"Fixing" college football -- let's see your solution

[Anacardo]

MT2R,

Your solution is pretty much the exact one I conceived independently, and yes, it's strictly the best ever.

[MyTurn2Raise]

for those too lazy to click my link

[ QUOTE ]
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come
my question then becomes what is the right system:


well, I have a few requirements.
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.


OK...so here goes

8 teams
---conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
-----Review to maintain big 6 status
---2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, etc as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-----maybe a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion
---BCS ranking system used for seeding

1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed

two semifinal games rotating around the 4 BCS sites 8 to 10 days later
---similar to the championship game movement now
---should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
---only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot

national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 8-9 days after the semi



Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition of the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (Wisconsin anyone?).
My proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.

The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.

Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl.

It restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.

The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.

The system will mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again.

ummm...I rambled alot

I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.

I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.

Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time

for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all

one week extra for 4 teams from the current system

I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl.

The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS,
here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years
there is alot of flux and small edges
with the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc

Current 2006 Conference
1 PAC-10
2 SEC
3 BIG EAST
4 BIG TEN
5 BIG 12

2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC

2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC

2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12

2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN

2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN

2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.


[/ QUOTE ]


This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult task of schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year, yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.

By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.

Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.


I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.


I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.

I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).

[/ QUOTE ]





you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.

I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.

But, in principal, I agree with you Damaniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.

The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

problems with relegation
[ QUOTE ]
another drawback is the ruin of conference affiliations and geographic closeness for most games

it's impossible at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R,

Your solution is pretty much the exact one I conceived independently, and yes, it's strictly the best ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Go back to the traditional bowl games and abolish the BCS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea, but it's never going to happen. You can't keep bowl games AND eliminate the BCS. There's just no way with how things are structured.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Allow the conferences to schedule their own games (using transparent methodology).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Teams will be allowed to choose three out of conference games of their choice (consistent with conference rules).

4) Each team will have one mandatory bye week.

5) The NCAA will schedule one out of conference game for each team. This will be done by a "competition committee." The purpose will be to act as a mid-season "playoff" game. This will place teams judged to be of comparable quality against each other. Obviously this will be an imperfect, subjective process, but the purpose will be to try and eliminate as many teams from being undefeated as possible. They would alos try to avoid like bowl matchups (so no Pac10 versus Big10, etc). (Likely match ups for this system if it were run this year might be UC-Berkeley vs. Florida, LSU vs. tOSU , and USC vs. Oklahoma.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Step 5 is too complicated, I think.

I have a similar idea, but scaled back somewhat. Expand the regular season to 13 or 14 games, and require the major conferences to use those extra games to schedule intra-conference games. Every year, you'd have a *minimum* of X SEC-Big12 matchups, Big10-Pac10, etc. It wouldn't be too hard to work this out on a rotation. Basically every team in a major conference would have two games against other major conference teams, home and home, of course. This would provide *tons* more data for making cross-conference comparisons.

[ QUOTE ]
6) A National Championship game will be held ten days after the premier bowls. This will occur between the two teams voted #1 and #2 in the current coaches poll.

Not perfect -- far from it. The main purpose of this system is to preserve (read: restore) the integrity of the old bowl system, while trying to maximize the possibility of eliminating as many undefeated teams as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why everyone is so married to the idea of bowls. And again, you can't go back to the old bowl system - there's no reason for bowl comittees to go along with such a plan. You've got to just cut them out completely. Who cares if a buch of old fogeys in some smokey back room in pasadena don't get to put on their dumb game and skim a bunch of cash off the top that should be going to the schools?

As long as bowls are around, the committees driving them will form cartels. It can't be fixed, and honestly, it's not worth fixing. I definitely agree that the "old system" was better. But once these guys figured out they could "conspire" to control the post season, it was all over. The BCS doesn't have any incentive to improve - as long as it's "good enough" at picking teams, you'll watch, and you'll like it, because they'll have the good teams, even if the matchups don't quite make any sense.

The idea of bowls as a "traditional reward" for a good season is often trotted out by those pining for the old system, but it's a bogus argument when you realize that bowl selections are primarily driven by how many fans a team can bring to the game and get to watch on TV. In 2001, BYU, heading for a possible 13-0 season, got pre-emptively excluded from the BCS before they even finished their season - because they don't have a lot of travelling fans, and the fans they do have are "bad for local economies" since they don't drink and party. Luckily for the BCS, BYU lost their last game that year, so they got to save a little face. That same year, Nebraska failed to win not only their conference but also their DIVISION and STILL got into the national championship game. Further, that SAME YEAR, florida took an at-large BCS bid before the SEC championship game, which everyone expected Tennessee to win handily. But LSU won, leaving Tennessee with a citrus bowl bid, which paid about $10MM less than a BCS game. Some "reward" for beating florida that year. Also in 2001, North Texas got a bowl bid (an automatic one) even though they had a losing record, while Ole Miss had a rare 7-4 season and got "rewarded" by getting left out. Hawaii won NINE games, including wins over Fresno State and BYU (both very good that year) and also got left at home.

