The NCAA says it will be considering 60+ methods for determining a football champion via playoff games. My recommendation for the BCS is a 4-team playoff using the top 4-ranked teams, plus a "play-in" game (or two) in case there's an undefeated team (or two) that didn't rank top-4. The "play-in" games, if there are any, would be played the week before.
So, let's say at the end of the football season (after conference championship games and before bowl games), Alabama is ranked # USC #2, Ohio State #3, Texas #4, Boise State #5, and Utah State #6. And suppose both Boise State and Utah are unbeaten. Boise State would play Ohio State and Utah would play Texas in "play-in" games. The Ohio/Boise winner would then play USC, and the Texas/Utah winner would play Alabama. The winners of these two games would play for the championship.
So basically, the "play-in" games would enable an undefeated team to replace (by beating) the 3rd- or 4th-ranked teams in the 4-team playoff.
The "play-in" game(s) would be played at the home site of the higher ranked team(s) or at another site of their choosing that's available on short notice, or tentatively.
"Play-in" games would not be bowl games, although, as a consolation prize, one (or two) of the lesser bowls would have an arrangement where they take the loser(s) of the "play-in" game(s). But the two semifinal games of the playoff would be major bowl games, as would the championship game, determined on a rotating basis.
Any play-in games would take place around Christmas. The semifinals would be played around New Year's, and the championship around a week later. There are probably some good, juicy names out there already for what to call these three games--oh, how about Bowl Championship Series!
Of course, it's theoretically possible that some year there'd be 3 or 4 or even more undefeated teams ranked below #4. Draw the line at the top four of these, and put them up against #1 through #4--lowest ranked vs. highest ranked and so on, in such a way that "play-in" slot essentially morphs morer or less into a quarterfinals round. And the #1-ranked team gets the lone bye if there are exactly 3 unbeatens ranked below #4.
ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS
Possible objections to this system include: A) it decreases the # of official BCS games from 5 to 3. But most fans by now probably attach little importance to any hoopla surrounding the 4 BCS games that are extraneous to determining the national championship. If they do, they are delusional. And they could treat the play-ins like a sort of quasi-bowl game.
Possible objection B): a minor conference team would be financial setback for major bowl organizers, and compel fans of "play-in" game teams to book travel plans on short notice for their bowl games. But minor conference champs who become Cinderella stories would likely attract a larger national following, and airlines might offer special discounts to fans to travel to the bowl game location.
ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE FEATURES
Avoid potentially somewhat disputable national champ game matches/results by preventing intra-conference meetings in championship game if the teams have already played that season (including their conference championship game). The results of these games tend to be either redundant or contradictory. So if there are two teams from the same conference ranked anywhere from #1 through #4, and they've already played each other, they would be matched up in a semifinal. No need to worry about 3+ teams from the same conference ranked in the top4--it's not going to happen.
A possible additional feature: make the championship game team selection involve fan participation to an extent. The highest-seeded team to emerge victorious from the semifinal games and any (other) undefeated team would be automatically invited to the championship game. But a semifinal winner from the #2 vs. #3 bracket, provided they had no "play-in" game win on their resume, could be vetoed by a fan vote. Maybe the won a poorly played game. The potential replacement could be any winner of another major bowl game which had not lost during the season to the prospective title game opponent (including conference champ games).
The vote could be done by phone a la American Idol, although it should be made a bit difficult to pull off a veto. Make the phone call a yea/nay for the team under review, then, if nay, branch it to multiple-choice for the other major bowl winners. To make a change, at this point, at least 2/3 of the votes would have to be against that team under review, and a majority of the other-team votes would have to be for one particular team. If the vote result is 2/3 nay but not a majority for any one potential replacement, have a subsequent runoff between the original team under review and the top two vote-getting options (all treated equally), with the highest vote-getter obtaining the championship game invitation.
This "Barabbasic" feature would bring back the importance of multiple bowl games, as an impressive winner of such would conceivably have a chance at playing for the championship--if voted-in by the fans. It harkens back to the pre-BCS era when there was excitement in the air as the victors of the major bowls each chanted "we're #1", and then the AP & UPI polls decided the next day.
The improvement is that with this system, yes the fans may play a role, and yes the polls do play a role in setting things up,, but the final result is decided on the field in a championship game.
Showing posts with label bowl games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bowl games. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Boise State BCS Controversy
It's a long season, but the Boise State Broncos took a big first step forward by defeating highly-ranked Virginia Tech. This raises the possibility of another unbeaten season, and all of the controversy that will occur if once again they are denied a place in the BCS Championship Game due to overall weakness of schedule.
A lot of people think that college football needs a playoff system to decide the national champion--which team is #1--and I agree. The current system is flawed because, though it's called the Bowl Championship Series, all it really involves is the two top-ranked teams playing each other in a championship game. When is one game a "series"?
Solving the problem seems simple enough: include either the top-4 or top-8 teams, seed them 1 through 4, or 1 through 8 and have a standard playoff like every other sport does. It's not rocket science!
However, an 8-team playoff might be too inclusive, and it would take too long. But a 4-team playoff seems too exclusive because there's a good chance it would leave out an undefeated minor conference champion or two--such as Boise State or Utah in recent years.
