0
I blogged about this about the same time last year, and with it being that time of the year again where the BCS race is heating up, and given the recent fuel added to the fire by our new President Elect, I think it's time to talk about this again. At least it will help me get a few more ideas off my chest.
As some of you know, I'm a pretty big college football fan. I live in Columbus, OH, home of the Ohio State Buckeyes, so college football has been ever present in my life for a long time. Yes, my beloved Buckeyes have stunk it up in the past two national championship games, but I maintain we didn't deserve to even be there last year. 2006, though, that one upsets me that we did so poorly. We're 9-2 this year, looking to beat Michigan for the fifth straight year (never thought I'd say that!), and actually have an outside chance to go to the Rose Bowl. The Buckeyes are my team, but even if they aren't the best in the country, I still love following all of what goes on in the game.
Like many fans of college football, though, I am disappointed with the way the national champion is determined. I truly do feel that the BCS system that we currently have in place is not the answer. It is good, better than any system we'd have so far, but a playoff would be better, and I'm prepared to back that statement up.
Prior to the BCS, the national champion was determined by a poll after all of the bowl games concluded. Sportswriters or coaches voted on who they thought the champion was, depending on the poll. Most of the times they agreed, many times they didn't, and often there'd be teams that went unbeaten and didn't get a national championship. The problem with this solution is fairly obvious: the champion is determined based on votes, not based on a championship game. For years, the champions of a couple of the top conferences, the Big 10 and Pacific 10, played in the Rose Bowl. Other major conferences sent their champions to other bowl games. So a team could win all of their games in a conference like the SEC, and not get to play a team that won all of their games in the Pacific 10, thus people would have to vote which of those teams was better. Consider what would have happened in the NFL last year if they just voted for a champion at the end of the season instead of playing the Super Bowl: the Patriots would have won the championship. The championship should be decided on the field, not by people voting for who they think is best.
Starting in the 1998 season, the BCS was introduced. It was a formula used to more effectively rank teams based not only on the human polls, but also various computer polls. It used this ranking to try and figure out who were the 2 best teams and match them up in a championship game, and also to create match ups for the other major bowl games.
There were several advantages to this system, the first being that it could create match ups like what we saw at the end of the 2005-06 season where Texas from the Big 12 played USC from the Pacific 10. In previous years USC would have played the Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, while Texas would have played who knows in the Fiesta Bowl. Because of the BCS we got to see these two teams, undoubtedly the two best teams in the country that year, settle the national championship debate on the field. However, there were other years in which there was some controversy. In 2003, there were three teams that finished the regular season with 1 loss: USC, LSU, and Oklahoma. USC was ranked first in the human polls, but 3rd in the BCS standings, thus putting LSU against Oklahoma for the championship. When USC won their bowl game, the human polls kept them at #1, but LSU was officially the champions. The following year there were 4 teams with no losses going into the bowl games: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah. The BCS put USC against Oklahoma for the championship (where USC won), while Auburn and Utah both won their games to also finish the season unbeaten. Similarly, in the 2006-07 season, Boise State was the only team to go unbeaten, but that year Florida won the championship.
The reason that teams like Utah and Boise State play through their seasons unbeaten yet not get a chance to play for the championship is one of the big flaws in the BCS system. The top level of college football, known as the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), or formerly Division 1A, is made up of 11 conferences: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pacific 10, SEC, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt & WAC. Of those 11, the first 6 are what is known as "BCS conferences", meaning their conference champions will automatically go to one of the big BCS bowls or the championship games. Champions from the other conferences can get into the BCS games, but they typically have to go unbeaten to do so (which is not the case for a team from a BCS conference), and their chances of actually getting into the BCS championship game even when going unbeaten is essentially 0. This is because those BCS conferences are considered higher quality than the others. Thus, the competition in those BCS conferences is better, so it's reasonable to assume that only losing once in the Big 12 is better than not losing at all in the Mountain West. That is debatable, but the upshot of it is that teams from a non-BCS conference are essentially not eligible for the national championship. It would likely take one of those teams to go unbeaten and then there not be any more than a single team in a BCS conference with less than 2 losses.