In 2003, LSU lost to half of the SEC west and went to the Cottom Bowl, while Arkansas, which had a better record AND beat LSU, got passed over and stuck in the Music City Bowl, mostly because there was a perception that Arkansas had gotten lucky and really wasn't that good (which may have turned out to be true). This cherry-picking of teams totally destroys the value of bowl games as rewards for teams that achieve. Oh, and don't forget that other gem of the 2003 bowl season, FSU vs. Miami... AGAIN!!!

The BCS has created all kinds of really awful problems with how bowls select teams, and not just in the big four games. When the BCS was formed, we started seeing all the second- and third-tier bowls signing tie-in deals with conferences. As a result of this, there was not, for example, a single SEC-Pac10 matchup in a bowl game in the past three years. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been one AT ALL since the inception of the BCS.

Despite all of this, I had been until very recently another of the "bring back the old system" guys. What convinced me that the entire bowl system needs to be scrapped was last year's introduction of the BCS championsip game. At first it sounded like they were adding the additional game as a mini playoff... not another bowl, another game, after the bowl games! Wow, they might actually be trying to fix things! Oh, no, it's just a fifth bowl game, without a name, and now you've got four bowl comitties running five games - the big four BCS bowl comittees just brilliantly figured out how to increase their revenues by 25% without bringing a fifth bowl comittee into the mix to share the extra loot. Brilliant, in an EVIL GENIUS sort of way. Does this help college football, though? No. There were already more BCS spots than there are top-notch teams each year.

[pvn]

BTW, I did come up with a way to "fix" the post season a couple of years ago.

My plan will give every team in division 1-A a legitimate shot of winning the national championship, while still allowing the media to have their biases influence the outcome, and to top it all off it's so simple your grandmother can understand it, and it involves LOTS of money!

Each BCS game currently pays around $15 million to each team. That's about $120M total. I figure the bowl committees themselves are sucking up an additional $50M or so in overhead, kickbacks, and skim. Let's just figure $200M, whatever, the actual number isn't really that important. At the end of the regular season, a randomly-selected athletic director puts the names of all division I-A schools in a hat and pulls one out. That team plays Notre Dame in South Bend (that's the "media bias" part), and the winner gets all the money and the title. Easy. No secret formulas, no smoky backrooms, and under this system, Auburn and Utah have better chances of winning than they do under the current system.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this such a sacred cow?

There are more teams in Division I basketball. They seem to do OK with only "one winner".

And there's nothing that says you have to have "one winner" if you have a playoff! You could have any number of NIT-like mini tournaments in the post season. Bowls, even! Just don't try to integrate them into the playoffs.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I did come up with a way to "fix" the post season a couple of years ago.

My plan will give every team in division 1-A a legitimate shot of winning the national championship, while still allowing the media to have their biases influence the outcome, and to top it all off it's so simple your grandmother can understand it, and it involves LOTS of money!

Each BCS game currently pays around $15 million to each team. That's about $120M total. I figure the bowl committees themselves are sucking up an additional $50M or so in overhead, kickbacks, and skim. Let's just figure $200M, whatever, the actual number isn't really that important. At the end of the regular season, a randomly-selected athletic director puts the names of all division I-A schools in a hat and pulls one out. That team plays Notre Dame in South Bend (that's the "media bias" part), and the winner gets all the money and the title. Easy. No secret formulas, no smoky backrooms, and under this system, Auburn and Utah have better chances of winning than they do under the current system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I swore I'd never say this, but PVN is a genius.

Cody

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this such a sacred cow?

There are more teams in Division I basketball. They seem to do OK with only "one winner".

And there's nothing that says you have to have "one winner" if you have a playoff! You could have any number of NIT-like mini tournaments in the post season. Bowls, even! Just don't try to integrate them into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever been a long-term season ticket holder for a major university?

Do you donate thousands per year to a major university?


My guess to both is NO. I have and I do (well my family did and, now, I do). These are the people that make college football big. Among these subset, the bowl system is very, very popular. Scrapping it would alienate those that make college football gogogogogoggogo.

