If I Could Fix College Football
I have favorite teams in nearly every sport. I pull for those teams above any other. However, for a long time I have had a soft spot for the underdog. I love watching the “little teams” in college sports break through.
Last year, I was one of the folks who thought that TCU deserved to play for the BCS national championship game. Win or lose the game, I felt like they deserved to be there. This year, I am fully on the Boise State bandwagon, and hope TCU has another year like last year. After the Boise State Broncos went to Washington, D.C., and defeated Virginia Tech (another team in the top 10), many questions started to be raised (again) about teams like Boise. They all deal with scheduling and the argument usually goes something like this: “Well, if they were in the SEC (or Big 12, or Big 10, or Pac-10, etc.), they would lose at least 3 or 4 games, so they get a pass because they only have to play one tough game.”
In this post, I want to briefly answer that charge, and then give a solution for college football.
First, the answer. Does Boise State play as tough a schedule as, say, Oklahoma or Alabama? No. I will grant that from the start. My question is simply this: how is that Boise’s fault? They are playing a top-10 team this year on a “neutral” field (less than 300 miles from Virginia Tech and more than 2000 from Boise), and they are also playing Oregon State, who is always near the top of the Pac-10. Eight of Boise’s games are “prearranged” because they are conference games. There is absolutely nothing they can do about that. Yes, they could change conferences, and they are doing that next year, but that does not give any meaning to this year.
So, let’s see: 2 good, solid non-conference games; 2 easier non-conference games; 8 games they cannot control. If you were to just look at that list, and we said, “That’s Texas’s schedule this year,” you would say, “If they win those, they’ll be playing for the national title.” However, when you realize it’s Boise State, people say, “Oh, but those conference games aren’t tough.” Again I say, there is nothing Boise can do about that. They have made a very good schedule for a national title contender, and they have made it through phase 1 in beating Virginia Tech.
Now to the argument people give about, “If they played in the (name your major conference here), they’d lose all the time.” I will admit that I don’t think a team like Boise State would have quite the record they have had the previous few years if they were in, say, the Pac-10. However, there is no way to prove that either way. Also, if winning in these conferences is so easy, why isn’t every team doing it? Why don’t we have a half-dozen non-BCS schools every year that are 11-1 or 12-0?
In major conferences they say, “Teams just beat up on each other.” That’s not true, either. If that were true, every team in major conferences would be 4-4 in conference play. No one would ever go undefeated or just lose one game. Instead, there is a constant stream of teams that make it through with zero or one loss, and we spend so much time arguing over them and decided who should play for the national title. Why not give other undefeated teams the same argument? They have run the table, too, and, in the case of Boise this year, would have beaten some good teams to get to that undefeated. Will they have played 9 or 10 “tough” games? No. But almost no BCS conference team can honestly say they had 10 truly tough games, either!
Here is the major problem I have with the current BCS system. If you want to win a national title, it helps if the following things are true:
- You play a good schedule (we’ve talked about that),
- You go undefeated (or just lose one game),
- If you lose, you lose early in the year (or at least before everyone else),
- And you start the season rated in the top 10.
Now, here’s the problem with that. How do you get a pre-season top 10 ranking? You have a good season last year and return several players. In other words, the 2010 season has major bias based upon your 2009 season. In what other sport does that have a major impact on who will play for the title? In fact, we have seen it happen. Teams that started the season ranked lower never had a chance because they could not “leapfrog” other teams in front of them who started ranked higher, and were left out of the title game.
I will admit that the college football season is fun. Every game does matter, but I hate it when people say, “Every week is like a playoff.” That’s not true at all. First, if that’s the case, 40 teams in FBS (formerly 1-A) would have been eliminated last weekend because they lost. Instead, they lost early, meaning they might get back into the race. That’s the other reason every week is not a playoff. In how many sports do we allow teams back into the playoff later in the tournament? In other words, if a team loses in the first round of the men’s basketball tournament, we don’t then say, “Oh, but they played a good schedule, so they can come back in when we get to the 4th round.”
So, how to solve it? I am not a fan of a large playoff. That would water down the season. However, there has to be a way to allow more teams a real chance of the title, instead of just saying, “Beat everyone and you have a chance”–which isn’t necessarily true.
Here is my idea.
1. Go back to an 11-game regular season. Most teams have made the 12th game a “money” game anyway. This buys one more week later in the season. More about that in a minute.
2. Do not allow polls until after 4 games. While there will still be some preconceived ideas, those who vote will have to see 3 or 4 games to build their first poll, which then impacts the other polls later in the season.
3. Continue the BCS rankings. They will be helpful in getting us to…
4. Institute the playoff. However, it does not need to be 16 teams as some have proposed. 8 teams is the right size. The 6 BCS conference champions get in, then the top two other teams in the BCS rankings get in. So, if Boise State ends up in the top 4, there is no way they could be left out. The season would end on the first Saturday of December, and the playoffs would start two weeks later, ending at the same time the national title game is played now.
5. Continue the bowl games for other teams. With only 8 teams in the playoff, bowl games would still have a great value to the other teams who qualify.
——————————-
This proposal does two things, and I think it would make most people happy.
1. It allows for teams like Boise State, TCU, Utah (and others in other years, like Hawai’i) to have a legitimate chance. If this system had been in place at the end of the 2009 season, all five undefeated teams (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Boise State, and TCU) would have been in, as would the Pac-10 champ, the ACC champ, the Big 10 champ, and one more at-large team (probably Florida). Some will say, “But then #9 would argue, just like #3 does now.” Simply put, that’s not true. If you are Boise State (or another “non-AQ” team), you would have to schedule at least one or two tough games each year and run the table to get in. Since the computers are still involved, a team could not play a “nobody” schedule and get in. Also, a one-loss non-BCS team would not get in. Teams ranked at 9 or 10 will have at least one loss, and can simply say, “Win that one game and we would have made it.”
2. It keeps the bowls and keeps them important. Limiting the playoff to 8 teams means that some teams in bowl games have a clear shot at a top 10 finish, which is huge. It also means there are still a lot of bowl games, which most fans would like. Some think that a playoff would diminish bowl games. That simply is not true.
Let the venom spew in the comments!
11 Comments
nick gill
Actually, I think this would be an excellent fix. However, it is predicated upon the notion that most schools are interested in establishing a true champion more than the revenue stream that comes from the 12th game. Remember, that’s not eliminating 1 game – that’s eliminating well over 50 games, right? That’s a LOT of money – and as those of us who have been to college can attest, the one thing universities HATE to do is refund money. 🙂
Adam Faughn
The “drop the 12th” game is just to alleviate the argument that some would say: “We’re adding too many games for these young men.” If that was the part that some didn’t want to drop, that’s no big deal to me.
Jim
I have been saying this for years. No other sport has more than one undefeated team to end the season. It is so biased. Who is to say one conference is greater than then next? The SEC didn’t do that well in bowl games last season (minus the NC). I am not watching college football until they institute a playoff. It has become a joke.
Joey Sparks
Good thoughts, man. No huge issues from me to ‘spew’ about.
I think Nick’s right, the reason the whole system is messed up is because the people involved care less about crowning a champion than they do making money (and as we’ve talked about before, the NCAA feels the same about the bball tourney or they wouldn’t keep adding teams; they’re not adding them to be more fair but to get more TV $).
I don’t think you’re representing one of the arguments very well when you say, “Also, if winning in these conferences is so easy, why isn’t every team doing it? Why don’t we have a half-dozen non-BCS schools every year that are 11-1 or 12-0?” That’s the whole point “we’re” saying…it’s NOT easy for BCS schools, so it wouldn’t be easy for BSU or whoever.
I’d be tempted to agree with the line of thinking that “Boise can’t control their conference” if it weren’t for TCU. They changed conferences THREE times in the 2000s. And they worked their way into the best non-AQ conference in the country. Boise’s moving to the MWC next season, but just in time for Utah & BYU to bail and bring the quality of competition down. No one would think that 2009 TCU in C-USA was as worthy for the BCSCG as 2009 TCU in the MWC. Florida State, Miami and others truly “played anybody, anywhere” and worked into respectable conferences. If you’ve got a superior product (as BSU lovers argue), then sell it on the biggest stage. Make it happen.
