and tradition even though they didn't play a single team that finished in the top ten.

We have seen teams like Auburn in 2004 have an undefeated season playing an excruciating schedule and not even get the chance to play for all the marbles, just because the pundits pre-season rankings had Auburn behind Oklahoma and USC, despite the fact that both of those teams did not play nearly as tough a schedule as the SEC.

The number of people supporting a playoff is growing and the number of opponents are dwindling. I read issues on both sides of the issue. They number about 15 to 1 in favor of a playoff. Just about the only supporters of the current system are the BCS organization (duh...), university presidents (especially the BIG 10 and PAC 10) and, of course the bowl committees and sponsors. President Elect Obama wants a playoff and congressmen from Illinois and Texas have sponsored a bill insisting that the BCS no longer advertise their big game as a championship without a playoff. And to add more more fuel to the fire we also have a new BCS Watchdog group that has formed, is gathering contributions for a legal fund and intends to push the issue until it happens. Has America truly had enough? Is the new battle cry "No Champion Designation Without Playoff Representation?" Are we like the old world where a ruler is deigned by some watery tart rising from the lake and presenting a sword to the chosen one? Well, that's kind of what we have now. It's like figure skating, where the scoring is subjective. A major component in the human polls that make up 2/3' of the BCS score is "style points" - a totally subjective score akin to "artistic impression" in figure skating scoring. That's not good enough for me... I say settle it on the field with a playoff with the totally objective criteria of points on the scoreboard.

Despite the claims of the proponents of the bowl system, the bowls don't hold the excitement and tradition they once did. This is for several reasons:


  • The increase in the number of bowls such that 9 teams that ended their seasons with a 6-6 record are going to bowl games. Instead of only honoring teams that had a great season, we are now honoring mediocrity as well.
  • Almost all of the bowls have been taken over by corporate sponsors. Long gone are the Peach Bowl and the Citrus Bowl - at least in name..

  • Have you watched a lot of the minor bowls the last few years? The stands are not full and the matchups are not compelling.

Of course, if we beat Oklahoma on January 8, we will be crowned National Champion, but will we really be playing the best team? Oklahoma has a key player injured. It would mean much more to me to win it honestly, like we did in back-to-back years in the final four against UCLA and Ohio State in basketball. Perhaps we should be playing Texas, Texas Tech, USC or even Utah, Boise State, or Penn State. But we will never know. Because the #1 vs #2 matchup is determined by a Coach's poll (where the coaches don't have the time to watch all the games, the Harris poll, where the voters don't have time to watch all the games --- they watch ESPN SportsCenter) and several computers where the programming algorithms are influenced by the BCS organization.

Every other sport, including the other division of college football, determines the champion via a playoff. Why? Because it is the only way to determine a champion.

A four team playoff wouldn't add any games at all - Have the top four play on New Year's Day and the winners play for the championship a week later. It is a tiny change that would be infinitely better than what we have now. However, just look at the final standings. Are those really the four teams that should be in it? What about USC, Texas Tech, Utah, Penn State, Boise State, Ohio State, TCU, or even Cincinnati?

Eight teams - Similar problems. The benefit, of course, is that the season is only extended one round, and the way bowls are starting earlier and earlier, games are scheduled that can be used for this round of playoffs. We would get a compelling set of games, much better than the minor who-cares bowls we have now. The main problem is that if you take the 6 BCS conference champs plus 2 based on BCS standings you probably don't give any non-BCS schools a chance. This year, if you wanted to add one or two non-BCS schools then you would have to eliminate Texas and/or Alabama to put in Utah and/or Boise State. Doesn't really work. The other scenario that has been suggested is just use the top eight in the BCS standings, but now you are probably leaving out one or more BCS conference champion. You would be this year for sure, Statistically, you just can not evaluate the strength of one conference versus another because the season is too short and there is not enough interconference play to provide meaningful results. BUT, any eight team scenario is light years better than what we have now.

