Ten-Team FBS Playoff: A Proposal in Two Parts
In today's Three-point stance, Ivan Maisel makes note of how the IRS is taking a look at the non-profit status of the major bowls. As he notes, this is not the first time such a thing has happened. Back in the early 90s, the IRS made a similar push, but nothing came of it. Now, the Playoff PAC has four U.S. Representatives on their side, as they push for an equitable playoff system in the highest level of college football. I am really starting to believe that some form of a playoff that includes the current non-AQs is inevitable. As such, I've put together what such a playoff system might look like. It includes automatic bids for all 6 of the current Big 6 conferences (yes, even the Big East and ACC), as well as one automatic bid for the Independents/Non-AQs. I will go into more detail after the jump.
First, a graphic that illustrates how this 10-team playoff would be structured:
The only real changes this would require in regular-season scheduling is that it would be necessary for all regular-season games to end by the last Saturday in November. You will also notice that one qualifying slot is reserved for the top-rated team of the currently Non-AQ/Independent schools. This spot would be determined solely by the computer rankings, so as to take out any bias, perceived or real, on the part of sportswriters and coaches against the Boise States and TCUs of the football world. There would be no requirement that the team receiving this automatic bid be in the top 12 of the BCS rankings, that they be undefeated, or anything like that. It would be automatic, and awarded every year to the best of the Non-AQ/Independent schools. The three Wild Cards would be given out by a committee similar to the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee, but would be required to be more transparent. Most often, these bids would simply go to the next three teams that were rated most highly.
One major feature would be that no team participating in a league championship game could play in the Week 1 play-in games, since these games would take place the Thursday and Friday before the League Championship Games (LCG) were played. For instance, this year the LCGs are being played on December 4. This means that the "Week 1" games from above would take place on December 2-3. (I know that there are currently regular-season games for this year scheduled that weekend, which is why I noted above that regular season games would need to end by the last Saturday in November.) Week 1 games would have to consist of teams who were playing in leagues without a championship game, or teams who qualified as a Wild Card, but did not make their league's championship game. For instance, two years ago, when Texas qualified for the BCS, but didn't play in the Big 12 Championship, they may have found themselves playing in a Week 1 game. Because no team playing in a league championship could play in a Week 1 game, and (as of 2011, anyway) there are 4 AQ leagues sponsoring a championship game, it would put a much greater emphasis on winning that game, since there probably won't be any Wild Card spots open for the Week 2 games. In other words, after KSU throttled Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship, the Sooners would possibly have not have been in the playoffs. How much more exciting would that make the LCGs? (As a side note, this would also require that Non-AQ leagues like the MAC and C-USA hold their LCG the week before the "big boys", if they wanted their champion to be eligible for the automatic qualifier for the top Non-AQ/Independent bid.)
The champions of the two AQ leagues that won't be sponsoring LCGs starting in 2011 (Big 12, Big East), as well as the Non-AQ/Independent automatic qualifier, would either be given a top-6 seed, in which case they wouldn't need to play until Week 2, or be seeded amongst the bottom 4 qualifiers. Only two of these three teams could possibly be placed in the top 6, though, since the winners of the 4 LCGs would, by necessity, be seeded into the Week 2 games. A top-6 position in the final BCS standings would guarantee entry into Week 2 for these teams, unless all 3 of them were ranked in the top 6, in which case the lowest-ranked would be placed into a Week 1 game against the weakest Wild Card team.
Seeding of the four Week 1 teams would take place on the Sunday before the games were to be played. This would be an exciting day for all involved, as it is when it would be determined whether the two league champions, plus the Non-AQ/Independent automatic bid would be playing in Week 1, or whether two of them would be placed straight into Week 2. If all three were placed into Week 1 games, then one Wild Card team would be selected to play in these two games against them. This would result in two of the three Wild Card spots being placed directly into Week 2. Any time this occurred, these places would not be awarded until after the LCGs, meaning that a team could potentially lose the LCG and still make the playoffs. However, if two spots in Week 2 were awarded to the leagues without LCGs or the Non-AQ/Ind top team, then the LCGs take on an even larger significance, since they would be lose-and-go-home games for the teams involved.
Each Week 1 game would be played on the campus of the higher-seeded team. After these Week 1 games were concluded, and the LCGs played, the remaining 8 teams would be re-seeded, with the top-seed playing the lowest seed, the second seed playing the next lowest seed, and so on. These Week 2 games would be played on the second Saturday in December (earliest possible, December 8; latest possible, December 14). The games would be an overlapping "quadruple-header" on that Saturday, starting with 4/5 game at 2:00, then the 3/6 game at 4:00, the 2/7game at 6:00, and the 1/8 game at 8:00 (all times Eastern). The 2:00 and 6:00 games could be on one station, and the 4:00 and 8:00 games on another. Can you imagine the bidding war this would set off between CBS, NBC, ESPN, et al?
