As a college football fan who would like to have a clear division 1-A national champion crowned, it heartens me to read articles like that recently posted by Matt Zemek of CollegeFootballNews.com. In the post, Mr. Zemek acknowledges the arrogance of the BCS commissioners who recently shot down a plus-one playoff format and encourages a boycott of bowl game attendance for the upcoming season.
That is a very strong thing to ask for, particularly from one who is so knowledgeable, and such a fan, of the sport. But it made me consider something. Those who protect the BCS system as it currently exists are constantly touting how precious is the regular season. Zemek makes it very clear that he is not calling for a boycott of regular season games, just the bowl game.
So treat this as a thought experiment: imagine a 2008 season with record attendances during the regular season, but every one of the 34 bowl games is played in an empty venue due to a fan boycott. Record revenues from regular-season attendance are seen across the country, but the bowls instantly become a financial fiasco. Following such a spectacle, do BCS commissioners continue to trumpet the regular season as they do now?
Even if you're a fan of the current BCS system, if you answered "no" to the above question, you have to acknowledge that the health of the regular season isn't the driving factor to the commissioners' decision to stonewall a playoff.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Ten Percent Experience
It continues to amaze me how there are people that consider a playoff in College Football div. 1-A would somehow diminish the value of the regular season. Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel insists that this is the real reason behind the recent decision of BCS commissioners to torpedo a plus-one post-season format.
I've written in prior posts how this is a red herring - that limiting championship eligibility to only two teams (and for the most part decided by vote at that) actually devalues the regular seasons for many teams, year after year. I described a "Championship Eligibility ratio" - the ratio of the number of teams eligible for their league's national championship to the total number of teams in the league - as a useful metric for considering the "value" of a given league's regular season. Have a ratio too high, like in the NBA, and the regular season for its teams is watered down. But have a ratio too low, like in the BCS, and several deserving teams year after year never get a shot, equally diminishing the value of their regular seasons.
Here's another metric. In college football, teams only play 12 regular season games. That's a total of 12 opponents. That means that each team in division 1-A football plays only about ten percent of the total divisional competition during the regular season. Is that really a large enough representation to definitively select, through arbitrary selection, only two teams for championship eligibility? Does anyone really think that? 10%?
Put another way: every division 1-A college football team during every regular season barely scratches the surface of the available competition pool. At seasons' end, there are 11 conference champions, and several other teams with cases to be made that their 10% experience matches up with anyone else's.
The point to a playoff is to recognize that the 10% experience is inherently limited. Those with the best 10% experiences become representatives in a playoff. A fully-played tournament is a time-efficient means for translating individual 10% experiences into a full 100% champion, without having to play all 119 teams against eachother. The best representatives for the regular season play instead.
Catch that? The best representatives for the regular season get to play for the national championship. If a team performs poorly for the regular season, they don't get to the playoff. It's that simple. The regular season matters, with or without a playoff post-season. It's a red herring. The only way it isn't a red herring is if too many teams are invited to the post-season.
So don't have a 64-team brawl! An 8-team tournament playoff represents only about seven percent of all the division's teams. Isn't that elite enough?
I've written in prior posts how this is a red herring - that limiting championship eligibility to only two teams (and for the most part decided by vote at that) actually devalues the regular seasons for many teams, year after year. I described a "Championship Eligibility ratio" - the ratio of the number of teams eligible for their league's national championship to the total number of teams in the league - as a useful metric for considering the "value" of a given league's regular season. Have a ratio too high, like in the NBA, and the regular season for its teams is watered down. But have a ratio too low, like in the BCS, and several deserving teams year after year never get a shot, equally diminishing the value of their regular seasons.
Here's another metric. In college football, teams only play 12 regular season games. That's a total of 12 opponents. That means that each team in division 1-A football plays only about ten percent of the total divisional competition during the regular season. Is that really a large enough representation to definitively select, through arbitrary selection, only two teams for championship eligibility? Does anyone really think that? 10%?
Put another way: every division 1-A college football team during every regular season barely scratches the surface of the available competition pool. At seasons' end, there are 11 conference champions, and several other teams with cases to be made that their 10% experience matches up with anyone else's.
The point to a playoff is to recognize that the 10% experience is inherently limited. Those with the best 10% experiences become representatives in a playoff. A fully-played tournament is a time-efficient means for translating individual 10% experiences into a full 100% champion, without having to play all 119 teams against eachother. The best representatives for the regular season play instead.