So the situation we have ourselves in is that there are, in essence, 2 tiers of teams: those who could play for the national championship, and those who play their hearts out for a shot at playing in a lesser bowl game. My personal feeling on this is that if that's going to be the case, we should literally split those two sets of conferences out into separate divisions; a team should not be closed out of the opportunity of proving they are the best based solely on the conference they are in. This is why I feel that any sort of system that determines a national champion should include, at the minimum, the 11 teams that win their conference. Or, if we're going to split the conferences up into separate divisions, we still have 6 teams to consider. But let's go with the current organization of the conferences and divisions at this point. It is interesting to note that in the 2001-02 season, Colorado won the Big 12 conference, yet the team they beat to win that conference was instead invited to play for the nation championship: Nebraska.
One of the chief arguments the pro-BCS camp has been throwing around recently is the following. This is a quote from the BCS coordinator John Swofford in response to Obama's support of a college football playoff:
Source: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3708348
The argument here is that the BCS makes the college football regular season the most exciting in any sport. This is because in order to get to that championship game, a team can't afford a letdown; the whole season is like a playoff. But evidence has shown that this isn't necessarily true. Of the 10 national champions crowned by the BCS, only 7 of those champions finished the year unbeaten. Thus, 3 times it has occurred that a team did in fact have one of those letdowns during the season that would have eliminated them if the regular season were truly one long playoff, LSU last year actually lost twice yet still was crowned the champions.
So how exciting does this "season as a playoff" environment make the sport? Consider where we're at right now. With everyone's regular season winding down, we have 2 teams from BCS conferences currently unbeaten: Alabama and Texas Tech. Rightly so, they are ranked 1-2 in the BCS, and would play each other in the national championship game provided they just keep winning. Both teams belong to conferences that are split into 2 divisions, with a conference championship game to determine who wins the conference. Winning those games will be a tall order, though; Alabama will be playing the team currently ranked 4th in the BCS (Florida) in their championship game, while Texas Tech still has to play the team currently ranked 5th (Oklahoma) before they can even assure themselves of playing for their conference championship, which would be against Missouri. You also have a Texas team ranked #3, which has lost to Texas Tech this year, but could play into the championship discussion depending on how the remaining games play out. If recent history is any indication, we are in for some changes to these rankings in the final weeks; Alabama and Texas Tech should not be preparing for each other just yet.
So realistically there are 5 teams that are looking for a shot at that championship game. A couple other outsiders may sneak up there depending on the remaining games, let's say there are 8 different teams in all who still have hopes of getting to that game. Pretty exciting, sure, but under a system that awarded all conference champions a shot at the national championship, there would be, by my own calculations, 48 teams still with a mathematical shot of winning their conference and getting there. Now that's way more exciting. So teams like Maryland, Cincinnati, Ball State, Utah, and Boise State would still have a chance to play for something other than a second-tier bowl game.
The system I propose is pretty straightforward, and essentially the same as what I stated last year: a 16 team, single elimination playoff. Win your conference and you automatically get into the playoffs. The other 5 spots would be filled by the highest ranked teams who did not win their conferences. No more than 2 teams per conference in the playoffs. Losing a conference championship game should not be a thing that keeps you from joining the playoffs; it shouldn't drop you below another team from your conference who didn't have to play in the championship game. First round games could be played at the field of the higher ranked team. Second round games could each be one of the BCS bowl games (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta). The semifinals and finals could be played at a different site every year, like the college basketball final 4 does it.
All other levels of college football have a playoff, it's about time the top level follows suit. I don't see how this would not be more exciting than the current system. There is plenty of time to fit this between the end of the regular season and the end of the bowl season as we have it today; in the past two years Ohio State has had something like 5 weeks off each season before playing the championship game. Reduce the number of games in the regular season if 4 extra games is too many, although, like I said the other divisions manage to play this many extra games. It's gonna happen someday, let's just do it and finally settle this debate on the field.
