If ever a division 1-A college football season proved that the BCS diminishes the value of the regular season, it's this one.
Supporters of the BCS frequently argue that a post-season playoff for a national championship is inferior to the BCS formula of polls and computers. The argument goes something like this: in division 1-A football, The Regular Season Matters. Each game is a do-or-die situation for each team - so much so that the entire regular season is the playoff. The BCS, they argue, is superior to a playoff because it preserves the importance of the regular season. This makes division 1-A football unique among all sports, collegiate and professional. It makes our sport special.
The reality is that, with respect to national championship eligibility, the BCS structure belittles the significance of the regular season for a number of teams. Examples going back to the BCS's inception in 1998 abound. Consider the following division 1-A teams who completed their Regular Season undefeated but with no eligibility to compete for their divisional championship:
1998: Tulane, 11-0, Conference USA champions
2004: Auburn, 12-0, SEC champions
2004: Utah, 12-0, Mountain West champions
2004: Boise State, 11-0, WAC champions
2006: Boise State, 12-0, WAC champions
2007: Hawaii, 12-0, WAC champions
BCS supporters argue that competition in conferences like the WAC and C-USA is weaker than in the BCS conferences, so it is acceptable to exclude these teams from the BCS title game. Indeed, considering that the BCS is designed to produce a champion from 66 BCS conference teams (including Notre Dame), it is acceptable in this system to exclude them. This serves to underscore the primary flaw with the BCS - it produces a BCS champion, not a division 1-A champion among 119 teams and 11 conferences. If it is acceptable to have conferences like the WAC and C-USA competing in the division, then there is no excuse to exclude their undefeated champions from divisional championship eligibility. In denying their eligibility, the BCS diminishes the value of their regular seasons.
Of course, the regular season for the 2004 Auburn team, undefeated champions of the BCS Southeastern Conference didn't matter either. The BCS is designed to devalue the regular seasons of even BCS conference teams if it has to.
There are many other examples that illustrate how the BCS disregards the regular season for several teams.
- At the end of the 2000 season, one-loss Florida State was eligible for the national championship, despite being beaten in head-to-head regular season competition by Miami, who also finished with only one loss. Miami was not eligible for the national championship. For that matter, neither was 10-1 Washington who gave Miami their only loss.
- After 2001, one-loss Oregon was denied eligibility. So was the Big 12 champion Colorado. Selected instead was Nebraska who had previously lost to Colorado.
- After 2003, one-loss USC was denied eligibility, despite a #1 ranking in the AP poll and a PAC 10 championship. Big 12 runner up Oklahoma was selected instead, fresh off their crushing loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game.
- After 2006, denying Michigan a chance to replay Ohio State for the national championship was reasonable, as it had lost the Big 10 to the Buckeyes. Hold the same true for one-loss Wisconsin. Less reasonable was denying eligibility to one-loss Louisville and undefeated Boise State.
- After the 2007 regular season, LSU and Ohio State were deemed eligible to play for the national championship, even though two-loss LSU was beat in its last regular season game. Strong finishes by ACC champion Viriginia Tech and Big 12 champion Oklahoma didn't matter. Neither did an undefeated season for Hawaii.
The problem with all this of course isn't so much the teams that are selected - there is always a solid case for their eligibility. Even in the 2003-04 debacle, the case could be made that Oklahoma's one loss shouldn't count worse for them than USC's - and USC after all didn't have to play the extra championship game that Oklahoma did. No, the problem is with the teams that are left out, for there is always a valid case for their eligibility as well. The BCS simply makes too few teams eligible for championship contention.
Furthermore, to apply the argument the regular season matters to avoid discussion of a playoff alternative is the strangest of red herrings. The undeniable truth is that without a good regular season, you don't win your conference. Without a good regular season, you don't qualify for the post-season. The regular season matters more if there is a post-season playoff than it currently does for the BCS.
There is one respectable point in the BCS-supporters' side of this argument. If too many teams are deemed eligible at season's end to compete for the national championship it dilutes the importance of the regular season. While that is fair, it is equally fair to say that deeming too few teams at season's end as eligible also tarnishes the value of the regular season. There is a sweet spot to be had here to keep the Regular Season on its appropriate pedestal - the right number of teams to select for divisional championship eligibility.
