This the-Ozone 2006 Fiesta Bowl Coverage made possible by:

Football
BCS Still Bogus - But What Kind of Playoff?
By Tom Orr and John Porentas

Tom Orr sent us a column last night in which he outlines a proposal for a 16 team playoff in college football and the need for that playoff. This is not that column, but I am going to steal some (actually, a lot) of really good stuff from it.

Tom wrote:

“'The BCS worked.'

"You’ve heard it plenty of times since we found out that the only unbeaten teams in the country would play for the national championship. Of course it did. You could have handed the responsibility of choosing the two teams in this year’s Rose Bowl to a monkey living in a zoo in a non-college football state (Vermont, Alaska, etc.) and the monkey would have paired up the Horns and Trojans this year.

"The BCS worked in 2002, as well. That year, only the Buckeyes and Miami finished the regular season unbeaten and were matched up in a classic Fiesta Bowl.

"In 1999, Virginia Tech and Florida State were the only major-conference teams to finish the regular season unbeaten, and played in the Sugar Bowl.

"The issue with the BCS is all the other years.

"Like, for example, 2004, when three BCS-conference teams (USC, Oklahoma and Auburn) finished the regular season unbeaten. USC and Oklahoma were chosen to play for the national championship, while the Tigers were pushed off to the Sugar Bowl. After the bowls, two teams (USC and Auburn) finished the year unbeaten. Both ran the table in a BCS conference and finished the season perfect. Who would have won a head-to-head game? We’ll never know. Utah also ran the table in the Mountain West Conference and destroyed the champion of the Big East in the Fiesta Bowl, but was never given a chance to contend for the championship.

"In 2003, LSU, Oklahoma and USC all finished the year with one loss. The Tigers and Sooners were matched up in the national championship game, despite the fact that Oklahoma lost its last game before the bowls by four touchdowns. Both LSU and USC won their bowl games, splitting the national title.

"In 2001, Miami was the only team to finish the regular season unbeaten. Nebraska and Oregon both finished the regular season with one loss. Colorado finished with two losses, but destroyed Nebraska 62-36 in its regular season finale and upset Texas in the Big XII championship game. The BCS formula put Nebraska in the championship game, despite their blowout loss in their last game, the fact that they were #4 in the AP poll (behind Oregon and Colorado) and the fact that they did not even win their own division, let alone their conference. The ‘Huskers put up a minimal fight in the Rose Bowl, getting stomped 37-14 by Miami, while Oregon rolled over Colorado, 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl. That left little doubt that the two best teams did not play each other.

"In 2000, Oklahoma finished the regular season unbeaten to clinch one spot in the championship game (Orange Bowl). #2 Miami (10-1), #3 Florida State (10-1), #4 Washington (10-1), #5 Oregon State (10-1), and #6 Virginia Tech (10-1) all made their case for the other spot. Miami went 2-1 against the other contenders, losing to Washington, but beating Florida State and Virginia Tech. The ‘Noles were 0-1, losing to Miami. Washington was 2-0, beating Miami and Oregon State. Yet the BCS picked Florida State to play, despite the fact that they were ranked behind Miami AND had lost a head-to-head meeting. Oklahoma easily dispatched the Noles, 13-2. Miami and Washington both won their bowl games easily as well, leaving many people wondering if the Sooners would have fared so well against better competition. Also asking “what if” were the Marshall Thundering Herd, who shredded MAC competition on their way to a perfect season. Under the BCS system, they never had a chance to play for the national championship.

"In 1998, Tennessee ran the table to finish the regular season unbeaten and top-ranked. Ohio State, Florida State, Wisconsin and Arizona all finished with one loss. The ‘Noles lost early (24-7 at NC State), while the Buckeyes spent virtually the entire season as a consensus #1 pick, but lost on the first Saturday in November (28-24 against Michigan State). Wisconsin (a 27-10 loser at Michigan in November) and Arizona (a 52-28 loser at UCLA) were not considered contenders. Florida State won the berth in the Fiesta Bowl and lost to Tennessee. Meanwhile, OSU poured on 21 first quarter points and rolled to a 24-14 win over #8 Texas A&M in the Sugar Bowl. Even in its first year, the BCS raised serious questions about whether the two best teams in the nation had really been paired up in the title game. Also, non-BCS team Tulane finished the year unbeaten but was pushed off to the Liberty Bowl and never considered for a chance to play for the championship.

"In the eight seasons of the BCS, three (including this year) have been pretty much controversy-free. In two other years (2003 and 2004), more than one BCS-conference team finished with the same number of losses, forcing a split title in one case and denying an unbeaten team a chance at the championship in the other. In two others (2000 and 2001), a team with questionable qualifications went to the title game over a team that had beaten them head-to-head and was ranked ahead of them in the polls. And in the first season, the team considered the best in the nation for the vast majority of the year was denied a chance to play for the title, in favor of a team that got blown out by a 7-4 squad.

"In every case where there were not two and only two unbeaten major-conference teams, the BCS bowl system left a major controversy.

"The biggest problem is that there’s no consistency to the teams selected to play. It’s better to lose early than late in the season (FSU over OSU in 1998), unless it’s not (Oklahoma over USC in 2003, Nebraska over Oregon in 2001). You can lose head-to-head on the field and finish behind in the polls (FSU in 2000) and still win in the BCS selection process.

"There’s no reason to think that this pattern will change, regardless of how many times they “tweak” the BCS formula to right the wrongs already committed. Unless there are two and only two unbeaten BCS-conference teams, it ends up a total mess. Even then, a non-BCS conference school can win every game it plays and never get close to consideration for the title game.

"Clearly, this is not an equitable system. Based on eight years of history, unless your school is a member of one of the six major conferences, or you play your home games in South Bend, you are virtually eliminated from national title consideration sometime in July. That’s 12 members of Conference USA, three independents, 12 members of the MAC, 9 schools in the Mountain West, eight members of the Sun Belt, and nine teams in the WAC—53 schools in all, 45% of those playing D-1A football—who never have a chance to be crowned its champion.

"It’s like the NFL deciding that the NFC North, NFC West and AFC South are pretty much never going to be strong enough to merit having one of their teams qualify for the playoffs. Yet, this is the system that’s imposed on college football."

How to Fix It

Clearly, Tom does great research, and his conclusion is solid, we need something other than the BCS to determine a national champion. Where Tom and the-Ozone management disagree is in the format of that system.

Tom outlined in great detail how a sixteen team play off could be organized. The problem is, it isn't going to happen.

OSU Head Coach Jim Tressel arrived at Ohio State firmly in favor of a playoff. His experience in Division I-AA where there is a playoff had him firmly in that camp, but Tressel has now changed his tune. He says a playoff is out of the question for a number of reasons.

"With the increased number of games we now play, I don't know how you could have both the 12-game schedules and the current bowl tradition and have a playoff," said Tressel.

"I don't that that would be fair to the kids. I'm not sure it would be the right thing."

Tressel first began to change his opinion on a playoff after seeing the physical condition of the teams following the 2002 Fiesta Bowl. Both teams exited the game as if they had been to war. The concept of playing the same caliber of opponent the following week seemed to change Tressel's opinion right there on the spot. Tressel still has that opinion, that lining up high-caliber Division I teams against one another week after week is not a good idea.

"I think that's what they're missing," said Tressel of the proponents of a playoff.

"I think if you got the best eight teams together, or the best sixteen teams together, and had them play weekend after weekend after weekend, I'm not sure that that's the fairest thing for those kids," said Tressel of the physical demands on teams in such a system.

That problem is only amplified by the 12 game schedule. The extra game next season will make longer an already rigorous schedule, and to ask the participants in a playoff to add as-many-as four high-quality opponents on consecutive weekends does seem like a bit much.

Tressel also has second thoughts on the ability of a fan-base to support a team throughout the duration of playoff, at least as far as traveling to the various games goes.

