If I Were King: November 30th, 2009
by utesfan100 on Nov 30, 2009 8:27 PM EST
in My Proposal
9 comments
Time for this week's installment of how the postseason would look if my design was in place. Let's first answer some general playoff problems.
Who would participate?
Tournament:
1) All undefeated teams: Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State.
2) All teams in the top group of teams. This line is drawn between Boise State and Oregon thus no other teams qualify.
The Sugar and Fiesta Bowls would be commandeered for the tournament. Four additional teams would participate in BCS bowls. Ohio St., Oregon and Georgia Tech and one top 14 at-large would have a spot in the Rose and Orange Bowls.
How many automatic qualifications?
Currently 6 as the BCS automatic qualification criteria would be applied with bowl results added as a fourth component.
What would be the criteria for qualifying?
1) Be undefeated; or
2) Be in the top group of teams in the BCS standings.
What would be the criteria for seeding?
The BCS standings are not a bad standings. The issue is that #3 may be arbitrarily close to #2.
When and where would the games be played?
Based on the current standings the following would happen:
December 19th (First day of bowl season):
- Texas hosts Boise State
- TCU hosts Cincinnati.
New Year's Day:
- Sugar: Florida hosts the lowest ranked team to advance
- Fiesta: Alabama hosts the other advancing team
- Rose: Oregon plays Ohio St.
- Orange: Georgia Tech plays Iowa
January 9th (Last day of bowl season):
- Sugar and Fiesta Bowl winners play in the National Championship Game.
If you could resolve all that would everyone be satisfied?
Who would like this less than the current design? Here is an answer to the real world constraints I have collected. These, and there ordering, will be outlined next week, then each one of these 21 constraints will be examine at a rate of one per week for each over the off season.
- The meaning of the regular season would be maintained.
- New Year's Day is restored to a celebration of elite college football.
- Three of the four BCS bowls have their traditional tie-ins, and the Fiesta Bowl would too if Texas wins the first round. After the SEC Championship Game the Fiesta Bowl would be guaranteed #2 Texas if they beats Nebraska.
- Student athletes from the best teams would have the enhanced experience of a tournament while other teams still experience the bowl tradition.
- The current bowl window is not altered, minimizing impact on student athlete's study time.
- All the deserving teams have a road to the National Championship Game - Any team finishing undefeated would be the national champion
- Some want all conference champions to have a chance to win the tournament. This system does not provide that.
- No team would play more games than the FCS champion will play this year, respecting the health of the players.
- Enhance the credibility of the championship results.
- Use BCS standings to determine home field for play-in games and neutral sites for all games to produce fair venues.
- Guarantee the top conferences at least an invitation to a BCS bowl, if possible with their traditional tie-ins.
- Few teams outside the top 10 would participate and few teams with two or more losses would participate.
- By using gaps to determine eligibility the teams left out will generate a much smaller level of controversy.
- Game dates avoid direct NFL competition (except when New Year's Day happens to be on a Sunday. Some BCS bowls would likely be moved to January 2nd in this event)
- More games would generate more revenue and marketing opportunities for the top teams and conferences expecting to participate regularly.
- BCS bowl sponsors would have a higher profile audience when they become semi-finals. More games allow more sponsorship opportunities.
- The pool of teams for the remaining bowls is unaltered, leaving the remaining bowls untouched.
- A paradigm shift to selecting a tournament to fit the qualifying teams over finding the most qualified teams for the final slots in a tournament greatly reduces bracket creep.
- This design would directly reduce the perceived legal opportunity due to the large scale marketing value of an official national championship.
- Maximum games played is consistent with FCS teams, minimizing the need for additional games.
- The current postseason time period is rigidly maintained.
- Two neutral site games and one home game for a favored team is less of a burden than the three week of march madness in Basketball.
How does the BCS fair against these same real world constraints? I see two where the BCS fairs better and six where my design wins. Both fail to meet one criteria that would require a tournament of 11 teams to fulfill.
No system is perfect. Someone would complain, likely about bye determinations in other years. I am pretty sure this is far from grounds for an anti-trust case.
This was fun. I'm going to do it again for my tier based plus-one after the jump!
Not just one better idea, but two. I better watch out for a value added tax.
Who would participate?
Semifinals:
Top 4 undefeated teams: Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU
Direct BCS participation: Cincinnati and Oregon as the highest ranked automatic qualifying champions. Both are eligible for a second bowl game.
First Round Games: Boise State as an undefeated team and Ohio St. and Georgia Tech as an automatic qualifying champion would be guaranteed a spot. Penn State, Iowa, Virginia Tech, BYU, Houston and Central Michigan would be eligible for selection or two bowls if not selected.
How many automatic qualifications?
Currently 6 as the BCS automatic qualification criteria would be applied with bowl results added as a fourth component.