If you want to have a real meaningful playoff, without lengthening the season too much, we need to go to a 12 or 16 team scenario, as discussed in other articles in this series. As has been shown by others, we can easily replace existing bowl games with playoff games, or even better, play the first two rounds at the highest ranked teams' home stadiums with the first two rounds being on Friday and Saturday before Christmas. The two semifinal games would be played January 1 and the final on January 8, using three of the major BCS bowls. Personally, I like the 16 team scenario with all conference winners in the top 25 getting into the tournament, but only if they are ranked in the top 25, with the remaining teams seeded by the final BCS rankings, with possibly a limit of three teams from one conference.

Enough said... Maybe... For now...

Gator Duck



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)
Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 8 - And More...

Tired of hearing about it yet? BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Link to article>> bcswatdchdog.com [editor's note: Perhaps this was inspired by FireRonZook.com]

bcswatchdog.com to Replace BCS with Playoff

PHOENIX, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

bcswatchdog.com was launched on December 7, 2008 with the goal to replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a fair, inclusive playoff. bcswatchdog.com's objective is to collect donations totaling $3 million for a Fans' Grassroots Legal Fund. Many legal experts (and political leaders) believe that the BCS violates federal Sherman Antitrust Act regulations.

bcswatchdog.com has already collected over $7,000 in donations from 175 donors representing all 11 Division 1-A / Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences nationwide.

The website, bcswatchdog.com, has many interesting features:

  • a DO YOU KNOW? section with questions/answers to many interesting, little-known facts about the BCS [e.g., 92% or 110 teams of all 120 Division 1A/FBS teams are realistically eliminated as BCS National Champion before a single regular season game is played (based on the BCS' 11-year history)];
  • a Message Board where the merits of a playoff versus the BCS can be debated;
  • a BCS Watchdog User Poll;
  • a proposed solution of a fair, inclusive playoff;
  • rebuttals against arguments for the BCS; and
  • the "star feature" of the website is the National Fan Contribution List. Each fan that makes a tax-deductible donation of $3.00 (or more) to the Fans' Grassroots Legal Fund will have his/her name added to the National Fan Contribution List under his/her favorite college football team/conference (for example, Fred S./Texas).

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) violates its own Mission Statement/Brand by supporting the BCS. The NCCA should maximize revenue (potentially billions of dollars) for its 1,200 member institutions by requesting competitive bids from broadcast networks for a combined Division 1-A/FBS college football/basketball playoffs package deal.

bcswatchdog.com is the first initiative of the non-profit organization, American Amateur Athletics Watchdog (AAAW). The temporary bcswatchdog.com website (final design phase in progress) serves as a centralized location where 200 million frustrated college football fans favoring a fair, inclusive playoff over the BCS can unite and make change happen. For further information, contact bcswatchdog@cox.net.

For whatever reason, it is often the fans of the game, not the media, that make the most sense. This one comes from "The Bleacher Report" where fans write their own articles and publish via their own blogs. This one comes from Chip Minnich from Ohio. Link to article...

BCS Football: Festivus & the Airing of Grievances

I have long opposed the BCS. The foolish idea that college football could determine a national champion by voting is laughable. Even more absurd is having groups such as coaches and media members determine the national champion participants.

The coaches truly do not have time to watch all games, as well as have a vested interest in the outcome (see Bob Stoops). The media do not watch all games, and rely on highlights from ESPN to help them with their ballot. What a joke of a system.

If you have not yet done so, please do yourself a favor and read Stewart Mandel’s Bowls, Polls, & Tattered Souls. There are so many quotes throughout the book detailing the idiocy of how college football determines its national champion, but here are two that I believe sum up why the current system is a sham:

Why not the coaches, you ask? Read what longtime playoff advocate Penn State head coach Joe Paterno said , after his Penn State team was defeated by undefeated Michigan in 1997. “I have somebody who helps me with the voting, and we didn’t vote Michigan No.1…that bothered me.” (page 44 of the hardcover edition). I have a feeling you can now count on Texas' Mack Brown, as well as USC's Pete Carroll, as being in the playoff crowd.

Why not the media, you ask? Read what Daily Oklahoman columnist Jenni Carlson wrote regarding the impact the media has on college football, in comparison to other sports: “In no other sport do media types have say or sway. Not basketball, not baseball, not softball, not anything.” (page 48 of the hardcover edition).

While President-Elect Obama has admiringly called for an eight-team playoff, the eight-team model would not properly include all conference champions (there are 11 conferences in Division 1 football).

For the Plus-1 advocates, such as ESPN's Beano Cook: How do you determine the top four? Under that system, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama would be the qualifiers. What about USC? Penn State? Utah? Boise State? Texas Tech? As you can see, there's no fair way to determine who the top four teams would be in that scenario.

Under my scenario, a 16-team playoff would be the fairest method to determine a true national champion in Division 1 football. What are the benefits to this system?

A traditional argument is, "The regular season would be rendered meaningless with a playoff system". If the only sure way to get in to the playoffs was winning your conference, that makes those regular season games very meaningful, wouldn’t you say? And under my system, not just one non-BCS conference (such as Utah this year), but all conference champions would get a shot at the title. My system is far more inclusive.

OK, so you have 11 conference champions. What about the next five? Using the average of the BCS computer rankings, five at-large teams could be seeded.



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan

This offering comes from The Star in Kansas City.
Submitted by Martin Manley on December 18, 2008 - 12:32am

Martin ran the matchups in the tournament on ESPN’s Playoff Simulator. Follow the link to see what the bowl matchups were, what upsets occurred, who wound up playing in the Championship Final and the outcome of that game.

BCS Tournament: The Champion is Beyond Common Sense

All 11 conference champions are part of the 16-team tourney as long as that champion is ranked in the BCS final top-25. If not, they can go play in some secondary bowl somewhere where they belong. The remaining positions are filled by at-large teams based exclusively on the BCS rankings.

The top-16 in the rankings made it with one exception – Ball State #22 (Mid-America champion) is in at the expense of #16 BYU. Two conferences do not have a representative – Conference USA and Sun Belt. [They finished outside the top 25.]

15 games will be played in a 16-team tournament utilizing the top-15 bowls (maybe rotate some in and out of the tournament annually). The championship game and semifinals could be rotated between the ultra-top bowls.

Rant: What I fail to understand is this. Money drives everything nowadays. There is no way on earth these 15 games (bowls) would not make more money than they do presently! The build-up would be incredible. Each bowl would be watched by a lot more fans because each bowl might have the national champion playing in it! As it is, there is only one bowl that ultimately matters.

Anyway, I couldn’t resist one more opportunity to blast these BCS bozos for clinging to a ridiculously outmoded system that will never last long-term. You can bet your life on it. The only questions remaining are when will it change, what will the playoff format look like, and will you or I be alive to see i



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved

Congress has now stepped into this issue. Follow link to read entire article.

Bill would force college football playoff

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 12/10/08 5:14 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Taking aim at a BCS system he said "consistently misfires," a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't specify what sort of playoff he wants -- only that the BCS should go.

"In some years the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title," Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill's introduction.

He said the bill "will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

"This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the 'championship,' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become 'champion," he said.


IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams

The Blog "Jumping Offsides - sports talk with Verb and The GM." In 3 articles, GM presents the following:



  • Article 1: GM dispells the objections to a playoff.
  • Article 2: GM presents his arguments AGAINST both the 8 and 16 team playoff scenarios
  • Article 3: Presents GM's arguments for a 12 team playoff and how it would work.

You might want to read the articles in full. But, here are the main points:

Link>> Article 1 - Discussion of the objections to a playoff.

1. Tradition: In recent years [the] tradition has faded as more and more games are played on day's before or after New Year's Day. There is no way to crown a TRUE national champion if the teams are decided by votes instead of on the field results. Make the playoff part of the bowl games.

2. Money: The BCS conferences claim that the money they make from the bowl games is so great that they can't afford to change. If they think the BCS brings in big money from TV contracts and advertising just wait until they have a playoff over the Christmas and New Year's seasons. They will have so much money they won't know what to do with it all.

3. Interfering with Players Studies: Unbelievably the University Presidents make this argument to the public. GIVE ME A BREAK! I understand they are students but what about the basketball players and hockey players that play a longer season and during finals? What about the FCS, division 2, and division 3 football players (that are ALL TRUE student athletes) who play in tournaments? There is NO reason why the football season can't be expanded to accommodate a playoff for 8-16 teams [through the Christmas break]..

4. Regular Season Importance: The theory goes that the regular season will not be as important because each game doesn't mean as much. Really? You don't think Boston College vs Va Tech wouldn't have been huge since only 1 of those teams is going to get a playoff bid? Try telling Texas that every game matters. They BEAT Oklahoma on a neutral field and now have to watch the Sooners play for the title. Penn State lost by 1 POINT ON THE ROAD and they didn't even get MENTIONED for the title. USC lost ON THE ROAD and they only got mentioned in passing for the title game. Florida loses at HOME to a lower ranked team than Texas or USC and they are AUTOMATICALLY the BEST TEAM?? I am just saying that the regular season right now is bull... If you [lose] early you are better off than losing late....why? The regular season is messed up right now. The only way to FIX the regular season is with a playoff.

Link>> Article 2 - Arguments AGAINST both the 8 and 16 team playoff scenarios


The benefits to the 8 team playoff is it doesn't extend the season by much and it is still a very elite group of teams involved. And it is still better than what we have now. But it does have some serious flaws. The main flaw is how do you select the teams? If you take the conference champs plus 2 based on BCS standings you would have this: 1. Oklahoma 2. Florida 3. USC 4. Penn State 5. Cincinnati 6. Virginia Tech 7. Texas 8. Alabama.

But the big thing missing here is a non-BCS school. It would be almost impossible for a non-BCS school to get into the playoff because they would have to finish in AT LEAST the top 8 in the final standings. And in this years case the top 4.So if you wanted to add a non-BCS school than you would eliminate Alabama and put in Utah. Does that solve anything? You just took out a top 4 team to accommodate a non-BCS school. But you have to or the non-BCS schools with sue and everything will change again.

Okay so instead of using the conference champions lets just choose our teams based on the BCS Standings. This years tournament would be this: 1. Oklahoma 2. Florida 3. Texas 4. Alabama 5. USC 6. Utah 7. Texas Tech 8. Penn State. But now you have left out 2 BCS conferences. And in most years you would still be leaving out a non-BCS school. If you win your BCS conference (no matter how weak) than you should be included in the playoff.

A 16 team playoff based on BCS rankings and conference champions (6 champs plus 10 at large) would be including 3 teams that have 3 losses! I don't think the regular season would be diminished much with an 8 or 12 (more on that later) team playoff but multiple 3 loss teams would be making the regular season MUCH less important.

Link>> Article 3 - A 12 team playoff

12 teams....conference champions and the next 6 highest ranked BCS teams,

REGARDLESS of conference. There will be NO LIMIT to how many schools from one conference in this playoff. If you are with in the parameters for the playoff [then] you are in. This years rankings: 1. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 2. Florida (SEC Champ) 3. Texas (at-large) 4. Alabama (at-large) 5. USC (PAC 10 Champ) 6. Utah (at-large) 7. Texas Tech (at-large) 8. Penn State (Big 10 Champ) 9. Boise State (at-large) 10. Ohio State (at-large) 11. Cincinnati (Big East Champ) 12. Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

Give the top 4 teams a bye week. The bottom 8 play and the winners there play the top 4. It expands past the 8 team theory to allow the non-BCS schools and other schools that deserve a chance but doesn't get to the 16 team theory that would include 3 loss teams.