Catch that? The best representatives for the regular season get to play for the national championship. If a team performs poorly for the regular season, they don't get to the playoff. It's that simple. The regular season matters, with or without a playoff post-season. It's a red herring. The only way it isn't a red herring is if too many teams are invited to the post-season.
So don't have a 64-team brawl! An 8-team tournament playoff represents only about seven percent of all the division's teams. Isn't that elite enough?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
More bowls?
The NCAA has approved two new bowl games, taking the number of bowls to 34 for the 2008 season.
I wonder at what point over-saturation hit with bowls... was it at 16? 20? I'm sure it was well before the 32 we had in 2007. We now have the St. Petersburg bowl and the Congressional bowl.
But I guess it isn't an automatic thing... the NCAA denied the Rocky Mountain bowl in Salt Lake City. Why not have yet another bowl? Why not have one in every city? If we're already over-saturated with bowls, what's one more?
I wonder at what point over-saturation hit with bowls... was it at 16? 20? I'm sure it was well before the 32 we had in 2007. We now have the St. Petersburg bowl and the Congressional bowl.
But I guess it isn't an automatic thing... the NCAA denied the Rocky Mountain bowl in Salt Lake City. Why not have yet another bowl? Why not have one in every city? If we're already over-saturated with bowls, what's one more?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Maintaining the BCStatus Quo
Dennis Dodd from CBS Sports has recently reported that the commissioners of the six BCS conference and Notre Dame's AD have voted to maintain the BCS status quo through the 2013 season and 2014 New Year's bowls. At stake was a plus-one format, a four-team mini-playoff pushed for by SEC commissioner Mike Slive, supported only by the ACC. A couple of quotes from the article are particularly nauseating:
This is what these five people think. Keep that in mind - FIVE people decided this thing. To them, the gravy train is chugging along and there's no sense in upsetting the known cash cow for some unknown potential.
Really? A playoff is an unknown as far as money is concerned? Really?!? Either these guys are incredibly short-sighted (a playoff system would rake in ratings-driven media revenue well beyond what the BCS is currently making) or something else is going on.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that these five guys are not short-sighted idiots. In fact, I'll concede, without having met any one of them, that these are smart people who, through those smarts and life experience, each earned his way to a BCS-conference commissioner's post.
So what is going on here? The true interest being served by these BCS commissioners is the exclusivity of their club. They don't want to risk a playoff, even if it were to mean more overall revenue, if it also meant having to share that revenue more fully across all Division 1-A schools. As it stands now, BCS schools can keep the lion's share (and we're talking in the 95% range) of all the revenue earned through this crazy system. I would almost appreciate hearing one of them come out and say the truth - "we're protecting a system that let's us keep most of the money." This is really what White means when he says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It ain't broke for BCS schools.
Reading Tranghese quoted saying "We don't think a playoff is in the best interests of college football" is insulting in a way that belies his insulated arrogance. Substitute any other major professional or collegiate team sport for "college football" in that quote to see how haughtily ludicrous the statement is. For that matter, substitute "Division 1-AA college football". And arrogance is the right word; Tranghese also said: "I know that's what a lot of fans don't want to hear, but they're not responsible for crafting what we have in college football".
Wow. Let that sink in for a minute. How many fans is he talking about? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Compare that to the number that fancy themselves as the ones responsible for crafting what we have in college football - five people. Just five.
I thought tens of thousands of hard-working coaches and players crafted what we have in college football. I thought the devotion of tens of millions of fans, reflected through their donations, ticket purchases, and television viewership crafted what we have in college football.
Nope. Not according to Tranghese.
And as for the decision to maintain the BCS status quo? It's about the money. It's about who's keeping it all for themselves.
It's about five guys.
"Another wise person said, 'If isn't broken don't fix it,'" attributed to Notre Dame AD, Kevin White.
"A seeded model looked like a playoff to us. We don't think a playoff is in the best interests of college football." attributed to Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese.
This is what these five people think. Keep that in mind - FIVE people decided this thing. To them, the gravy train is chugging along and there's no sense in upsetting the known cash cow for some unknown potential.
Really? A playoff is an unknown as far as money is concerned? Really?!? Either these guys are incredibly short-sighted (a playoff system would rake in ratings-driven media revenue well beyond what the BCS is currently making) or something else is going on.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that these five guys are not short-sighted idiots. In fact, I'll concede, without having met any one of them, that these are smart people who, through those smarts and life experience, each earned his way to a BCS-conference commissioner's post.