It's about getting together every week with family and friends. It's about having achievable goals for every school. Bowl games are as much about rewarding the fanbases as they are the teams themselves.

I've been to the All-American Bowl (now defunct). I've been to the Citrus Bowl (now Capital one). I've been to the Hall of Fame Bowl (now Outback). I've been to the Sun Bowl. I've been to the Liberty Bowl. I've been to the Micron PC Bowl. I've been to the Sugar Bowl. I've been to the Rose Bowl.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM MATTERED, though I have to say the Sugar Bowl was kind of hollow as it wasn't the Rose.

I could give two [censored] about a national title. The goal every year is the Rose Bowl. At least it is among the alumni supporters of the school I attended.


The bball tourney for NCAA is kind of a crapshoot. In no way would I want that to be the model to be followed. It's created a deadly atmosphere. For one, did you know that Bruce Weber is tied for the most wins in NCAAB with Coach K and Billy Donovan over his 4 year tenure at Illinois? Did you know that a majority of Illinois 'fans' want him fired? That's the attitude that comes with basketball.

In football, 2 Rose Bowls in his first four years would've made him a god and untouchable for a decade at least.

Bball is not healthy IMO.


my post is incoherent rambling... I don't know how to say it right... I think you're missing the point of college football.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this such a sacred cow?

There are more teams in Division I basketball. They seem to do OK with only "one winner".

And there's nothing that says you have to have "one winner" if you have a playoff! You could have any number of NIT-like mini tournaments in the post season. Bowls, even! Just don't try to integrate them into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever been a long-term season ticket holder for a major university?

Do you donate thousands per year to a major university?


My guess to both is NO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong on the first, and you're partially wrong on the second.

[ QUOTE ]
I have and I do (well my family did and, now, I do). These are the people that make college football big. Among these subset, the bowl system is very, very popular. Scrapping it would alienate those that make college football gogogogogoggogo.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this position assumes there's no better possibilities. "New fangled automobilies will destroy the buggy whip industry!!! The sky is falling!!!"

And further, you're wrong. While these people might prefer the bowl system, they're not going to stop watching football, stop going to games, stop donating money.

And for those few who do, there will be plenty of people lining up behind them. For every booster who is 100% committed to the broken, corrupt, barroque bowl system, there are two who will be created by the new excitement of a legitimate playoff.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about getting together every week with family and friends. It's about having achievable goals for every school. Bowl games are as much about rewarding the fanbases as they are the teams themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. As I've already show, the "reward" argument is bogus, outside of a few schools at the top of the heap who get *disproportionately* rewarded considering their accomplishments.

You can "get together" "every week" just as easily with playoffs as you can with bowls. And for those teams who EARN the "rewards" the playoff system provides MORE opportunity to "get together."

[ QUOTE ]
I've been to the All-American Bowl (now defunct). I've been to the Citrus Bowl (now Capital one). I've been to the Hall of Fame Bowl (now Outback). I've been to the Sun Bowl. I've been to the Liberty Bowl. I've been to the Micron PC Bowl. I've been to the Sugar Bowl. I've been to the Rose Bowl.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM MATTERED, though I have to say the Sugar Bowl was kind of hollow as it wasn't the Rose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn. YES!!! The GALLERYFURNITURE.COM BOWL MATTERS!!! Right. The only person games like that "matter" to are the coaches, who are praying they win so they don't have "the people who make college football gogogogo" leave bags of dog poop on their front porch.

[ QUOTE ]
I could give two [censored] about a national title. The goal every year is the Rose Bowl. At least it is among the alumni supporters of the school I attended.


The bball tourney for NCAA is kind of a crapshoot. In no way would I want that to be the model to be followed. It's created a deadly atmosphere. For one, did you know that Bruce Weber is tied for the most wins in NCAAB with Coach K and Billy Donovan over his 4 year tenure at Illinois? Did you know that a majority of Illinois 'fans' want him fired? That's the attitude that comes with basketball.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Name any college football coach. Then put the word "Fire" in front and ".com" behind. Charlie Weis has two BCS games in two years and there are already people trying to hire hit men to get rid of him.

[ QUOTE ]
In football, 2 Rose Bowls in his first four years would've made him a god and untouchable for a decade at least.

Bball is not healthy IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Two BCS games in two years and three games later you're halfway out the door. Get real.

[ QUOTE ]
my post is incoherent rambling... I don't know how to say it right... I think you're missing the point of college football.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHat YOU think college football is "supposed to be" is NOT *the* right answer.

[pvn]

For anyone who thinks bowls > playoffs: