Resolving the NCAA Football Playoff Controversy

BCS Options: Two New Ideas

Here are a couple of novel solutions to the college football championship controversy about possibly adding a playoff. I call them my Fun Option and my Best Option.

Most people want a college football playoff. But there are several serious problems with that. It would detract from the regular season, detract from the bowl games, and cause scheduling difficulties for the student-athletes who are the players.

THE FUN OPTION
The BCS people have almost got it right. The championship game comes about a week after the last major bowl game. Keep it that way, only let the BCS panel vote immediately after the last major bowl game. Their choice of the #1 team goes to the championship game. Their opponent would be selected promptly by the FANS! Hey, we're good enough for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars!

In all likelihood we'll wind up with winners of two of the major bowl games facing off. This would keep the bowl folk happy.

This idea may have started out in jest, but when you look at all the "cons" (vs "pros") of the playoff proposals out there, you get to thinking that less is more.

PLAYOFF PROBLEMS
Here are some detailed problems with extended playoff proposals:

*Even if you just take 8 teams, most proposals include the 6 major conference winners in that group. But a conference winner could have accumulated 3,4 even 5 losses in a competitive conference and with some non-conference-game losses. For example, Virginia Tech had 4 loses in 2008 when they got invited to the Orange Bowl as ACC conference champs--and they won the game, too. So if that were the first round off an 8-team tournament, then they'd have been in the final 4! It wouldn't matter that they'd lost to lowly East Carolina University.

So you can be sure that sooner or later a team with 4 or more losses will win the championship in an 8-team tournament format. This would run contrary to 140 years of division-1 college football tradition. Only once has a team with more than 2 losses been awarded any kind of championship: Nebraska in 1981 was named champion by one organization, The National Championship Foundation, despite only going 9-3. And even they only had 2 losses at the time of the vote, which was taken pre-bowls.

* Extended playoff systems inevitably come into conflict with final exams or Christmas or the NFL playoffs or the start of Spring semester. We shouldn't forget that these players are students-athletes, not professionals. And the bowl sponsors want to keep the big bowls after Christmas and around New Year's. They've got their festivals and parades that bring out a lot of people.

But if you make big bowls into your first and second rounds of an 8-team playoff (the best extended playoff option), you have to move them up to Christmas or earlier in order to avoid colliding with the NFL playoffs in January, which feature two games on both Saturday and Sunday for their first and second round. It also violates an unwritten rule not to play/televise college and pro games on the same day(s).

* A bowl playoff system would lead to overexposure of some teams and underexposure for others. In an 8-team bowl playoff system, two teams would play in 3 bowl games each, and another two teams would play in two bowl games apiece. Four teams that would otherwise be in a major bowl game would be replaced by the multiple-gaming of the playoff round winners. The effect would trickle down to the minor bowls with the net effect that 4 teams would be shut-out from the bowls altogether. Of course, they could add a couple of bowl games to
compensate.

BEST PLAYOFF OPTION
One playoff option that seems to have been overlooked is a 4-team playoff, integrated with the bowl system. The pre-bowl, top-4-ranked teams would be seeded (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3) in two of the major bowl games. The winners would clash in the Championship game the following week.
Major bowls (probably the current BCS "gang of 4"--Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta) would rotate participatory roles in the playoffs. This would include the hosting of the Championship game, which could either be the bowl game associated with the given venue (as the BCS championship was from 1998/99--2005/6) or follow that bowl game by about a week (as the BCS championship has been doing since 2007/8).

If the older method is applied, each of the four bowl sites would rotate through the following four roles, in whatever order is chosen: 1) host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host of the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
If instead they opt for the newer method, each of these 4 bowl sites would segue through a slightly different set of roles: host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host to a non-playoff bowl game and then host to the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.

An advantage of the latter option is that the bowl festivals could go on as regularly scheduled every year around New Year's day/weekend, and the tradition of their games being played on or very close to New Year's day would be maintained. In other words, you wouldn't need to separate, say, Rose Bowl game from the Rose Bowl parade by about a week every 4th year. While that's not a big deal for die-hard football enthusiasts, it matters to the areas' chambers of commerce/tourism-related businesses.

Either way, there's one improvement that could be made in choosing the four playoff contenders. Call it the Boise State (or Utah) clause. Any unbeaten team ranked #5 through #10 gets an opportunity to play-in to the championship tournament. If there is one such team, they would play vs #4 seed a week before the scheduled bowl game. If there are two such teams, match the better-ranked one against #4, seed and match the lesser-ranked one against #3 seed. In the highly unlikely event there are three unbeaten teams ranked from 5th to 10th, simply include #2 seed in the pre-bowl fray. Ditto as regards # 1 seed team in the extremely unlikely event of four unbeaten teams in the bottom half of the top-10.

Play-in games would not be considered bowl games in of themselves, but rather prequels to the big bowls They would be played at or near the home of the higher-ranked team. Those in cold-weather climates could have a backup domed-site option. For instance, Big-Tenners might have an arrangement with the Metrodome in Minneapolis and/or Ford's Field in Detroit in case of a blizzardy-white Christmas. The only team(s) far from home on Christmas would be the Cinderellas who would be so excited to have a chance that they wouldn't mind the inconvenience. The loser(s) of the play-in would still receive top-ten treatment: this includes an invitation to one of the three non-playoff BCS bowl games.

We could still call it the BCS, but now it really would be a "bowl championship series."
　
TASKS OF A PLAYOFF SYSTEM
It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to be undefeated in order to win the championship. But it should not be possible for a one-loss team to win the championship as long as there are any unbeaten teams left.

It should be possible for a top-notch team to win championship with one loss, provided there are no unbeaten teams left at the end.

Any team that is unbeaten should be ranked in the pre-bowl top-10.

In the end, here should be no unbeaten team that is not #1.

In the end, there should be not more than one team that is unbeaten.

It should be highly unlikely for a team with two losses to win championship and virtually impossible for a team with more than two losses.

A system where it is possible for a team to lose one game and still have a chance at the championship, yet not a certain chance, suitably values the regular season.

A system that guarantees that the champion will be a winner of a major bowl game suitably values the bowl system.

A system that features a national championship game which is the final event of a tournament that has included the #1, #2, #3, #4 teams, plus any other team that is unbeaten, suitably fulfils the national desire for a consensus national champion.