The first 2 rounds [are played] at the higher seeds campus. This would help with travel costs and assure that fans could and would show up to the games with ease. After that you would put the final 4 into 2 of the current BCS bowls. The Championship would be at another BCS bowl site.

The 1st round would take place the week after the season ends (this weekend coming up) on Friday (one game at 8:00) and Saturday (other 3 games). The 2nd round would take place the following week with the same Friday/Saturday split. The reason for the 2 night setup is so all the games can be televised. The semi finals would take place on January 1st and the National Championship a week later. This gives teams a week off in the middle to rest and get ready for more games.

I would watch EVERY SINGLE GAME! And I bet most people would too. Could you imagine the ratings for the semi-final games on NEW YEAR'S DAY? Everything would be on the line. That is in my opinion, what would be the best possible thing for college football. There is NO WAY an 8 or 16 team playoff would add as much drama. And the regular season wouldn't lose much either. Sure a game or two (Fla/Bama this year, Mich/OSU a couple years ago) would lose SOME LUSTER but really wouldn't the fans be WINNING with the games we get after the season.


IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 4 - Another Point of View

Many, including President-Elect Barack Obama are proponents of an eight team playoff. The unidentified author of the following article makes the case for an 8 team playoff.

Highlands Today > News

It's Not Life And Death, But BCS National Champ System Stinks

The Tampa Tribune
Published: December 10, 2008

Few college football fans are questioning Florida's right to play for the title. They knocked off the No. 1 team in the country and won the SEC to earn that right. Oklahoma, on the other hand, is swirling in controversy. A lot of people believe the Texas Longhorns deserve to face Florida, since Texas beat Oklahoma head to head on a neutral field this season. And there are a couple of undefeated teams, but in lesser conferences.

No one denies, though, that Oklahoma is a great team. The question is why is the national title left up to silly Bowl Championship Series computations using polls and computers? Several teams have a legitimate argument for earning a right to play for the title. Unfortunately, university presidents and bowl directors just won't let that happen. It's all about greed.

Even President-elect Barack Obama has said there should be an eight-team playoff for the national championship. We agree. All that's required is for the top eight teams to begin play a week or two after the regular season ends. That would make it a three or four week tournament for the national title. All the major bowls could still be playoff sites, with the national championship rotating between them.

It's seems crazy that bowl directors believe this will lose them money. If anything, it will boost their revenue because the teams playing would still be in the hunt for a national championship.

With all the important issues in our country right now, deciding a national championship sounds trivial at best. But for a lot of people it's important. As it stands, it's a broken system, but it could easily be fixed. Let's hope changes come fast.



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

Saturday, December 20, 2008

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert's Bowl Schedule

Very similar to the first article. Consider how fantastic and compelling these matchups would be! The difference is that Jim Ruppert is saying use existing bowl games which would mean more travel for more teams than if the top seeded teams played on their home field for the first three rounds...


Jim Ruppert: Ruper Bowl would eliminate BCS mess

Jim Ruppert, SJ-R.com sports editor
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER -
Springfield, Illinois
Posted Dec 08, 2008 @ 11:03 PM

The Bowl Championship Series has spoken. Florida and Oklahoma will play Jan. 8 in Miami for the heavyweight football championship of the world.

No less of an authority than President-elect Barack Obama has let the world know he thinks there should be a playoff to determine college football’s national champion. Enough of this Harris Interactive stuff. The USA Today coaches’ poll is good for generating conversation but not suited for determining the best football team in the land. And computers? What qualifies a computer to assess the heart of linebacker with a sprained ankle trying to play for his teammates?

A playoff is the only answer. For the past five years or so, this space has been devoted to keeping the NCAA and college football from messing with the current bowl system while also putting a playoff system in place.

