The Tournament of Champions

In previous posts, I've argued that the BCS as currently structured does not solve the problem of determining a division 1-A college football champion, primarily because it is exclusive to only a subset of division 1-A teams and conferences, and because it affords post-season eligibility to too few teams upon completion of the regular season. A playoff alternative of 8 to 16 teams certainly preserves the value of the regular season, with discussion typically focusing on one of two broad options:

• An 8-team tournament: Six champions from among the BCS conference schools, plus two at-large selections
  
  
• A 16-team tournament: Eleven champions from among all Division 1-A conferences, plus five at-large selections
  

Each has its pros and cons. The 8-team field is nice in that there's only two extra games for participating teams, and the smaller number allows for only conference champions and outstanding independents. Fewer teams also allow for top-level bowl games to enlist top-notch competition among the teams that do not make the tournament. Still, the two at-large selections may (and likely will) pass over deserving non-BCS conference teams in favor of one- or two-loss BCS teams.

A 16-team field ensures that all division 1-A conferences have a chance to participate. There is something very stabilizing about the rule "win your conference and you are in" as it takes the eligibility control away from pollsters and computers and puts it in the hands, feet, bodies, and brains of the teams themselves. For any team that would complain about not being included, there is a simple answer: win your conference next time. Five at-large selections ensures that outstanding independents can participate and affords a second chance to teams that may have been hit with injuries for a crucial game during the regular season. That said, the 16-team format does add a third extra game for all participating teams and the five at-large spots will surely take away any chance for top-tier bowls to invite top-notch competition. It's one thing for the Rose Bowl to be asked to accept the second-place Big 10 and PAC 10 teams; if first- and second-placed teams in those conferences happen to be invited to the tournament, does the Rose Bowl (and other top-tier bowls) settle for third?

Bowl games are a wonderful, unique tradition in this sport, and should (and could) be preserved even with a post-season tournament. In particular, the traditional January bowls - the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar - should continue to enjoy top-tier competition. Going down the bowl chain, it probably doesn't matter so much. If the Alamo played a #5 Big 12 team rather than a #4, it's probably no worse off. But the top-tier bowls are certainly diminished if too many teams are selected for a national championship tournament, and that is undesirable. Certain other bowls which invite a non-BCS conference champion, such as the Liberty Bowl (it takes the Conference USA champion), would also be forced to adjust. Hopefully the #2 team in C-USA would provide just as good a game.

Still, even with their cons, each format featuring either an 8- or 16-team field is better than the current BCS format with the potential to crown a genuine Division 1-A national champion. Another playoff alternative could mitigate the problems for top-tier bowls and is worth consideration.

Call it the NCAA Division 1-A Tournament of Champions. Simply put, if you win your conference you're invited to play other champions for the National Championship. If you don't win your conference, you're not invited. The number of participants matches the number of conferences in Division 1-A, so the field presently is eleven. The teams are seeded either by committee or RPI-like-formula into a bracket like the following:

The top five champions are rewarded with a first-round bye, and as the tournament winner is likely to come from this group, the concern that participants will be subjected to too many extra games prior to the championship is mitigated - most likely the winner will have played only two. Even so, wouldn't lesser-seeded teams gladly play the extra game for a real chance at a national championship? This format succeeds in producing a genuine national championship among all division 1-A conferences.

Allow better-seeded teams a home field advantage in the first two rounds (maybe three) and there is tremendous incentive not just to win one's conference, but to do so in a manner as to secure the better post-season seed. This will certainly reward conference champions who elected to play tougher non-conference schedules. In fact, this format encourages teams to play reasonable out-of-conference opposition as scheduling non-conference cupcakes offers no reward. There is a huge difference between getting the 5th and 6th seeds here (for example) and stronger non-conference play would be a deciding factor.