What would be the criteria for qualifying?
1) Be one of the top 4 undefeated teams
2) Be in the top of the BCS standings with insufficient undefeated teams to fill the semifinals.
What would be the criteria for seeding?
The BCS standings are not a bad standings. The issue is that #3 may be arbitrarily close to #2. By using gaps to determine eligibility the teams left out will generate a much smaller level of controversy.
When and where would the games be played?
Four bowls would be allowed to partner with each of the BCS bowls to become the regional first round games. Based on the current standings the following could happen:
December 19th, 21st and 22nd (First day of bowl season):
- Florida plays TCU
- Alabama plays Texas
- WEST COAST: Boise St. vs. BYU
- MID-WEST: Iowa vs. Houston
- NORTH: Ohio St. St. vs. Virginia Tech
- SOUTH: Georgia Tech vs. Penn St.
Central Michigan would still get two bowls.
Re-selections made for BCS bowls and four bowls leaving a slot open for first round game losers. If the favored teams win BYU, Houston, Virginia Tech and Penn St. would advance to a bowl leaving a spot open for a selection among them.
New Year's Day:
- Sugar: Iowa vs. Boise St.
- Fiesta: Texas vs. TCU
- Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio St.
- Orange: Cincinnati vs. Georgia Tech
January 9th (Last day of bowl season):
- Florida and Alabama.
If you could resolve all that would everyone be satisfied?
All in all I think the first design is far more robust. This one is slightly better than what we have but only requires one small NCAA rule change -- allow teams with a record better than 10-2 to play in two bowl games.
I am considering changing this to 9 or more wins over FBS teams.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Wow.
Both of those systems would work extremely well. I would favor either of those over the current system.
Scott
You have fair and reasonable proposals, but would the BCS conferences agree to them?
For disclosure purposes, I’m alum of the University of Illinois and, therefore, my school is largely a beneficiary of the current BCS system as a member of the Big Ten. I believe that you have fair and reasonable proposals and, unlike a lot of other playoff proposals out there, make an effort to address some valid concerns about a playoff system and use assumptions that everyone ought to take into account.
However, I think that the biggest assumption is still being left out: whether the BCS conferences would reasonably agree to a proposal if they are acting in their rational best interests. At the end of the day, that’s the only thing that matters because they are the only ones that can make the ultimate decision. If you take away a single financial or access advantage from the BCS conferences, then that proposal is DOA.
I believe that a playoff system overall probably makes more TV money than the current bowl system. However, the issue is (and always will be) how such money is split. The BCS conferences loathe how the NCAA Tournament money is split – much like football, they believe that they are the ones largely providing the eyeballs in front of TV sets while other conferences piggy back off of their success. Whether that’s true or not is debatable, but that’s how the BCS conferences perceive the money split in basketball and why they’re so vehemently against any type of similar situation in football.
So, I think the most realistic scenario (at least for the near future) is an unseeded plus one system. I wrote about this in more detail a few months ago here:
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/reexamining-the-plus-one-college-football-option/
I apologize in advance with respect to the negative tone toward Utah and the Mountain West at the beginning of the post (although I took pains to point out how a plus-one would’ve benefited them last season) – after reading through this again months later, it was more of my exasperation at the politicians butting in on this issue.
Also, I’d like to emphasize that this plus-one proposal has nothing to do with being a perfect proposal. It’s definitely not. Instead, my objective here is to find changes that the BCS conferences would reasonably agree to (because, once again, that’s the only criteria that matters).
I meant to make that post below a reply to this comment.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Thanks for the post!
This is a blog and I expect all opinions to be expressed honestly. I value opinions that differ more than those that echo what I think.
The 6 automatic qualifying conferences are the 6 automatic qualifying conferences for a reason. They are the most marketable conferences and could generate profitable bowl games without the help of the BCS.
The BCS bowls are deeply rooted in college football tradition and will not become neutral sites for arbitrary teams or accept the best scraps after the selections are done. They expect the conference champion from the top conferences or a close equal every year.
You are correct that If those two facts are ignored any proposal will fail.
My full proposal included a revenue share that was based largely on attendance figures. Since then I have compared BCS revenue to the total football revenue of all 120 FBS teams and also for the at large teams in aggregate. The results of both showed that the BCS accounts for roughly 6.1% of all revenue for both sets of teams.
No exactly unfair. Not as communist as the NCAA revenue sharing either. They have already been hit with one anti-trust suit in the 80’s over TV coverage and revenue sharing deals very close to their playoff designs. Wouldn’t it be ironic of the BCS automatic qualifying conferences won a case against the NCAA stating their playoffs violate anti-trust laws?
I liked your article. It had a lot of meat and I admit I did not have time to digest it fully. I did not have any issue with your tone at all. Your distaste for politicians is understandable. I don’t want them imposing a college football playoff, much less a heath care system.