... We use the top 16 teams in the final BCS standings that were released Sunday. We match them up in tournament fashion, 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc.

The first round would be played Dec. 20, eight games in all. Then we’d have the four quarterfinal games on Dec. 27. The semifinals would be played Jan. 1 for old-time’s sake. And the national championship game would be ready to go Jan. 8 as advertised.
There would little or no missed class time because just about every school in America is on winter break on or around Dec. 15.

And the rest of the 33 bowl games that are out there, they can have their choice of any of the remaining schools in America. Take one that’s eliminated from the Ruper Bowl if you want. There’s plenty to go around.


So, in the first round, the lower eight of the sixteen teams have an opportunity to prove the pundits wrong. You could have four of the games on Saturday and the other four on Sunday. The NFL could actually take two week off, giving the players and staff a Christmas break. Assuming the top eight teams survive the first round, there would be some very compelling round 2 matchups: Oklahoma vs. Penn State, Florida vs. Texas Tech, , Texas vs. Utah and Alabama vs. USC. Again, split this between Saturday and Sunday.

Assuming that the top four seeds win again, now it's Oklahoma vs. Alabama, and Florida vs. Texas for the semifinals. Rather than New Year's Day, I'd put these games on the nest weekend. Whoever wins these two games play for a real National Championship on the next Saturday. Who wouldn't want to see this?

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 2 - Example of Problem

Just in case you are saying "What's the big deal? The best teams are going to the big bowl games and we can trust the polls to pick the best two teams to play head to head for the National Championship." The previous article highlighted why we can't trust the polls or the bowl committees.

I found the following parody on the Zook Free Zone message board. Yes, it is totally fiction, but it sounds about right to me as to how the BCS would have declared the winner of World War II...

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II - US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - Chapter 1 - Background

For a start on this topic, let's start with a recent article at Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel. Dan does a very good job of giving a historical perspective to the issue. I've included all of Dan's article here because it is simply the best I've even seen on the issue, and it is important to understand before continuing the discussion..

Link: Wetzel’s playoff plan: I’ll drink to that By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports Dec 2, 2:39 pm EST

The Bowl Championship Series has been in place since the 1998 season. This season’s championship game will be held on Jan. 8, 2009 in Miami.

Before we get to the playoff, let’s start by giving the Bowl Championship Series some credit. It might not be a good system, but it is better than the old one.

For decades, college football “determined” its champion by having two or three of its highest-rated teams play on New Year’s Day, only rarely against each other.

Fans at home would turn the channel (manually) and wonder why they couldn’t just have that great team play this great team rather than blow out two inferior opponents. (Too complicated was the answer.)

At the end of the day, a bunch of sportswriters, who probably watched only the game they covered in person, held a vote and named the “national champion.”

That was the system. Seriously, that was the system. If you set out to design the worst possible and least satisfying way for a sport to stage a championship, this might be it. Only through the clouds of nostalgia (and New Year’s hangovers past) does it seem even remotely palatable. Any college football is fun to watch, so you took what you got.

At least the BCS uses a convoluted formula to choose the two “best” teams and makes them play each other. For that we are grateful. The result has been a surge in interest in the sport. Which the apologists for the BCS like to claim proves their genius.

It doesn’t.

The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer – that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. That’s not a compliment to near beer. It’s like saying the BCS has a nice personality.

A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You don’t even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one. (You do have to
acknowledge the similar addictive elements of alcohol and college football though.)

So forget these clowns patting each other on the back for creating a system better than the worst system ever.

We’re demanding real beer here and like grown-ups will lay out the best postseason system while discrediting the foolish obstructionist counter-arguments. Don’t credit me with the following genius – it’s essentially the exact same playoff system the NCAA uses for all other divisions of football.

(Please note, while I would prefer a men’s basketball style committee to set the field and follow some set guidelines that would prevent things such as in league matchups in the first round, for the sake of this argument I used the final BCS standings to place and seed the field).