As some of you know, I'm a pretty big college football fan. I live in Columbus, OH, home of the Ohio State Buckeyes, so college football has been ever present in my life for a long time. Yes, my beloved Buckeyes have stunk it up in the past two national championship games, but I maintain we didn't deserve to even be there last year. 2006, though, that one upsets me that we did so poorly. We're 9-2 this year, looking to beat Michigan for the fifth straight year (never thought I'd say that!), and actually have an outside chance to go to the Rose Bowl. The Buckeyes are my team, but even if they aren't the best in the country, I still love following all of what goes on in the game.
Like many fans of college football, though, I am disappointed with the way the national champion is determined. I truly do feel that the BCS system that we currently have in place is not the answer. It is good, better than any system we'd have so far, but a playoff would be better, and I'm prepared to back that statement up.
Prior to the BCS, the national champion was determined by a poll after all of the bowl games concluded. Sportswriters or coaches voted on who they thought the champion was, depending on the poll. Most of the times they agreed, many times they didn't, and often there'd be teams that went unbeaten and didn't get a national championship. The problem with this solution is fairly obvious: the champion is determined based on votes, not based on a championship game. For years, the champions of a couple of the top conferences, the Big 10 and Pacific 10, played in the Rose Bowl. Other major conferences sent their champions to other bowl games. So a team could win all of their games in a conference like the SEC, and not get to play a team that won all of their games in the Pacific 10, thus people would have to vote which of those teams was better. Consider what would have happened in the NFL last year if they just voted for a champion at the end of the season instead of playing the Super Bowl: the Patriots would have won the championship. The championship should be decided on the field, not by people voting for who they think is best.
Starting in the 1998 season, the BCS was introduced. It was a formula used to more effectively rank teams based not only on the human polls, but also various computer polls. It used this ranking to try and figure out who were the 2 best teams and match them up in a championship game, and also to create match ups for the other major bowl games.
There were several advantages to this system, the first being that it could create match ups like what we saw at the end of the 2005-06 season where Texas from the Big 12 played USC from the Pacific 10. In previous years USC would have played the Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, while Texas would have played who knows in the Fiesta Bowl. Because of the BCS we got to see these two teams, undoubtedly the two best teams in the country that year, settle the national championship debate on the field. However, there were other years in which there was some controversy. In 2003, there were three teams that finished the regular season with 1 loss: USC, LSU, and Oklahoma. USC was ranked first in the human polls, but 3rd in the BCS standings, thus putting LSU against Oklahoma for the championship. When USC won their bowl game, the human polls kept them at #1, but LSU was officially the champions. The following year there were 4 teams with no losses going into the bowl games: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah. The BCS put USC against Oklahoma for the championship (where USC won), while Auburn and Utah both won their games to also finish the season unbeaten. Similarly, in the 2006-07 season, Boise State was the only team to go unbeaten, but that year Florida won the championship.
The reason that teams like Utah and Boise State play through their seasons unbeaten yet not get a chance to play for the championship is one of the big flaws in the BCS system. The top level of college football, known as the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), or formerly Division 1A, is made up of 11 conferences: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pacific 10, SEC, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt & WAC. Of those 11, the first 6 are what is known as "BCS conferences", meaning their conference champions will automatically go to one of the big BCS bowls or the championship games. Champions from the other conferences can get into the BCS games, but they typically have to go unbeaten to do so (which is not the case for a team from a BCS conference), and their chances of actually getting into the BCS championship game even when going unbeaten is essentially 0. This is because those BCS conferences are considered higher quality than the others. Thus, the competition in those BCS conferences is better, so it's reasonable to assume that only losing once in the Big 12 is better than not losing at all in the Mountain West. That is debatable, but the upshot of it is that teams from a non-BCS conference are essentially not eligible for the national championship. It would likely take one of those teams to go unbeaten and then there not be any more than a single team in a BCS conference with less than 2 losses.
