After a great week of dialogue regarding the NCAA football postseason, Rob, Talonk and I wanted to take one final shot at each others' ideas. Since this was my idea, I'll go first:

Rob's position was that playoffs would minimize the regular season and would thus take away from much of the great debate that is a huge part of the fan experience. He also posits that the BCS is fine, and would be perfect with only a few tweaks.

Of course, I've got questions:

• One of the major criticisms with the current system is that "the best teams" don't get to prove it on the field. You may get an undefeated team ranked higher at the end of the year than a team with a couple of losses against significantly superior competition. As such, the current system seems to punish teams for playing (and possibly losing) early games against strong out of conference opposition.  How would you suggest correcting the "strength of schedule" issue?
• During the BCS years, we've seen one team play for the championship who even play for their conference championship (Nebraska 2001) and another (Oklahoma 2009) who tied for their divisional lead but played for the national championship due to computers and not on the field performance. In 2007, the top six teams ended up with two losses each, while one loss teams were ranked behind them at the end of the year (Kansas/Hawaii). Last year and this year the season ended with two undefeated teams who were neither ranked number one nor given the opportunity to play for the title. How do you justify this to fans whose teams ended the year with better records? Without sounding like this guy, I mean...

• Really? The current system gives Notre Dame money even if they don't play and an automatic bid for finishing eighth... you think that's a good thing?
  
• Finally, in your magnum opus regarding BCS tweaks you propose that game payouts match the rankings. Wouldn't this further penalize the smaller schools who usually start the season ranked lower and won't ever reach a higher game no matter their on the field success? Especially since we know that bowls themselves are often money pits for Universities...

Continue reading this post »

Welcome back! How was Chipotle?

OK, a quick review of the rules as we have them:

1. Colleges cannot play more than 11 regular season games (one less than current numbers)
2. First poll is not released until the end of September (after teams have played); Coaches and AP polls abolished for conflict of interest (or if continued, cannot be used in televised commentary)
3. 6 wins needed to be bowl eligible, games against non division 1 schools do not count towards total
4. The major 6 conferences will need to adjust their membership to include 12 teams
5. Each conference decides their champion by a championship game; how they determine who plays there is up to them

I'm feeling pretty good: ESPN agreed with me twice, first on polls-

Preseason polls will be abolished
Sometime during the next decade, the Associated Press and coaches' polls finally get it right and decide to abolish their preseason polls. The first polls won't be released until Oct. 1. Remarkably, Notre Dame will still be No. 1.

Then ESPN predicted that the realignment will happen. Although they also talk about a "plus one" (fifteen games for some people...), here's their predictions:

The Big Ten is exploring the possibility of adding a 12th team, and I'm betting it will be Missouri before the 2011 season. With 12 teams, the Big Ten can split into two divisions and stage a conference championship game. Who can't wait to flock to Detroit or Minneapolis in early December?

With Missouri leaving, the Big 12 will add TCU to its lineup of schools. Not to be left out, the Pac-10 will add Boise State and Utah, giving it 12 teams and a moneymaking championship game. The Big East will react by adding Memphis, East Carolina, Central Florida and Temple.

We didn't talk about the Conference Championship Games in our last post: In my opinion, the Big lEast game happens in Lincoln Financial Field, the Big T1e2n game is either at Soldier Field or in Detroit's new ballpark (could even be played on a Sunday, since the Lions aren't using it), and the PAC12 championship alternates between Seahawks Stadium in Seattle and the new NFL stadium in Los Angeles.  Good times.

OK, so now we have our six champions. Some folks have questioned this idea- "what if team A from this conference is the third best team but is better than the champ from Conference X?". Valid point, but let's look at the NFL for our response. In 2008 we had the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts while the 11-5 Patriots sat at home. Yes, it seems unfair, but the No Fun League's rules also value conference championships, and it seems as if America has accepted those parameters pretty well. 

Look, you have to draw a line somewhere- my line is that national champions should also be conference champions. It keeps the regular season meaningful, and will reward (or at least not penalize) teams for playing difficult out of conference games- you can lose one, win your conference, and still be dancing at the end. Also, if you're in a difficult conference and "beat up on each other every week", your record won't matter if you win your CCG.

OK, now onto the rest of the changes:

Continue reading this post »

As you know, 'concise' isn't exactly in my vocabulary. So, we're pulling a Simmons and doing this in two parts. Second one will post after lunch- more Friday work avoidance!!

For the record, I'm not a proponent of playoffs. I actually liked the way things used to be with conference bowl tie-ins and such; arguing about who was #1 back in the day was a part of the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion.

But, since you asked me, if we were going to have a playoff this is what it should look like. Unlike some people, I'm not going to tell you what won't work- I'm taking a flier on what would ooze awesomeness. Caution is advised; some items may shift during the duration of this posting.

A lot of this is based on the bowl history series I did back on the old site. It might not be a bad idea to give it a look-see if you haven't already:

• Bowl Crap: The history of the modern bowl phenomenon and the "national championship" issue.

• Bowling for Dollars: The economic realities of the bowls; who benefits from these games?

• Bowl Movement: What does it mean to be the "champion"? How is this determined? Is it important?

For those of you who didn't want to tear a tendon in your clicking finger, let me sum up the relevant parts for this discussion: The old bowl system (PreCS) was flawed in it's ability to create a national champion, since it didn't exist for that purpose. The original purpose was money; tourism, money for sponsors, etc. It will be impossible to lose this system and start from scratch because of the "tradition", the money, and the fact that the NCAA has been told in federal court that they cannot legislate post-season activity.

So- on to the philosophical guidelines and overarching principals.

Continue reading this post »

The debate rages on every college football season, like a wild fire in a wind storm. 

To playoff or not to playoff?  That is the question.

I happen to be a huge fan of what the BCS strives to create:  the greatest regular season in any sport. 

Yes, changes are needed but a complete overhaul would be a disaster (shameless website plug, see my BCS changes here).

I'm not here to talk about changing the BCS though, but rather to paint a picture of what college football would look like with a national playoff. 

Continue reading this post »