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:

"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.

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.

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

• 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.

Second Round

• 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.

Third Round

• #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.

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.

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:

Notable in the 2005 edition:

• 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.

Tournament of Champions - 2006 Edition

We had so much fun with the 2007 Tournament of Champions, we thought we'd go back in time to look at how much fun the playoff could have been in prior years. If you haven't read it yet, make sure to look at the rationale behind the Tournament of Champions.

For 2006, we have a very interesting field. We'll use the BCS standings as our ranking/seeding system, and allow any independent that finishes #6 or higher an invitation.

Conference Champions:

Seeding	Team	Conference
1	Ohio St.	Big 10
2	Florida	SEC
3	USC	PAC 10
4	Louisville	Big East
5	Boise St.	WAC
6	Oklahoma	Big 12
7	Wake Forest	ACC
8	BYU	Mountain West
9	Houston	Conference USA
10	Central Michigan	MAC
11	Troy	Sun Belt

Independents: None qualify. Notre Dame finished #11 in the BCS standings.

The championship is played in the Fiesta Bowl, and in preserving the bowl system as much as possible, there could be terrific games for the the other top-tier bowls:

Rose: Michigan (11-1) vs. California (9-3)
Orange: Auburn (10-2) vs. Notre Dame (10-2)
Sugar: LSU (10-2) vs. Wisconsin (11-1)

The seeding for the 2006 Tournament of Champions produces the following bracket:

Notable in 2006:

• As in 2007, Ohio St. secures the #1 seed.
• The WAC champion (Boise St.) seeds better than the ACC champion (Wake Forest). This format does not take for granted that BCS conferences should have all the top seeds.
• Second round USC vs. Oklahoma would be a fun game. So would third-round Florida vs. USC.
  

And the National Champion is...

Boise State had an amazing season and proved in its real-life victory over Big 12 champion Oklahoma that it could hang with the big guys. As flat as Ohio St. was in its real-life bowl game, we'll take Boise St. to the finals with victories over Louisville and the Buckeyes. As strong as the Gators looked in real life, we don't think anyone beats them in this fictional post-season. Florida cruises past Wake, has a reasonable victory over the Trojans, and ends the Broncos' Cinderella season.

Tournament of Champions - 2007 Edition

The Tournament of Champions is a playoff alternative to the current BCS system that secures the participation of all 11 conference champions in Division 1-A college football to establish a divisional champion. In addition to crowning a genuine national champion, the Tournament aims to preserve the bowl tradition, ensuring (by not taking second-place conference finishers) that top-tier bowls keep top-notch teams.

The following demonstrates how this proposal would work following the 2007 regular season. We'll use the BCS standings as our ranking/seeding system, and allow any independent that finishes #6 or higher an invitation.

Conference Champions:

Seeding	Team	Conference
1	Ohio St.	Big 10
2	LSU	SEC
3	Virginia Tech	ACC
4	Oklahoma	Big 12
5	USC	PAC 10
6	West Virginia	Big East
7	Hawaii	WAC
8	BYU	Mountain West
9	Central Florida	Conference USA
10	Central Michigan	MAC
11	Florida Atlantic	Sun Belt

Independents: None qualify.

With the championship held in the Sugar Bowl, the other top-tier bowls have terrific games to be had among the #2 teams in each conference, with selections possibly going like this:

Rose: Arizona State vs. Illinois
Orange: Georgia vs. Kansas (or Boston College?)
Fiesta: Missouri vs. Florida

Each of these top bowl games would be worth the ticket. As for the Tournament of Champions, the brackets would be as follows:

Notable:

• #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 USC would be a killer early round game.
  
• With Ohio State looking flat toward the end of the season, an upset to BYU is entirely possible.
• Hawaii's undefeated season probably ends at #2 LSU.
  
• West Virginia vs. Virginia Tech would be a great regional matchup.
  

And the National Champion is...

We think Oklahoma, squeaking past USC in a game-for-the-ages, comes away with this championship beating BYU handily, then LSU in a close one. No matter who emerged from the Ohio St./Oklahoma/USC bracket, there would be no dispute that they belonged in the championship game.

For that matter, Hawaii winning over LSU and Virginia Tech would prove it belonged as well. Are we so sure that wouldn't happen, if the championship were allowed to be settled on the field rather than in polls and computers?

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.