So the situation we have ourselves in is that there are, in essence, 2 tiers of teams: those who could play for the national championship, and those who play their hearts out for a shot at playing in a lesser bowl game. My personal feeling on this is that if that's going to be the case, we should literally split those two sets of conferences out into separate divisions; a team should not be closed out of the opportunity of proving they are the best based solely on the conference they are in. This is why I feel that any sort of system that determines a national champion should include, at the minimum, the 11 teams that win their conference. Or, if we're going to split the conferences up into separate divisions, we still have 6 teams to consider. But let's go with the current organization of the conferences and divisions at this point. It is interesting to note that in the 2001-02 season, Colorado won the Big 12 conference, yet the team they beat to win that conference was instead invited to play for the nation championship: Nebraska.
One of the chief arguments the pro-BCS camp has been throwing around recently is the following. This is a quote from the BCS coordinator John Swofford in response to Obama's support of a college football playoff:
Quote
For now, our constituencies -- and I know he understands constituencies -- have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports.
The argument here is that the BCS makes the college football regular season the most exciting in any sport. This is because in order to get to that championship game, a team can't afford a letdown; the whole season is like a playoff. But evidence has shown that this isn't necessarily true. Of the 10 national champions crowned by the BCS, only 7 of those champions finished the year unbeaten. Thus, 3 times it has occurred that a team did in fact have one of those letdowns during the season that would have eliminated them if the regular season were truly one long playoff, LSU last year actually lost twice yet still was crowned the champions.
So how exciting does this "season as a playoff" environment make the sport? Consider where we're at right now. With everyone's regular season winding down, we have 2 teams from BCS conferences currently unbeaten: Alabama and Texas Tech. Rightly so, they are ranked 1-2 in the BCS, and would play each other in the national championship game provided they just keep winning. Both teams belong to conferences that are split into 2 divisions, with a conference championship game to determine who wins the conference. Winning those games will be a tall order, though; Alabama will be playing the team currently ranked 4th in the BCS (Florida) in their championship game, while Texas Tech still has to play the team currently ranked 5th (Oklahoma) before they can even assure themselves of playing for their conference championship, which would be against Missouri. You also have a Texas team ranked #3, which has lost to Texas Tech this year, but could play into the championship discussion depending on how the remaining games play out. If recent history is any indication, we are in for some changes to these rankings in the final weeks; Alabama and Texas Tech should not be preparing for each other just yet.
So realistically there are 5 teams that are looking for a shot at that championship game. A couple other outsiders may sneak up there depending on the remaining games, let's say there are 8 different teams in all who still have hopes of getting to that game. Pretty exciting, sure, but under a system that awarded all conference champions a shot at the national championship, there would be, by my own calculations, 48 teams still with a mathematical shot of winning their conference and getting there. Now that's way more exciting. So teams like Maryland, Cincinnati, Ball State, Utah, and Boise State would still have a chance to play for something other than a second-tier bowl game.
The system I propose is pretty straightforward, and essentially the same as what I stated last year: a 16 team, single elimination playoff. Win your conference and you automatically get into the playoffs. The other 5 spots would be filled by the highest ranked teams who did not win their conferences. No more than 2 teams per conference in the playoffs. Losing a conference championship game should not be a thing that keeps you from joining the playoffs; it shouldn't drop you below another team from your conference who didn't have to play in the championship game. First round games could be played at the field of the higher ranked team. Second round games could each be one of the BCS bowl games (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta). The semifinals and finals could be played at a different site every year, like the college basketball final 4 does it.
All other levels of college football have a playoff, it's about time the top level follows suit. I don't see how this would not be more exciting than the current system. There is plenty of time to fit this between the end of the regular season and the end of the bowl season as we have it today; in the past two years Ohio State has had something like 5 weeks off each season before playing the championship game. Reduce the number of games in the regular season if 4 extra games is too many, although, like I said the other divisions manage to play this many extra games. It's gonna happen someday, let's just do it and finally settle this debate on the field.
Of course, I'm recognizing Utah as the national champions. 
Will Tim Tebow come back for his senior year???