"Our fans are kind of used to you play a regular season, then you go to a bowl," said Tressel, who added that his experience at Youngstown State leads him to the conclusion that fan participation in a playoff would be difficult at best.

"Our I-AA fans were used to we might get a home game, then we might go on the road, then you might make it to the championship. Sometimes our people at Youngstown State would skip round two and three because they couldn't afford to go but save up for the championship game, but if we didn't make it they weren't happy with us. I'm not sure with what our culture is that it's best thing for our players or our fans as well," said Tressel.

Those are powerful arguments against a playoff, but that doesn't mean that a better system can't be devised. In fact, we think there is an absurdly simple solution to the problems that exist with the BCS, one that has been proposed before, but that makes even more sense now in view of the 12-game schedule to be adopted by college football begriming next season.

Our opinion is that everything about the BCS should be scrapped except the ranking system. All the old bowl tie-ins should be re-instated, and college football should return to its old system of bowl invites. Following the bowls, there should be one more game, a national championship game, with the BCS rankings following the bowl games determining the participants.

Such a system would preserve the current bowls and eliminate the matchup angst witnessed this and other years. We have enough faith in the BCS ranking system to believe that following the traditional bowls, numbers one and two will have been established.

A game played two weeks after the last bowl game would require that just two teams extend their season. A two-week buildup would create enormous interest in the game, and would allow plenty of time for recuperation and preparation by the participants. The game could be rotated among the current hosting bowl sites, or at perhaps a designated permanent site. The single-game format would limit travel costs for fans who would not have to travel to a series of elimination games to support their team.

It's not a playoff, but it's the next best thing, and it makes a lot more sense than what we have now.

The Other View

In fairness to Tom Orr, we're going to give you his proposal for a sixteen team playoff. It makes sense in terms of matching up teams and probably is functionally more inclusive in that it goes to great pains not to favor the major conferences to the exclusion of others, but given the 12-game schedule, and the rigors of a playoff, we just don't think it can fly.

Tom Wrote:

"There is a better way. A way that ensures that EVERY Division 1-A team will start the year with a legitimate shot at qualifying to play for the national championship. It’s revolutionary—only Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, every division of NCAA men’s and women’s basketball, NCAA men’s and women’s ice hockey, NCAA baseball, NCAA softball, etc. use it to determine their champion. In fact, it may stun you to learn that every division of college football uses it as well… except for one. I call it “a playoff.”

"Here’s how it works. The champions of all 11 conferences (ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) all receive an automatic berth into a 16-team tournament. The other five spots are filled by “at-large” teams. The selection of these teams will not involve how well their fans travel to bowl games, or the TV ratings of games in which they play. It will involve (gasp!) how their team performed on the field during the regular season.

"Keep the BCS formula (or whatever “tweaked” version exists) to rank the teams. The five top teams who did not win their league championships would get the at-large berths.

"Then, use the same rankings to determine the seeding. The #1 team in the rankings gets the top seed. The #2 team gets the second seed and so on. By the time you reach the conference champion with the lowest BCS rating (the champion of the Sun Belt, presumably), you have your #16 seed.

"If this sounds familiar, it’s a variation on an idea I suggested two years ago (link: http://www.the-ozone.net/football/2003/tomsplayoff.htm). I’ve tweaked several elements of the plan, which I think help answer some of the criticisms of the last version.

"Under the new proposal, the first two rounds of the tournament are held at the home stadium of the higher-ranked team. This not only rewards the teams who had the best seasons, but also cuts down on travel expenses for fans.

"After those first two rounds, the semifinals and final are held at the sites of BCS bowl games, on a rotating basis.

"The traditional bowl games are still maintained. Every six-win team that does not qualify for the playoff, as well as those who lost in the first two rounds of the playoffs will qualify for games like the Citrus, Cotton, Outback and Holiday, Alamo and Motor City bowls.

"In the interest of academics, the regular season will be shortened to 11 games, instead of 12, and the conference championship games would be eliminated.

"Frankly, there are really two choices for the conference championship games—either add one for every conference that doesn’t have one right now and move them all to the Saturday after Thanksgiving, or eliminate all of them. You can’t have some leagues playing by one set of rules, while others have a completely different one. That is insanity and creates a wildly uneven playing field. (This, naturally, is the current “chosen” system.)

"The decision to eliminate the conference title games comes down to which the NCAA cares more about, academics or money. We always hear how a playoff would take the student-athletes away from the classroom too much. That would clearly indicate that the conference championship games should be eliminated. That would allow the playoff to start earlier, and give the student-athletes more time to prepare for final exams. And as I’m sure Myles Brand would tell you, that’s what’s really important. (Silence from Indianapolis)

"Despite the kicking and screaming that would inevitably follow, the conference championship games are gone.

"The regular season would end the week before Thanksgiving, and the playoffs would start over the Thanksgiving weekend. You could divide the games between Friday and Saturday if you want, with four happening each day. Imagine a game with a direct impact on the national championship kicking off at 11:00 am, 2:30 pm, 6:00 pm, and 9:30 pm on Friday, then doing it all over again on Saturday.

"Just for fun, here’s a look at how this year’s field would look.
ACC Champion: Virginia Tech (remember: no championship games)
Big XII Champion: Texas
Big East Champion: West Virginia
Big Ten Champion: Penn State (tie-breaker over OSU)
Conference USA Champion: Central Florida (again, no championship game)
MAC Champion: Northern Illinois (no championship game, tie-breaker over Toledo)
Mountain West Champion: TCU
Pac-10 Champion: Southern Cal
SEC Champion: LSU (tie-breaker over Auburn)
Sun Belt Champion: Arkansas State (tie-breaker over ULL and ULM)
WAC Champion: Boise State (tie-breaker over Nevada)

"The Big Ten, MAC and SEC ties were broken because of head-to-head wins. In the Sun Belt, Arkansas State and ULL finished with better overall records than ULM, and Arkansas State won the head-to-head game. Boise State beat Nevada head-to-head.

"The at-large berths would go to (in order): Ohio State, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami and Auburn.

"Is it a perfect system? Of course not. Teams who we now know would have won head-to-head on the field (FSU over VT, for example) are excluded. But unless you want every conference to play a complete round-robin (eliminating the non-conference portion of the schedule every year), you’re not going to get a true head-to-head read on every game.

"This system also helps filter out the four-loss teams who happen to have one good evening. (Florida State, I’m looking in your direction.)

"Remembering that there would be no conference championship games (and thus going off the BCS standings from a week ago) the seeding would be:
#1) Southern Cal
#2) Texas
#3) Penn State
#4) LSU
#5) Virginia Tech
#6) Ohio State
#7) Oregon
#8) Notre Dame
#9) Miami
#10) Auburn
#11) West Virginia
#12) TCU
#13) Boise State
#14) Central Florida
#15) Northern Illinois
#16) Arkansas State

"The opening weekend schedule would be:

"Friday
11:00 am: #12 TCU at #5 Virginia Tech
2:30 pm: #13 Boise State at #4 LSU
6:00 pm: #9 Miami at #8 Notre Dame
9:30 pm: #16 Arkansas State at #1 Southern Cal

"Saturday
11:00 am: #14 Central Florida at #3 Penn State
2:30 pm: #11 West Virginia at #6 Ohio State
6:00 pm: #15 Northern Illinois at #2 Texas
9:30 pm: #10 Auburn at #7 Oregon

"Do you think you might spend a little time watching those games?

"The second round would be played on the next Saturday (currently conference championship day). Assuming the higher seeds all won, the second round games would be:

11:00 am: #5 Virginia Tech at #4 LSU
2:30 pm: #6 Ohio State at #3 Penn State
6:00 pm: #8 Notre Dame at #1 Southern Cal
9:30 pm: #7 Oregon at #2 Texas

"Two of the games would be rematches, but both originals were great games and in this case, the winners of each would be rewarded with homefield advantage in the playoffs.

"Then, the playoffs would stop, allowing all the student-athletes to take their final exams. The teams knocked out of the playoffs would be able to nail down invitations to bowl games, giving their fans plenty of time to make travel arrangements.

"After all the non-playoff bowl games ended on New Year’s night, the playoff would begin again.

"On January 2, one semifinal would start at 5:00 pm at one BCS site (selected on a rotating basis). The other semifinal would start at 8:30 at another BCS site.

"One week from those games, on January 9, the winners of the semifinals would play in the championship game.

"The game that hosted the national championship game the year before would be the one left out. This year, for example, the Orange Bowl would be played on New Year’s night, featuring two teams that did not make it into the semifinals. The semifinals would be in the Fiesta Bowl and the Sugar Bowl, and the championship game would be in the Rose Bowl.

"The advantages are obvious.

"Every team would enter the season with a legitimate shot at playing for the national title. It’s like basketball—you know that the Campbell Camels, Princeton Tigers and Oakland Grizzlies are an extremely long shot to win the national championship, but all the same they have a shot. If they win their conference and get into the Big Dance, they’re just six wins away from a national title in basketball. That’s all they can ask. The same is true here, where they would need to win four games.

"Under this proposal, teams who have an outstanding regular season are rewarded with home games in the playoffs. The regular season remains very important, and a late loss can mean the difference between hosting the first two rounds and facing a very unappealing road game.

"The revenue generated would be astronomical. Can you imagine the TV ratings for the games, and how much networks would pay to be a part of it? The top teams would get one or even two extra home games.

"It doesn’t add any weeks to the season—the same number of teams would be playing on the first weekend of December as under the current system, rendering moot all arguments about how it would take student-athletes away from their final exams.

"One loss (or even two) would not doom teams to a non-championship season. Under this scenario, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Miami and Auburn would all still have a chance to play for the national championship despite losing non-conference games against good teams. In fact, two-loss teams that played tougher non-league schedules like OSU (who faced Texas) got in, while a two-loss UCLA team (or Texas Tech, Louisville, etc.) who played a less-imposing non-conference slate did not. This should actually encourage teams to schedule better non-league games, since one loss would not kill a team’s championship hopes, and a win would go a long way toward bolstering their at-large chances.

"Also, think about the possibility that during some year in the future, players from Miami, Texas or USC could face a trip north to play a first or second-round game in the snow in Happy Valley or Columbus.

"How does this address some of the criticisms of other playoff proposals?

"1) Teams would play too many games! Actually, by dropping one regular season game and the conference championship games, teams would play a maximum of 15 games each year, and only two teams would play that many times. Six teams—the semifinalists and teams who lost in the second round would play 14 games (11 regular season games, plus either three playoff games or two playoff games and a bowl game). Eight other teams—the first-round losers—would play 13 games (11 regular season games, one playoff, one bowl game). The other 103 teams (out of 119) would play 11 or 12 games, depending on whether they qualified for a bowl game. If you think it’s impossible for a team to play 15 games in a year, consider that the two teams who play for the Division 1-AA championship do it every year. Kansas State played 15 games in 2003 (eight conference games, four non-conference games plus the BCA Classic, the Big XII championship game and a bowl game). The Buckeyes had to play 14 games to win the national championship in 2002. This is far from an impossible task—especially with almost a month to recuperate before the semifinals and finals. If teams can do it at lower divisions, they can certainly do it on this level, with better training staffs and better tutoring available to players.

"2) You can’t ask fans to travel to so many games! Under this system, the top four teams would only play in two games away from their home campus. This would involve exactly as much travel as the “plus-one” game that’s thrown around as a viable alternative to a playoff. It’s also exactly as much travel as teams who play in a conference championship game plus a bowl game. Teams with strong national fanbases (OSU, Notre Dame) will be represented wherever they go. In some cases, the first and second-round games are within driving distance (West Virginia @ Ohio State, OSU @ Penn State).