One of the unique features of my proposal is that after these games were played, the highest remaining seed would play the lowest remaining seed, and the second-highest would play the third highest. These semifinal games would be played on New Year's Day, with the current BCS bowls taking turns hosting these two games, while the other BCS bowls could invite the earlier-round losers or LCG upset victims to fill their slots. The two semifinal winners would play on the next weeknight that fell at least 8 days after January 1. In other words, the latest the National Championship Game could be played would be on January 11, if January 1 fell on a Friday. This would give both teams a real chance to prepare for each other, and tiven that last year's championship game was on January 7, having it in a January 9-11 window each year doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.
In this format, no team would ever be required to play more than 16 games, and most would never play more than the current 13 or 14. Two teams each year would play either 15 or 16 games, while every other team's length-of-season would remain unchanged. If the fact that two teams would play 15 or 16 games presented a problem, the NCAA could simply scale back the allowed regular-season games to 11, as it was in years past.
Well, I'm going to conclude this exercise for now, but in part 2 I'm going to take a past season (or maybe this season), and apply this format to it, so we can see how it hypothetically might have played out. I will try to have part 2 ready to publish by this Friday or Saturday, after I've recovered from whatever happens during the game Thursday night! Write up your own playoff ideas here in the comments.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like lumping the Independents with the Non-AQ idea.
Notre Dame should NEVER be given that special treatment that they have now.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I agree
But it’s still a bit of special treatment, since if they are the top-rated team amongst the Non-AQs, they would be in automatically, even if that meant that they were, say 17th in the BCS standings, and the next-highest Non-AQ was like 19th or something. There are tradeoffs that must happen for a playoff to be feasible, and I think that is one of them. It means that a 1-loss TCU/Boise/Etc. would not even automatically be out of it (though it would be likely they were), which I think is a good thing, and makes the regular season more exciting. Once I finish part 2, you’ll see just how it would have worked in seasons past.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think it really is special treatment.
We’ve seen a huge rise in the level of play in the Non-AQ that I have no problem with this. Even if the top team is ranked 17th, is that still any worse than letting the top team in the Big East still have their AQ? I have no issues with Notre Dame making it into the playoff system, just as long as they are not the only one with a “clause” stating that if they’re ranked a certain number, they’re automatically in.
As far as AQ into the playoff – I think that graphic of the ten teams listed is the best way to go.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Wlell, thanks!
This idea has been percolating in my mind for quite some time. I’m hoping that there are people in positions of power and influence that are thinking similar thoughts!
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I like this...
…much better than those other playoff proposals with only 4 or 6 teams. In my opinion that is not a true playoff system since it would typically automatically exclude many schools from ever participating.
This proposal makes sure that schools from conferences outside the Big 6 will always have a shot, which I think is important.
The only change I might make is maybe swapping the MWC with the Big East. Either that or make the final Conference AQ spot exchangeable between the Big East, MWC, WAC and ACC. It could be determined based on the previous year, or even better, the non-conference records of those conferences from the current year. That would add some excitement and importance to the non-conference games for those schools.
Yeah, but...
If you start messing with the AQs, you’ll lose support for this type of proposal. I think it’s best to simply keep the Big 6 the Big 6, and at least give the 60+ teams OUTSIDE the Big 6 an automatic bid, while not excluding other Non-Big 6 schools from consideration of a Wild Card bid. In reality, I think the Big East may well be playing themselves out of an AQ in the BCS, but until and unless that happens, I think this type of proposal is best. If that DID happen, this proposal would need tweaked only a little, since I think the MWC would most-likely be promoted, given that Boise is coming on board there, Air Force is improving, and TCU is still TCU. If that happened, I think you would also see BYU trying to get back into the conference, and Utah would probably regret BIG-time going to the Pac-10.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
True
I was mainly proposing my ideal scenario, not necessarily what everyone would support.
In terms of getting accepted, I think yours has a pretty good chance, but at the outset it looks like a decided underdog to a 4 or 6 team format.
I do like how yours tries to keep the season from getting too long, since that seems to be such a big sticking point for everyone.
And I don’t know how much the Big East will really fight losing their AQ, since all they really care about is basketball : )
by ChrisP Wildcat on Oct 6, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah
I don’t HATE the 6 team idea, as long as they give one automatic berth to a non-BCS school, if they’re in the top 6. AND, they would HAVE to exclude in non-conference winning teams from the 6. I wouldn’t mind a non-conference winning team in a 10-team bracket, but a 6-team bracket would need to be MUCH more exclusive.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I have long been in favor
of a hybrid system. The top 12 teams are placed into a NFL style playoff bracket. These playoff games would use the top 6 current bowl games as sites and would retain sponsors and affiliations if possible (Pac-10 in Rose bowl, Big 12 in Fiesta, etc.). They would play for a National championship. All the other bowl games would remain and placement would take place as it does now.
In this setup, the top teams who have earned a shot at the Nat. Champ. will get that shot, and all the other deserving teams will still get that one extra games a year. It also holds all the traditions together, preserving what most critics have against the playoff system.
Wouldn't work
If you had 12 teams, you would have 4 first round games, not 6 (5v12; 6v11, 7v10, and 8v9). The four winners would then play against the top 4 seeds in the quarterfinals (another 4 games), then the semifinals (2 games) and the championship (1 game). How would this work out logistically?
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
whatever the number
of the bowl games needed…so 8 plus the champ for 12? And yes, this does imply that the top 4 would get a bye.
6 was the number I originally had in mind for 8 teams, 4+2+champ game. And It would require only another weekend than whats already on the schedule, because you could start the playoff when the other bowl games are already commencing, there is no need to wait for those games. You play the first four games (in the 8 team system) on New Years Day, the next two the next weekend, the champ the next, thereby only adding one more weekend of football to the schedule. Or you could push it back a week, but I think the bowl committees would prefer to keep their games on New Years. For the 12 team you would start the weekend before New Years (or however it works out, I realize it wont always be a weekend) and go from there.
It could work.
How would that work?
I’m not sure how you would structure a bracket with twelve teams. I’ve tried to figure it out but it seems to get way too complicated to be feasible. Of course I’m no bracketologist, so I’m sure I’m missing something, just not sure what.
Do you have a bracket in mind?
OK...
Not only am I too stupid to reply properly, but I go ahead and respond to a post and then promptly answer my own question. I’m assuming you have the top four teams with a bye? At least, that is the easiest way I see it working.
by ChrisP Wildcat on Oct 6, 2010 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
It's the ONLY way it works, which is the problem.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I dont see a problem with that
you just can’t guarantee those games to BCS teams. Take the top 4 in the BCS rankings (or whatever is deemed most fair) and those four get byes, then the next 8 are seeded accordingly and play the first weekend. Its the fairest and most competitive way to do it without sacrificing too much time. it has worked that way in the NFL for 40 years and no one complains, why would it be a problem with college. You still have to strive for the best every year, and and a conference championship or affiliation doesn’t instantly put you in the best games.
The reason I view it as a problem
is that it completely reworks the bowl schedule. In the 10-team proposal, all but the semifinals are finished before the bowl season even starts. And I don’t think ANY plan will fly that extends the football season all the way to the beginning of second semester, which extending it to the 15th or later would require.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Personally
I don’t see any point whatsoever in having a playoff with more than 8 teams without just going ahead and making it 16. The only rational argument against having more than four teams is lost class time; in this proposal that means four schools are playing that extra game, and I frankly see no reason why 16 schools can’t play the extra game if four can.
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
You see,
it all comes down to the black box…
'Fact. Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.' --Jim Halpert
Not really, though
That “extra game” is limited to those teams playing in leagues without a championship game. My thinking was that limiting it to 10 both added drama to the LCGs, and kept the “lost class time” argument to a minimum.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions
You realize, however
that two of the non-AQ leagues also play championship games (and, while it may not be apparent at the moment, there have been times where one of those four participants might actually have qualified for your playoff with a win: see Tulane, Miami, Ball State.) So, again, you’re potentially generating an extra game for someone.
I’m just of the feeling that if a conference is a recognized Division I FCS conference, and you’re going to have a playoff, all conference champions belong. Period. It’s not even about the competition on the field; I have no reasonable expectation that Troy is going to upset Alabama, after all. It’s about the money. Unless the NCAA is going to do away with the hypocrisy of claiming that (in their eyes) there is no difference between Alabama and Western Kentucky by creating yet another tier solely for the “big boys”, then they have to allow an equal opportunity.
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
I dealt with that, though
If Non-AQs with a championship game wanted to have their champ considered for the automatic bid, they’d have to have their LCG the week before. And the black swan that is the potential of a Non-AQ winning their championship game, and having to play the one extra game would be enough to disqualify the plan. But that could also be dealt with by having a caveat that any Non-AQ chosen that won a LCG would HAVE to be placed directly into Week 2, most likely as the 8-seed.
by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 6, 2010 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
But you didn't deal with the money. ;)
It seems like everyone who argues this, either for or against a playoff, or argues how many teams belong, turn a blind eye to that part of it.
There is no sport — none — where the NCAA does not allow full and unfettered access to its national championship to every “qualifying” conference champion. Under current NCAA regulations, if the NCAA were to sponsor a Division I FBS National Championship Tournament, every single FBS conference (except for the WAC if Fresno and Nevada are able to escape after this season) would be qualified under NCAA guidelines.
So we either continue to have a bullshit national title which isn’t really sponsored by the NCAA at all (i.e., inmates continue running the asylum even if they’re doing a better job of it), or everyone gets in one way or another, or the inmates leave the asylum altogether. (Which is becoming more and more likely with every passing BCS-buster.)