So what is going on here? The true interest being served by these BCS commissioners is the exclusivity of their club. They don't want to risk a playoff, even if it were to mean more overall revenue, if it also meant having to share that revenue more fully across all Division 1-A schools. As it stands now, BCS schools can keep the lion's share (and we're talking in the 95% range) of all the revenue earned through this crazy system. I would almost appreciate hearing one of them come out and say the truth - "we're protecting a system that let's us keep most of the money." This is really what White means when he says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It ain't broke for BCS schools.
Reading Tranghese quoted saying "We don't think a playoff is in the best interests of college football" is insulting in a way that belies his insulated arrogance. Substitute any other major professional or collegiate team sport for "college football" in that quote to see how haughtily ludicrous the statement is. For that matter, substitute "Division 1-AA college football". And arrogance is the right word; Tranghese also said: "I know that's what a lot of fans don't want to hear, but they're not responsible for crafting what we have in college football".
Wow. Let that sink in for a minute. How many fans is he talking about? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Compare that to the number that fancy themselves as the ones responsible for crafting what we have in college football - five people. Just five.
I thought tens of thousands of hard-working coaches and players crafted what we have in college football. I thought the devotion of tens of millions of fans, reflected through their donations, ticket purchases, and television viewership crafted what we have in college football.
Nope. Not according to Tranghese.
And as for the decision to maintain the BCS status quo? It's about the money. It's about who's keeping it all for themselves.
It's about five guys.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Looking in the Vault
Sports Illustrated has done sports fans a wonderful service by making its historical issues available through its online Vault. I was browsing through one issue in particular, from September 20, 1965. What amazed me was the article forecasting the then-upcoming 1965 college football season. Even back then, folks were clamoring for a true college football national championship, decided on the field, through a tournament-style playoff.
The 16-team tournament envisioned by writer Dan Jenkins on page 40 is charmingly dated, but also serves to demonstrate how little progress has been made in 43 years for fans who wish to see a national champion decided through a fair playoff.
The 16-team tournament envisioned by writer Dan Jenkins on page 40 is charmingly dated, but also serves to demonstrate how little progress has been made in 43 years for fans who wish to see a national champion decided through a fair playoff.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Tournament of Champions - 2007 Redux
We've been testing the Tournament of Champions playoff concept for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 seasons, with some predictive guessing prior to the playing of the BCS bowls as to how a 2007 playoff might have turned out. Now that the bowls have been played, we return to the 2007 season with the following playoff teams, each having won their Division 1-A conference:
We had originally predicted Oklahoma would win such a playoff. Given how the teams actually performed in the post-season, we can replay our fictional tournament for 2007.
First Round
And the National Champion is...
How to even call it? In their win against the Buckeyes in the championship game, LSU proved their strengths in all facets, and ability to adjust to OSU's surprising first quarter offensive strike.
However... USC cleaned Illinois' clock in the Rose. Those two teams didn't belong on the same field in a top-tier bowl game. And when we realize that in November, Illinois took it to Ohio State on their home field, USC's dominance in their bowl game might ring more impressive than LSU's victory.
#5 USC beats #2 LSU. And what a fantastic game it would have been.
We had originally predicted Oklahoma would win such a playoff. Given how the teams actually performed in the post-season, we can replay our fictional tournament for 2007.
First Round
- Undoubtedly, West Virginia cruises past Florida Atlantic.
- We'll take BYU over UCF; in spite of struggling, they beat UCLA in the Las Vegas bowl.
- Hawaii vs. Central Michigan? Hawaii stunk against tough competition in Georgia in the Sugar, while Central Michigan lost a shootout to Purdue in the Motor City. While Purdue isn't quite the competition this year that Georgia was, we'll take Central Michigan. Hawaii made way too many turnovers and was dominated at the line.
- Ohio State wins comfortably against BYU. The Cougars struggled too much against UCLA to expect they would have done much against the Buckeyes.
- USC trounces Oklahoma. Probably scores as much as West Virginia did in the Fiesta, but without giving up as many points to the Sooners.
- LSU takes out a scrappy Central Michigan team, overwhelming them in the second half.
- West Virginia wins a surprisingly easy game against Virginia Tech. The Mountaineers looked great in their Fiesta win, while it took everything the Hokies had to hang with Kansas in the Orange.
- #1-seeded Ohio State vs. #5-seeded USC. Based on their actual bowl play, this one isn't tough. USC comfortably handles Ohio State, but credit OSU for giving the Trojans a better game than Illinois did in the Rose.