For that matter, teams are neither rewarded nor penalized for the existence of a conference championship game. Missouri was hurt by a loss in the Big 12 championship. LSU was substantially helped by playing the extra game for their conference title. Ohio State was helped by not having to play one; had USC the opportunity to play (and win) a conference championship, they might be playing in the BCS title game. In the Tournament of Champions system, each conference gets to choose their representative however they wish without consequences for other conferences.

An additional strength to this format, assuming one wishes to preserve the existing bowl system as much as possible, is that it keeps all the second place conference finishers available for top-tier bowls. This is significant, for it ensures that there is excellent competition to be had even with the conference champions unavailable. Assuming the Sugar Bowl as the site for the National Championship, this year would see the likes of Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Boston College, Illinois, and Arizona State playing as top competition in the Rose, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls. That is not much of a drop-off, if any at all, from what currently exists with this year's BCS selections. To further preserve the bowls as much as possible:

• Allow the tournament championship to be rotated as the BCS does now among the top-tier bowls.
  
  
• Keep most existing bowls and their conference tie-ins (without league champions, but including #2 on).
  
  
• Ensure the tournament games through semi-finals are played in the mid-December weeks so as not to interfere with a Bowl week following Christmas.
  
  
• Play the other top-tier bowls on January 1st to maintain tradition and play the National Championship on January 2nd.
  

Some would argue that a two-loss Georgia has more right to be eligible to play for a National Championship than say a five-loss Florida Atlantic. While it is true that 99 times out of 100, Georgia beats Florida Atlantic on a neutral field, limiting the field to conference champions makes the selection system entirely objective. A big part of the BCS problem is the arbitrary subjectivity of the selection system. Again, here the answer is simple: just win your conference. Teams that play in more difficult conferences but finish second are still rewarded with placement in top-tier bowls, and that is significant. The second-place team in the Sun Belt likely won't get invited to play in the Orange Bowl.

Besides, the argument that non-BCS teams have no chance to advance in a tournament just doesn't hold true universally. Could the 2004 Utah team have advanced to the finals? Absolutely. How about the 2006 Boise State Broncos? You bet they could have advanced. The beauty of selecting conference champions is that nothing is assumed - everything is decided on the field. The 2007 Hawaii Warriors could get blown out in the first round - or they could very well surprise many in a tournament like this. Yes, for the time being, the tournament champion would likely come from among the current BCS conferences, but this system ensures that isn't taken for granted.

If this Tournament of Champions has a weakness, it is that an eleven-team field affords no opportunity for independents to participate. That is an unacceptable deal-breaker. Even the current BCS includes Notre Dame, and with continued improvement, who's to say we won't see a one-loss Navy team in the near future? I admit I don't have an easy answer to this issue. While it simplifies the system dramatically to force these teams into conferences, that isn't likely to happen. A more workable solution is to allow a 12th team into the field under a very specific set of conditions. In the case of a twelve-team field, the 5th-seeded team loses its bye and hosts the 12th-seeded team in the first round. If no independent qualifies, the field remains at eleven.

One possibility: If an independent finishes higher in the ranking system than the highest-rated second-place conference team, then the independent is invited and seeded accordingly among a twelve-team field. If two-loss Georgia finishes second in the SEC but has a higher ranking than Notre Dame, the Irish aren't invited. If however Notre Dame (or any other independent) finishes higher than every other second-place conference team, they have proven they belong among the conference champions and are invited.

That might be a little too harsh a standard for independents. Even so, independents cannot be allowed special privilege just because they aren't competing in a conference. The selection must also be objective. A second possibility: any independent that finishes in the top #6 of the selection rankings is invited to the tournament. Top #10 is too many - this is a Tournament of Champions after all. It is likely that one second-place conference finisher will appear in the top #6, but perhaps as many as three or four in a top #10. So we'll pick a top #6 threshold for an independent to prove they belong among other conference champions.

An eleven-team field of conference champions in its objectivity provides an elegant path to a genuine division 1-A National Championship. As tournament formats go, it allows participation from all division 1-A conferences while the existing bowl system loses little. If a solution for the participation of independents were ironed out, a true division 1-A champion could be had.