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
Finish swallowing your drink before reading
The only time I proposed this to other people (it was like 3 or 4) I got relatively good feedback. Immediately after that social event I got home and wrote it all out on paper about a year or so ago. And now I’ve lost that piece of paper, so I’m trying to remember as much as I can. The proposed system is a tad bit wacky I must admit, so I may break up the explanation because it has quite a bit to it. But the jist of the concept is:
Retain the BCS to qualify 8 teams for an 8 team playoff. So I’ll start by explaining why you would keep the BCS here, and later I will get into the scheduling/siting scenario.
First off I will only speak for myself by saying, I don’t usually have a problem with who’s #1, it’s usually who gets picked to be #2. More generally I think usually when the debate comes up as who should be in, most people only have a beef with 1 team, or if your team got the cold shoulder, you usually only make the case as to why so and so got in and not yourself. My point is, I think the BCS is a pretty comprehensive way to “power rank” teams. Also their name could stay the same. This format would simply put the “Series” into the BCS.
How it would work: each team plays a season to get into the top 8, while not demeaning the importance of the regular season, and giving a team such as the current #7 Alabama a chance to prove it’s still high caliber even with 1 bad game. This top 8 would probably help kill the conference championship, because it’s truly the top 8 teams each year. I figure too if you end up #9 in the final rankings, can you really make a case that you belong in the National championship game? I’m guessing your case would be weak at best. The only exception I can think of in recent history is a team like Bowling Green when it was Roethlesburger’s last year. I seam to remember them dropping from like #9 to 16 with 1 loss. Just take a snapshot of this week’s poll and see what you think. I also would think that a conference commissioner wouldn’t want their teams to get beat up by playing an extra game (conference championship game) and a chance to play themselves out of qualifying. We all know it would be harder to go 17-0 than 16-0. Maybe it’s just 1998 talking, but I was never a huge fan of the championship game anyway (until maybe 2003). With an 8 game system, you only add 2 more games to a season, thus keeping down the travel expenses of any more games.
Another reason why 8 would work I think, deals with the rest of the bowl system/current BCS bowls which leads me into my siting/scheduling portion.
Siting/Scheduling
First off, you could do as K. Scott Bailey suggest with having the first round replace conference championships, but I think I would propose the first round to be somewhere around December 30th, 31st.
Part of the reason, is to challenge kids to be academically eligible because the final game would probably spill over into the spring semester (circa Jan. 14th, about 1 week later than the current game). The other reasoning is to give students and fans a chance to travel (Christmas Break, and many offices close the week between Xmas and New Years).
Maybe I’m old school (while only 25yr old), but there was something about going to the BYU Cotton Bowl on New Year’s Day and the Syracuse Fiesta on New Year’s Eve, but that’s why I think the first round should be around then. So it might look something like this:
December 30th early evening game: Seed 1v8 at whichever the #1 seed’s conference affiliate BCS bowl is as much as possible. For the sake of conversation let’s use the current rankings, so it would be Aubur v Utah at the Sugar Bowl. The primetime game would be 2v7 Oregon v Alabama at the Rose Bowl.
The following day would be 3v6 Boise v Missouri at the Fiesta, and the primetime game would be TCU vs Michigan State at the Orange Bowl. Now granted, the day 2 match-ups are probably less likely to work out given the chance for the Non-AQ’s of old not having affiliations, or a scenario that might have multiple conference members. Also note how the pairings are positioned, which adds for timing of the second round.
Round 2
Round 2 would be January 7th.
Evening game would pair 2v7 winner, vs 3v6 winner while the primetime game would be 1v8 winner vs 4v5 winner.
Note this would give the 2v7 winner approximately 7 days, 20 hours of rest between games, and the 3v6 winner approximately 7 days even of rest between games. Likewise the 1v8 winner would have approximately 8 days 4 hours of rest between games, and the 4v5 winner approximately 7 days even of rest.
Here’s where it gets a bit more tricky. Everyother year (sort of like they do with the Nat’l title game), you would cycle Regional Championship games. East vs West. East would be Orange and Sugar, while West would be Fiesta and Rose. So every other year, you would double up on hosting (as the Fiesta is doing this year 1 week apart with the BCS championship game). That way at worst you’re looking at a plane ride and accomodations flying from Phoenix to LA or LA to Phoenix, or Miami to NO or NO to Miami.
Then, you could now add in new sites like Jerry World and Indianapolis to host the National Championship game (so you would always be traveling “inward” making it centralized locations). Those sites could cycle hosting each year.
Championship game
Would then be about Jan. 14th, only a week later than the current game, and only 2 games would be added onto the schedule (unless conference championship games get ditched).

by 