So I would like to suggest a compromise between a 4-team and an 8-team playoff. Call it a 4-team-plus playoff. The "plus" would include any other team that wins all its games--call them "wild cards" (WC). If there's one such team (WC-1) then they would play the #4 team in what the NCAA basketball tournament refers to as a "play-in" game. If there are two such teams, the lesser-ranked team (WC-2) would be matched against the #3 team, and so on.
This proposed playoff system would not extend the season at all. The #1 vs #4/WC-1 and the #2 vs #3/WC-2 games would be alternated among the major bowl games, and the BCS championship game would be played the following week--same as now--only the participants would be the victors of those two designated bowl games.
This system would give teams like Boise State a shot at the title, but they'd have to earn it---by beating the #4, #1 and #2 or #3 (or an undefeated team that had beaten #2 and #3)in consecutive weeks.
A lot of people think that college football needs a playoff system to decide the national champion--which team is #1--and I agree. The current system is flawed because, though it's called the Bowl Championship Series, all it really involves is the two top-ranked teams playing each other in a championship game. When is one game a "series"?
Solving the problem seems simple enough: include either the top-4 or top-8 teams, seed them 1 through 4, or 1 through 8 and have a standard playoff like every other sport does. It's not rocket science!
However, an 8-team playoff might be too inclusive, and it would take too long. But a 4-team playoff seems too exclusive because there's a good chance it would leave out an undefeated minor conference champion or two--such as Boise State or Utah in recent years.
So I would like to suggest a compromise between a 4-team and an 8-team playoff. Call it a 4-team-plus playoff. The "plus" would include any other team that wins all its games--call them "wild cards" (WC). If there's one such team (WC-1) then they would play the #4 team in what the NCAA basketball tournament refers to as a "play-in" game. If there are two such teams, the lesser-ranked team (WC-2) would be matched against the #3 team, and so on.
This proposed playoff system would not extend the season at all. The #1 vs #4/WC-1 and the #2 vs #3/WC-2 games would be alternated among the major bowl games, and the BCS championship game would be played the following week--same as now--only the participants would be the victors of those two designated bowl games.
This system would give teams like Boise State a shot at the title, but they'd have to earn it---by beating the #4, #1 and #2 or #3 (or an undefeated team that had beaten #2 and #3)in consecutive weeks.
Friday, January 8, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
College Football Needs a Playoff System
The current (non-playoff) system is flawed because:
1) Only one of the bowl games is meaningful--the BCS championship game. All the other bowl games are mostly meaningless in terms of determining who's #1. In the prior system (pre-BCS), the winner of any of the top-notch bowl games often had a chance at the title. There was all the excitement of players and fans chanting "we're #1"--hopefully--after winning a major bowl game.
The very term BCS--Bowl Championship Series--is a misnomer. There is no "series"--just 4 meaningless games and one championship game. So at the very least it's deceptive advertising
2) The notion that the current system is the best way to accurately determine the best team in the country is an illusion. Many years there are about half-a-dozen teams from major conferences with zero or one loss. And it's rare that there are exactly two unbeaten teams from major conferences. Yet that's the only scenario in which you can fairly claim that the BCS title game in the present system can settle anything definitively: a match-up of the two and only two unbeatens.
Any time you get two one-loss teams meeting in the BCS title game in the current system, most of the other teams that finish with one loss (presumably after winning a bowl game) have a legitimate beef, particularly if they're the team who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
Even when a one-loss team beats a previously unbeaten team in the current BCS title game, other one-loss teams that weren't on the previously unbeaten team's schedule can claim that they would have beaten them, too, if given the opportunity, particularly if they're the one who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
Basically, the only way for the BCS title game--without a playoff system--to produce a reasonably undisputed winner is for there to be one and only one undefeated team at the end. The odds of that are fairly low---probably less than 20%.
For a couple of novel ideas for implementing a playoff system, go to this blog on 1/8/10.
1) Only one of the bowl games is meaningful--the BCS championship game. All the other bowl games are mostly meaningless in terms of determining who's #1. In the prior system (pre-BCS), the winner of any of the top-notch bowl games often had a chance at the title. There was all the excitement of players and fans chanting "we're #1"--hopefully--after winning a major bowl game.
The very term BCS--Bowl Championship Series--is a misnomer. There is no "series"--just 4 meaningless games and one championship game. So at the very least it's deceptive advertising
2) The notion that the current system is the best way to accurately determine the best team in the country is an illusion. Many years there are about half-a-dozen teams from major conferences with zero or one loss. And it's rare that there are exactly two unbeaten teams from major conferences. Yet that's the only scenario in which you can fairly claim that the BCS title game in the present system can settle anything definitively: a match-up of the two and only two unbeatens.
Any time you get two one-loss teams meeting in the BCS title game in the current system, most of the other teams that finish with one loss (presumably after winning a bowl game) have a legitimate beef, particularly if they're the team who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
Even when a one-loss team beats a previously unbeaten team in the current BCS title game, other one-loss teams that weren't on the previously unbeaten team's schedule can claim that they would have beaten them, too, if given the opportunity, particularly if they're the one who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
Basically, the only way for the BCS title game--without a playoff system--to produce a reasonably undisputed winner is for there to be one and only one undefeated team at the end. The odds of that are fairly low---probably less than 20%.
For a couple of novel ideas for implementing a playoff system, go to this blog on 1/8/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