A useful metric for a post-season system is the ratio of the number of teams eligible for a national championship to the total number of teams competing in the regular season. Call it the "Championship Eligibility" ratio. For example, the NBA has 30 teams competing in its regular season, with 16 selected for post-season championship eligibility. That is a whopping 53.3% Championship Eligibility ratio. It would be fair to argue that with its post-season format, the NBA dilutes the importance of its regular season. At the other end of the spectrum is the currently structured BCS, featuring 66 teams competing in its regular season, with two selected from that group for championship eligibility. That is a paltry 3.0% ratio and reduces the value of its regular season just as much by not allowing enough teams. Comparing the ratios across different collegiate and professional leagues provides some insight for determining that sweet spot:
#RS = The number of teams competing in the regular season
#PS = The number of teams selected for post-season championship eligibility
% Eligible = The percent of teams eligible for post-season championship
League | #RS | #PS | % Eligible |
NBA | 30 | 16 | 53.3% |
NHL | 30 | 16 | 53.3% |
NFL | 32 | 12 | 37.5% |
| NCAA Div. 1 Men's Ice Hockey | 59 | 16 | 27.1% |
Major League Baseball | 30 | 8 | 26.7% |
| NCAA Div. 1 Men's Soccer | 202 | 48 | 23.8% |
| NCAA Div. 1 Softball | 277 | 64 | 23.1% |
NCAA Div. 1 Men's Baseball | 293 | 64 | 21.8% |
| NCAA Div. 1 Field Hockey | 78 | 16 | 20.5% |
| NCAA Div. 1 Women's Volleyball | 324 | 64 | 19.8% |
NCAA Div. 1 Men's Basketball | 336 | 65 | 19.4% |
NCAA Div. 1 Women's Basketball | 335 | 64 | 19.1% |
NCAA Div. 1-AA Football | 111 | 16 | 14.4% |
| BCS | 66 | 2 | 3.0% |
The major professional leagues are all above 25% in this metric - that may be too high a ratio to keep the Regular Season as meaningful as BCS supporters would like. It seems 15% could be a reasonable sweet spot, with the 1-AA division in football comparing very favorably at 14.4%. Indeed, a 15% ratio is far lower than what is currently used in most NCAA sports; some may argue for a ratio as high as 20% for comparability to other Division 1 sports.
Here are the Championship Eligibility ratios for some of the more commonly suggested post-season scenarios for division 1-A football:
| Div. 1-A Football Post-Season Scenario | #RS | #PS | % Eligible |
| Tournament: 16 seeded teams among Div. 1A | 119 | 16 | 13.4% |
| Tournament: 12 seeded teams among Div. 1A | 119 | 12 | 10.1% |
| Tournament: 11 seeded teams among Div. 1A | 119 | 11 | 9.2% |
| Tournament: 8 seeded teams among Div. 1A | 119 | 8 | 6.7% |
| BCS Championship with 4 eligible BCS teams | 66 | 4 | 6.1% |
Interestingly, and particularly relevant to the BCS supporters' argument: the ratios for the "BCS+1" 4-team format and an 8-team tournament among all 119 div. 1-A teams are almost the same at between 6 and 7%. To claim that the former preserves the value of the regular season while the latter doesn't is a false argument as they are statistically identical in this regard.
The more relevant argument to be had between a BCS+1 tournament and an 8-team division 1-A tournament is whether or not college football should have a champion only among BCS conference teams, or a champion among all 119 division 1-A teams. If you believe the championship belongs exclusively among the 66 BCS teams, then the BCS+1 playoff scenario is an excellent format and preserves the value of the regular season better than the current BCS.
If however you believe that national championship eligibility in division 1-A college football should incorporate all 119 teams, then feel comfortable with a post-season tournament among 8 to 16 teams. Championship Eligibility ratios between 6.7% and 13.4% certainly maintain the importance of The Regular Season.
No comments:
Post a Comment