- #2-seeded LSU vs. #6-seeded West Virginia. Wow. What a game this would have been. West Virginia would take the early lead, not unlike the Buckeyes did vs. LSU in the BCS title game. But we'll take LSU's overall quality in all phases of the game and with good halftime defensive adjustments, the Tigers take a fourth-quarter nail-biter.
And the National Champion is...
How to even call it? In their win against the Buckeyes in the championship game, LSU proved their strengths in all facets, and ability to adjust to OSU's surprising first quarter offensive strike.
However... USC cleaned Illinois' clock in the Rose. Those two teams didn't belong on the same field in a top-tier bowl game. And when we realize that in November, Illinois took it to Ohio State on their home field, USC's dominance in their bowl game might ring more impressive than LSU's victory.
#5 USC beats #2 LSU. And what a fantastic game it would have been.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Tournament of Champions - 2005 Edition
The Tournament of Champions is a proposal for a playoff alternative to the BCS to select a genuine national champion among 11 division 1-A conferences and 119 teams. Invitations are given to all eleven conference champions and to qualifying independents. For the purposes of this run-through, the BCS rankings is used for the seeding order, and independents ranked sixth or higher qualify.
We've looked at the 2006 and 2007 regular seasons and the Tournaments they would have produced. For 2005, we have the first opportunity going back in time to test this system with a qualifying independent. Notre Dame at 9-2 will be seeded among conference champions having earned their place finishing sixth in the BCS rankings.
The Rose Bowl hosts the National Championship game this year, with the Tournament leaving some excellent teams available for the other top-tier bowls: Ohio St. (9-2), Oregon (10-1), Miami (9-2), Auburn (9-2), Virginia Tech (10-2), LSU (10-2), Alabama (9-2), Texas Tech (9-2), UCLA (9-2), Florida (8-3), Wisconsin (9-3), and Louisville (9-2). Pick any six for the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange bowls for some outstanding matchups.
With a qualifying independent in the mix we have our first 12-team bracket:
Notable in the 2005 edition:
And the National Champion is...
In 2005, the BCS probably had its easiest year with no controversy in selecting USC and Texas to compete. We also think nothing would stop USC and Texas from colliding in the finals of this tournament. We could see Georgia upsetting Notre Dame, and West Virginia having a good shot against Penn St. along the way, but otherwise we'll take Texas and Vince Young repeating their real-life victory over USC.
We've looked at the 2006 and 2007 regular seasons and the Tournaments they would have produced. For 2005, we have the first opportunity going back in time to test this system with a qualifying independent. Notre Dame at 9-2 will be seeded among conference champions having earned their place finishing sixth in the BCS rankings.
| Seeding | Team | Conference |
| 1 | USC | PAC 10 |
| 2 | Texas | Big 12 |
| 3 | Penn St. | Big 10 |
| 4 | Notre Dame | Independent |
| 5 | Georgia | SEC |
| 6 | West Virginia | Big East |
| 7 | TCU | Mountain West |
| 8 | Florida St. | ACC |
| 9 | Boise St. | WAC |
| 10 | Tulsa | Conference USA |
| 11 | Akron | MAC |
| 12 | Arkansas St. | Sun Belt |
The Rose Bowl hosts the National Championship game this year, with the Tournament leaving some excellent teams available for the other top-tier bowls: Ohio St. (9-2), Oregon (10-1), Miami (9-2), Auburn (9-2), Virginia Tech (10-2), LSU (10-2), Alabama (9-2), Texas Tech (9-2), UCLA (9-2), Florida (8-3), Wisconsin (9-3), and Louisville (9-2). Pick any six for the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange bowls for some outstanding matchups.
With a qualifying independent in the mix we have our first 12-team bracket:
- With an independent qualifying, the fifth seed must play a first-round game.
- 2005 Tulsa is a decent team that improved throughout the season; its first-round matchup against TCU would prove to be a very good game.
- We have another example of a non-BCS champion (TCU from the Mountain West) out-seeding a BCS champion (the ACC's Florida St.)
- It seems that the Sun Belt conference is the bottom feeder in each of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 tournaments. Not being the bottom feeder would be good incentive for lesser conferences to improve.
- Penn St. vs. West Virginia and Notre Dame vs. Georgia are great second-round matchups.
And the National Champion is...
In 2005, the BCS probably had its easiest year with no controversy in selecting USC and Texas to compete. We also think nothing would stop USC and Texas from colliding in the finals of this tournament. We could see Georgia upsetting Notre Dame, and West Virginia having a good shot against Penn St. along the way, but otherwise we'll take Texas and Vince Young repeating their real-life victory over USC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)