A 16-team field (Editor's note: Dan wrote this based on the results prior to the last weekend of the season, therefore he is not using the final BCS rankings below. His analysis based on the results at the time, however, make sense -Gator Duck)




Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men’s basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.


Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Big South champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.


First is to do what the apologists claim a playoff would ruin – maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.


The chance for an easier first-round opponent – in this case No. 1 seed Oklahoma would play No. 16 Buffalo – is just that. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a near breeze into the second round, a de facto bye.


Drop to a four seed in this year’s scenario and you are dealing with a pretty tough Virginia Tech squad.


On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Tulsa could beat Oklahoma? Of course not, but as the men’s basketball tournament has proven, the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.


Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn’t supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There would’ve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.


Why wouldn’t college football want that?


The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasn’t any good in 1977 or 2) wasn’t geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, that’s the system.


For even lower-rated conferences – the Sun Belts, C-USA – allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.


By extending the postseason to more conferences and teams, it would actually increase interest. It would not simply make the regular season matter more it would make more regular seasons matter.


With the old system, things such as the MAC championship game, which featured Buffalo upsetting Ball State was virtually meaningless. It wouldn’t have been if a berth to the playoff (and in BSU’s case what would’ve been a pretty good seed) was riding on it.


Who’s against more meaningful games?


With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care who won the ACC title game?


And while everyone was fired up about the high stakes in the Florida-Alabama SEC championship, most conference title games pit one great team against a lesser one just playing spoiler (i.e. Missouri-Oklahoma). But what if Missouri had something to really play for? And Oklahoma was still desperate to maintain that high seed?


At-large bids


In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee which could agree on what criteria it values. This is where independents, such as Notre Dame, would have access to the tournament. Most years, all five bids would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).


This year, the at-large process would allow for a shift in power out west. Texas Christian of the Mountain West would join league champion Utah in the playoff. Considering the league went 6-1 against local rival the Pac-10, it’s well earned. No longer would perception and politics trump reality.


While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the bizarre 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but it got left out anyway.


The apologist argument that the complaints and controversies would never cease is silly. It’s pretty easy to tune out a three-loss Oklahoma State team. One-loss Texas? Not so much.


Ignore outdated bowls


Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly accepts the trophy for winning the Papa Johns.com Bowl against Southern Mississippi on Dec. 22,
2007.


BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College football’s continued willingness to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits, is akin to the Knicks offering Stephon Marbury a contract extension right now.


What other business outsources its most profitable and easily sold product – in this case postseason football?


The bowls were needed back in the 1950s. These days they are nothing but leeches on the system. Outside of (again) nostalgia there is no value in these games. The NCAA could stage the games itself, cut out the middle men, and pocket tens of millions of extra revenue.


It has no place in a real solution. You’re allowing business outside college football to determine how college football does its business.


The bowl lobby is a powerful one though. ESPN itself owns six smaller games and isn’t going to rip the system. Most of the media blindly – or still drunk from bowl game media parties – follow the idea that a playoff must include the bowls.


Just about every idea you’ll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.


The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.


The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.


That isn’t to say eliminate them. The 34 bowl games can continue to operate outside of the playoff, just like any non-affiliated business. All the non-playoff teams can compete in them. With the BCS, only one game matters anyway. It’s not like the Sun Bowl is going to be all that different. If the people of El Paso want to continue staging the game, then they should.


First- and second-round losers in a playoff could even take a slot in a late December bowl game. As long as the bowls don’t mess with the playoff, who cares what they do? The more football the better.


At worst some of the true bottom-feeder bowls (the ones owned by ESPN) will have to fold for lack of eligible teams. The death of the PapaJohns.com Bowl is a price I think everyone is willing to pay. Maybe even Papa John himself.


Home games for higher seeds early


The playoff would stage the first three rounds at the home field of the higher-seeded team before shifting to a neutral site, a la the Super Bowl. As a nod to history, it could be a rotation of famed stadiums such as the Rose Bowl, et al.