My tier based plus one is designed to fill the role of your unseeded plus-one in filling the gap until a robust design can be implemented for after the 2014 season.
The SEC, ACC and all five at large conferences want to add a playoff to the bowl system. The Big 12 coaches have shifted towards a playoff, especially in the south. The Big East and independents would likely not want to be left out.
Tournament games between these teams would generate large amounts of revenue even if it could not claim to be an true national championship.
How long would the Rose Bowl sit out? It would not take too long for a #1 Rose Bowl participant to get jumped in the polls by the tournament winner.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Interesting about the attendance figures
That is a novel way of addressing the financial issue. I’m well aware of the University of Oklahoma v. NCAA case as an attorney and you’re right – the NCAA would be more at risk at violating antitrust law by imposing a playoff system than the current BCS system (which is why lawsuits always get threatened against the BCS by state AGs that want to get their names in the paper on a popular topic, but nothing ever gets actually filed).
The one part I’d disagree with is the degree to which the SEC and ACC want to add a playoff. They proposed a seeded plus one with effectively a 4-team playoff, but that’s a bit different than effectively having 3 rounds for the #3 and #4 seeds. Coach support is also largely irrelevant – if coaches had their way, there would also be a 128-team NCAA Tournament. The only people that matter, as you probably well know, are the university presidents.
The other factor is that a lot of proposals seem to take the view that a system can just leave out the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 if they are “obstructionist” (which is a bit unfair as the Big 12 and Big East have been every bit as vocal about not wanting even a plus-one, much less a playoff), but I don’t think the market (i.e. bowls and TV networks) could ever support that at this point. This is essentially what the old Bowl Alliance of the early 1990s attempted to do when those parties weren’t involved and it was largely a failure. That’s because when you go to ESPN or another network and sell such a proposal, it’s an extremely tough sell to say that it will never involve Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC along with the conferences that deliver the 2nd and 3rd largest TV markets in the country (LA and Chicago). It would be like trying to sell Fox the MLB TV package but stating upfront that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs could never have a chance to make the playoffs or World Series – that would kill a huge portion of the value of that package.
So, I don’t think that excluding the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 can ever be a viable option. As much as the SEC might not want to admit it, they’re not going to agree to anything without those parties involved because they’re well aware of the financial power that those parties bring to the table.
Regardless, you’ve definitely brought some fresh ideas to the forefront.
by Frank the Tank on Dec 4, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
As for the ideas to leave out the Big 10 and PAC 10
Those are mostly rhetorical.
At least on my part.
It would certainly eliminate any ligitimacy as a true national championship, but more games betwen top teams equals more revenue for all teams and confernece participating.
While the universtiy presidents have the final say to state that they are the only ones who matter suggests they are negligent in listning to the concerns of all parties involved. I don’t believe that to be true.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Sorry, have been offline for a bit, personal issues. Anyways …
So in my playoff scenario, here is how my playoffs would shake out (BCS rankings are best guess):
Sat Dec 13:
16 Troy 9-3 at 1 Alabama 13-0
15 Ohio U 10-3 at 2 Texas 13-0
14 Houston 11-2 at 3 Cincinnati 12-0
13 LSU 9-3 at 4 TCU 12-0
12 VA Tech 9-3 at 5 Florida 12-1
11 Penn St 10-2 at 6 Boise St 13-0
10 iowa 10-2 at 7 Oregon 10-2
9 GA Tech 11-2 at 8 Ohio St 10-2
Assume 2 upsets, say Penn St and GA Tech, Round 2 becomes:
Sat Dec 20
11 Penn St 11-2 at 1 Alabama 14-0
9 GA Tech 12-2 at 2 Texas 14-0
7 Oregon 11-2 at 3 Cincinnati 13-0
5 Florida 13-1 at 4 TCU 13-0
Now assume Bama, Texas, Oregon and TCU win:
BCS bowls (semifinals) look like this:
Sugar: 1 Alabama 15-0 vs 7 Oregon 12-2
Fiesta: 2 Texas 15-0 vs 4 TCU 15-0
Rose: Penn St vs Florida
Orange: GA Tech vs Cincinnati
Winner of Sugar meets winner of Fiesta in Title game following week.
All non-BCS bowl games take existing affiliations with the losers of Round 1 added to the mix.
You have to admit...
Your Rose Bowl does not really look like a Rose Bowl.
Glad to see you back.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
That is assuming Oregon wins the Round 2 matchup of course. Even in the current BCS matchup, you are rarely going to get all 4 BCS bowls to get their traditional matchups. That is what the BCS has set up currently. For example, this year you are not going to get a Big12 team in hte Fiesta unless Nebraska upsets Texas.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
