It is time to look at a side issue to conference realignment with overtones far more significant than teams changing dancing partners on their schedules.

The persistent rumor of super conferences has been around for decades. The idea is that the top conferences might split off and form a new league. The conferences involved in this idea? The same ones operating the BCS. After the jump I will outline how a shift might come about.

The real question is would this be a bad thing?

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 90 and 91 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The TV money is generated from creating high interest matchups. Percieved value is a bigger part of this equation than actual team strength.

Lets look this one simple fact square in the eyes: most of the big name schools that the average fan recognises are members of a handful of conferences. (Let's also look this simple fact in the eyes. the TCU Horned Frogs and Boise St. Broncos garnered more eyes than the ACC champion Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets vs. Big 12 runner up Iowa Hawkeyes in the 2010 BCS Nelson ratings.)

There are teams in big name confrences with bad credentials and recognised teams outside the big name conferences. When you are looking to bet on which confernces are going to have the highest ranked champion you don't pick the confernece with one team running in the front and nothing to back them up if that team falls.

Any design will need to cater to those teams nost likely to participate. Or it will need anti-trust exemptions (as the NCAA requires to be legal).

The champions of the top conferences go to the top bowls. Any tournament is going to be viewed as more prestigious than any bowls that are not part of the tournament.

The field will likely have to be smaller than the number of strong conferences, the top bowls will have to lose their traditional tie-ins or the top bowls woven into the tournament in a way that maintains their tie-ins. Either way, the unique reward of the bowl system will be diminished.

The BCS has already eroded some of this by breaking the traditional tie-ins, especially prior to the addition of the national championship game as a stand alone bowl.

How do several leading options fair in light of the rewards to the top conferences?

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 88 through 90 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The opposite side of the good teams are getting left out coin is that a wider field will allow teams to participate that really didn't earn an elite spot in the postseason.

Many people feel that teams with two or more losses do not deserve to be in championship consideration. Some believe that teams that don't win their conference should not be in the national championship discussion.

The larger the field the lower the standards become for entry into the tournament. Lower standards mean that the reward of entry into the tournament is diminished.

Expanding the field to 96 is not an option for football.

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 88 through 90 of my plan to fix the BCS]

Tournament games should be played at venues that are away games for both teams. Home seeding for favored teams is a common technique used in many sports leagues to add importance to regular season games for teams having secured their eligibility for the tournament.

The old bowl system and the BCS use venues that are often home fields of regular participants. Any design that uses the bowls to host games will face this issue.

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 87 and 88 of my plan to fix the BCS]

Those wishing to install a college football playoff often hearald the determination of a champion as their primary goal. The fact of the matter is that nine constraints rate higher in priority to the college football postseason than this ideal, and these would have to be maintained before any talk of installing a true national championship can be discussed.

Some have questioned whether there is a need to determine a widely accepted championship. If college athletics is about raising the character of the participating individuals then a championship is not a vilat component of the college athletics mission. The bowls actually thrived in regional marketing of competing potential championship games that add to the discussion and coverage of the sport.

To a marketer any print is good print.

The fans and players strongly desire the results to be determined on the field. This can only be accomplished by including all undefeated teams and other teams that have demonstrated that they have proven their worth in a broad battery of measurement techniques.

How do the top ideas fair in the context of this constraint, next...

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 85 through 87 of my plan to fix the BCS]

Often it is known that the final ballots will be close and that the votes in the final ballots will determine the national championship game participants.

A look at several prominent alternative designs next:

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 84 and 85 of my plan to fix the BCS]

This is one of the key arguments used by the BCS proponents to defend the current system. Football is a violent sport that risks serious injury. Added games between the top teams will increase to number of injuries as the injury rate will be similar or exceed normal games and more exposures generates more injuries on average.

Fans and TV executives would certainly consume as many games as the NCAA would allow, thus this constraint is a negative for them. This is often a source of departure from the postseason realities that populist designs intentionally make.

This issue was what lead to the formation of the NCAA, originally commissioned to implement rule changes to promote the safety of players, especially in the sport of football. The NCAA has done a tremendous job of increasing the safety of the players, as exemplified by the recent focus on reducing concussions. I will discuss how I feel the NCAA has overstepped their bounds by running tournaments next week.

The participants in the FCS championship game currently participate in up to sixteen games. The NCAA is unlikely to expand the number of allowed games beyond this limit.

A standard regular season consists of twelve regular season games. Additional games can be added if a team travels to or is Hawaii or if they qualify for a conference championship game. This allows thirteen games for many
championship teams and fourteen for some.

This limits the number of rounds to three and the number of teams to eight. Each additional round would require one more week (or conference championship games) to be removed from the regular season while doubling the number of potential participants.

Comparisons to NFL schedules are unfounded due to the fact that student athletes are not millionaire professionals and collegiate injury rates are comparable and often medical expenses are less funded than for NFL players.

A look at several prominent alternative designs next:

Continue reading this post »

Are Ohio State fans pro-playoff - "If its good enough for Gee its good enough for me!" or are they with the majority of college fans and talking heads?

That is the question recently addressed in a series at the new SB Nation Ohio State blog "Buckeye Battle Cry"

I'll cast my vote for the moderate voice.

Continue reading this post »