"3) It would devalue the regular season! There aren’t a bunch of 7-4 or even 8-3 teams getting in under this proposal. The big argument here is that the excitement of the regular season is based largely on the do-or-die nature of every game. One loss can cost you a shot at the national title, even if it comes in September. Of course, this presupposes that losing a game means your title hopes are, in fact, dead. For sure, your national championship shot is gone with your second loss. Operating under this assumption, only nine teams were still alive and well in the national title chase (unbeaten) after October 8 this year. Just 18 others were even peripherally alive (one loss). So using the “do-or-die” argument, a total of 27 teams were alive and 92 were dead before mid-October.

"Under the playoff system proposed here, if you were within a game of the conference championship in ANY league—even in November—you’d still have a chance at the national championship. Going into the final week of this year’s regular season, three teams in the Sun Belt Conference would have been alive in the national championship race. Three teams in the WAC would have entered last week alive in the national championship race. Two Big East teams would have been alive going into the last weekend of the regular season. Three Big Ten teams would have entered the final weekend of the regular season with a shot at either the title or an at-large berth (PSU, OSU, UM). Seven teams in the MAC finished within one game of the league’s best record and an automatic berth. Two ACC teams would have made the field. Two Big XII teams would have had a shot at a berth after the first weekend of November. Three Pac-10 teams would have entered late November with a realistic shot at either an automatic berth or an at-large selection. Four SEC teams finished within a game of the automatic berth. Add in the Mountain West champion, the CUSA champion, and Notre Dame, and in mid-to-late November, you’ve got at least 32 teams with a chance to play for the national title. Remember… under the current system, there were only 27 teams still alive after October 8, more than a month earlier.

"Is the regular season somehow more exciting when fewer teams have a chance to play for the national championship? Somehow, I don’t think that’s a very intelligent point of view to espouse.

"4) It would devalue bowl games! Yeah… you’d have a bunch of teams playing in bowl games knowing that they had no shot at the national championship. That’s different from the current system… how, exactly?

"5) It would kill the traditional bowl tie-ins! As opposed to the current system where we’ve had a Big Ten/Pac-10 Rose Bowl exactly once in the past five years (including this one). Remember, that “one” only happened because the BCS took Oklahoma for the national championship game instead of USC. Let’s not kid ourselves—the bowl tradition has already been sacrificed at the altar of the BCS in the name of the “worst of both worlds” system the sport operates under right now.

"6) There’s no way the current BCS bowls would be willing to give up their shot in the playoffs under that rotating plan! Under the current system, each bowl is relevant to the national scene once every four years (when it’s the national title game). Occasionally, you’ll have two games relevant in one year (like 2003 with the split championship and 2004 with more than two unbeatens), but for the most part there’s one game with an impact on the national championship. The rest are stuck with less-than-epic matchups like Pitt-Utah, Oklahoma-Washington State, Florida-Maryland, or Notre Dame-Oregon State. Under the new system, three of the BCS bowls would have a direct impact on the national championship every year. I’m not sure how you could possibly argue that this would be a bad thing for those bowls.

"7) It would devalue late-season games between rivals! Sure, there are some scenarios under which the loser of the OSU-Michigan game could still sneak into the playoff, but a loss in the finale would certainly cost you home-field advantage (at least for one round, and maybe two). For example, the Buckeyes were #2 in the BCS going into the 2003 game, lost to Michigan, and fell to #5, costing them a second-round game at home. Of course, under the current system, there are scenarios where the loser of that game still gets to go to the Rose Bowl—that has happened twice in the last 10 years. Remember, the Buckeyes lost the 1996 game to Michigan and still received no. 1 votes after the Rose Bowl. The same year Florida won the national championship, despite losing their regular season finale to FSU. Nebraska lost its last game of the season in 2001, Oklahoma lost its last game in 2003 and both still played for the national title. Let’s not pretend this is a new problem.

"Unfortunately, the greatest sport of all is saddled with the worst possible system for determining its champion. Until the system is fixed, more often than not (and this year is admittedly an exception), it seems likely that national championships will remain “mythical” rather than earned head-to-head on the field where they belong."

Return to O-Zone Column and and Features

Return to O-Zone Front Page