Let’s assume the NCAA mandated a system similar to the one you proposed (which is good, by the way). Then assume Alabama secedes from the SEC and goes Independent. (They have enough national fans to support a TV network, etc.) They could play 2 top-tier teams (ie, Penn St & Auburn), 2 middle-tier teams (ie, Mich St, ISU), and 7-8 teams from the WAC/MAC/Sun-Belt/CUSA.
(A) How would they be viewed by college football fan-dom? (B) Would it be considered “fair” to have a SEC-quality program but not play SEC-quality teams week-in-week-out? (C) How quickly would other powerhouse programs (Texas, Nebraska, Ohio St, etc.) drop conference affiliation and do the same if they could set up a cupcake schedule to ensure reaching the playoff & doing so with the team relatively fresh & healthy?
(Or you could force every team to join a conference (ah-hem ND & BYU); then ask what if Alabama joined C-USA…)
If it’s a fair path to play for a title for the little guys, then it’s a fair path for the big guys, as well.
It’s a good start. But as I’ve said before, fixing the postseason doesn’t fix college football.
Adam Faughn
Actually, Joey, one of the major problems with college football (and this is a whole different topic) is the conference affiliations.
It would probably be better in the long run if most–if not all– teams were independent! But that’s another post.
Pingback:
Joey Sparks
Right, that’s become my stance. When Auburn got left out–though I laughed a little inside ;)–I was big for a playoff. But I don’t think it fixes anything with the current system.
Conferences are a good thing, but they have too much power & control over the money that it’s become detrimental to the equity in the sport. What’s interesting is that fan pageantry is stronger than it’s ever been–despite the ‘outrage’ by many about teams getting ‘left out’ some years.
The Cfb guys from ESPN had a plan summer of ’09 that’s been the best one I’ve heard. Limits D-1 pool to 40 teams; teams can be forced out b/c of poor play & teams can move up b/c of their success. Still arrange teams by region (to preserve rivals, etc.); must play teams in the top tier every game. Andy Staples from SI mockingly did a re-boot of the Cfb system based on profits of football program.
I personally like the idea of 60-70 teams with the possibility of falling/rising based on previous seasons’ performance. European soccer is a much bigger money-maker than Cfb & they use a similar system.
I think it’s possible to be fair & realistic without bending over backwards to set up opportunities for cinderella stories.
Rusty
There is a much simpler way to fix the college controversy and it requires one step and it will happen in the next 10 years.
Super Conferences. Go to 16 team conferences and make a playoff in the conference mandatory. I believe this will happen in the next 5-10 years. Whenever the first conferences do this the others will follow. It will allow a playoff with out a playoff. The conferences that survive will have enough good teams to make you look legit.
Adam Faughn
Rusty,
I totally disagree with the “super conference” idea. As a huge fan of college basketball, we are seeing this in the Big East. They have gone to a 16-team league. While it is a lot of fun to keep up with, what it has led to is a major amount of mediocrity. Teams (say) 6 through 11 all look the same. There are still only a handful of good teams there.
In football, you would have a major problem if what everyone always says is true, that “everyone beats up on each other.” Also, if you have a 16-team conference, you cannot have anywhere near a balanced schedule. Are you going to play 15 games? While the schedule is already unbalanced, a massive conference like that would totally sway it.
While it will never happen, the best thing would be to take away conferences. The elite teams would have to schedule each other because they could no longer have a fall-back argument of “well, we lost a game, but we play in the _______ (fill in major conference here),” so we still deserve it.
Mike
I don’t have the answer as to how to set up a college football playoff system. I’m sure someone could come up up with something not too complicated, but I believe that, as they don’t seem to have a problem in the pros, playoffs would eliminate the bickering that goes on today. Boise State or any other team would have their chance to become undisputed champs. $$$$Greed spoils it all, simple and true.
Mike
Adam Faughn
Totally agree, Mike. Playoffs are the answer, and there is tons of money in it, but we’ll see…..