This allows the playoff to capitalize on perhaps college football’s greatest asset – the pageantry, excitement and history of on-campus stadiums. There is nothing like a game day and it doesn’t matter whether you’re in Tuscaloosa or Ann Arbor or Norman or Los Angeles. Each one is uniquely thrilling and adds tremendous value to the product.


So why does college football stage its postseason in antiseptic pro stadiums?


Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities – literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.


It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.


This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.


We’ve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fanâs heart.


The schedule


While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, football’s top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.


Different schools have different academic schedules – two guys sent me a chart last year that showed there was no weekend when someone wasn’t having exams. However, college athletics has never allowed academics to stand in its way before. In this day of 12-team super leagues and midweek television games, this isn’t an excuse.


Something can be worked out.


One of the apologists’ greatest whines is that a playoff would make the season too long. It’s conceivable that some teams would play 17 games. Oh the horror! Mike Tranghese, commissioner of the Big East, once claimed, with a straight face, that so many players would be injured a team might not complete the playoff. Due to the way college football runs its clock, there are about 10 percent more plays in a college game than a pro one (135 to 122), which means they’re already playing an extra game, game and a half now.


Really? The kids at the old Division I-AA, Division II and III must just be tougher, even though they often sport smaller rosters than major college football. In plenty of states high school teams that win the state title play between 16 and 18 games and the best players often compete on both offense and defense. The NFL does it and more with just 53-man rosters.


The truth is it’s not the number of games that raises the risk of injury; it’s the number of plays. Each snap of the ball is the trigger that puts bodies in motion and risks potential injury. A game is just a grouping of plays, it holds no value.


Due to the way college football runs its clock, there are about 10 percent more plays in a college game than a pro one (135 to 122), which means they’re already playing an extra game, game and a half now. If they’re that concerned about the health of the players, they should continue to tinker with the clock to reduce the number of plays.


This is just a weak smoke screen. If the suits who count the money in college athletics actually cared about the welfare of the players, the number of reforms would be dramatic. Staging fewer games would be deep on the to-do list. Since the college schedule would still be shorter than the NFL (12 to 16) and fewer teams would qualify for the playoffs (13.3 percent to 37.5 percent) the idea that the college regular season would become less meaningless wouldn’t seem to wash. There are plenty of meaningless games now as teams attempt to pad their record and just survive the season unbeaten, sneak into the title game and go for broke there.


With a playoff, that wouldn’t be possible. You’d earn your title by surviving a four-game test that would rival the NFL playoffs.


The presidents


There’s nothing easier than blaming it on those guys. They don’t want a playoff, everyone says. The truth is they’ve never been presented a real playoff plan. Presidents are notoriously weak-spined and revenue desperate. Pressure and cash can change opinions in a hurry. They follow the herd.


“It’s not a question of if there is going to be a playoff, it’s going to be a question of when,” T.K. Wetherell, president of Florida State said last spring. “It’s going to be driven by money. None of us sitting at this table … are ever going to admit that.”


Unfortunately, last spring four leagues – the Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-10 – fought to stop the SEC’s plan for a modest plus-one plan from even being discussed.


The reason? They feared that once fans got a taste of even a mini-playoff, they’d demand a real playoff.


Kind of like getting a taste of near beer; pretty soon you’re going to want the real thing.



IT IS TIME FOR A PLAYOFF - List of Articles (with links)

Chapter 1 - Background
Chapter 1A - Background, Part 2
Chapter 2 - Example of Problem
Chapter 3 - Jim Ruppert’s Bowl Schedule
Chapter 4 - Another Point of View
Chapter 5 - Case Against 8 or 16 teams
Chapter 6 - Congress Gets Involved
Chapter 7 - Alternative 16 Team Plan
Chapter 8 - And More…
Chapter 9 - As I See It