Sixteen team playoff solves BCS heresy

[MadRat]

Once again the Big Twelve runner-up sneaks into the National Championship of the BCS. I hide my face in shame to say that our once mighty Huskers have to see their mistake be repeated. Oklahoma will not only lose the NC, but they will be demoilshed. LSU and USC will both win handedly in their respective games and voila! A split of the NC. The NCAA needs to set aside its pride and admit that the BCS is irrelevant.

If they'd switch to a sixteen team playoff picture we'd eliminate this once and for all. Why 16? Because the BCS ignores smaller money conferences like Conference USA, the Mid-American, the WAC, and the Sun Belt Conferences. We currently have eleven D1 conferences. We simply take the top of each conference and five wildcards and throw them into a playoff. Cap the number of official D1 football conferences at 12 so that we never have fewer than four at-large wildcard berths to keep major runner-ups in the picture. Fifteen total games would decide the champion.

With this we'd of had these conference champions:

1. USC (PAC 10) #1
2. LSU (SEC) #2
3. Michigan (Big TEN) #4
4. Florida State (ACC) #8
5. Miami (Big EAST) #9
6. Kansas State (Big XII) #10
7. Miami of OH. (Mid-American) #15
8. Boise State (WAC) #16
9. Utah (Mountain West) #25
10. Southern Miss (Conf. USA) #NR
11. North Texas (Sun Belt) #NR


The top five wildcard candidates (including independents) were:

12. Oklahoma (Big XII) #3
13. Texas (Big XII) #5
14. Ohio State (Big TEN) #6
15. Tennessee (SEC) #7
16. Georgia (SEC) #11

Eleven of the top twelve, and thirteen of the top sixteen teams would have made it this year! (Losers in this system are #12 Iowa, #13 Purdue, and #14 Washington State.) Using traditional ranking to decide the 16-team parings we'd end up with this first round:

#1 USC vs. #NR North Texas or Southern Miss
#2 LSU vs. #NR North Texas or Southern Miss
#3 Oklahoma vs. #25 Utah
#4 Michigan vs. #16 Boise State
#5 Texas vs. #15 Miami of OH.
#6 Ohio State vs. #11 Georgia
#7 Tennessee vs. #10 Kansas State
#8 Florida State vs. #9 Miami

Second round likely ends up:

#1 USC vs. Florida/Miami winner
#2 LSU vs. Tennessee/Kansas State winner
#3 Oklahoma vs. Ohio State/Georgia winner
#4 Michigan vs. Texas

I don't know about the rest of you, but my mouth waters just thinking about these matchups!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Once again the Big Twelve runner-up sneaks into the National Championship of the BCS. I hide my face in shame to say that our once mighty Huskers have to see their mistake be repeated. Oklahoma will not only lose the NC, but they will be demoilshed. LSU and USC will both win handedly in their respective games and voila! A split of the NC. The NCAA needs to set aside its pride and admit that the BCS is irrelevant.

If they'd switch to a sixteen team playoff picture we'd eliminate this once and for all. Why 16? Because the BCS ignores smaller money conferences like Conference USA, the Mid-American, the WAC, and the Sun Belt Conferences. We currently have eleven D1 conferences. We simply take the top of each conference and five wildcards and throw them into a playoff. Cap the number of official D1 football conferences at 12 so that we never have fewer than four at-large wildcard berths to keep major runner-ups in the picture. Fifteen total games would decide the champion.

With this we'd of had these conference champions:

1. USC (PAC 10) #1
2. LSU (SEC) #2
3. Michigan (Big TEN) #4
4. Florida State (ACC) #8
5. Miami (Big EAST) #9
6. Kansas State (Big XII) #10
7. Miami of OH. (Mid-American) #15
8. Boise State (WAC) #16
9. Utah (Mountain West) #25
10. Southern Miss (Conf. USA) #NR
11. North Texas (Sun Belt) #NR


The top five wildcard candidates (including independents) were:

12. Oklahoma (Big XII) #3
13. Texas (Big XII) #5
14. Ohio State (Big TEN) #6
15. Tennessee (SEC) #7
16. Georgia (SEC) #11

Eleven of the top twelve, and thirteen of the top sixteen teams would have made it this year! (Losers in this system are #12 Iowa, #13 Purdue, and #14 Washington State.) Using traditional ranking to decide the 16-team parings we'd end up with this first round:

#1 USC vs. #NR North Texas or Southern Miss
#2 LSU vs. #NR North Texas or Southern Miss
#3 Oklahoma vs. #25 Utah
#4 Michigan vs. #16 Boise State
#5 Texas vs. #15 Miami of OH.
#6 Ohio State vs. #11 Georgia
#7 Tennessee vs. #10 Kansas State
#8 Florida State vs. #9 Miami

Second round likely ends up:

#1 USC vs. Florida/Miami winner
#2 LSU vs. Tennessee/Kansas State winner
#3 Oklahoma vs. Ohio State/Georgia winner
#4 Michigan vs. Texas

I don't know about the rest of you, but my mouth waters just thinking about these matchups!

You just want another 4 weeks of college football.

 

[MadRat]

Hell yeah!
:beer:

 

[TheBDB]

You could even incorporate the bowls into it, with the major bowls rotating who hosts the championship game, with the others hosting the previous rounds.

 

[leeboy]

I see one flaw with your predictions, USC will not beat Michigan IMHO, that will be the best game of the year bar none. Go Wolverines.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The university presidents are already struggling (and failing) to wrestle the tremendous burden that commercial athletics places on our system of higher education. The last thing we need is more BS about how the most pressing issue facing our university system is the absence of a playoff in Div I-A football.

Your plan is laughable on the merits though. The new ACC could legitimately claim three spots (Miami, FSU, VaTech) . . . due to flexible regular season scheduling. ACC expansion has caused a domino effect which has led to the wholesale pillaging of Conference USA, Sun Belt, WAC, etc. They don't deserve a future berth in your playoff system anymore than they deserve a slot in the current BCS system. At best the BCS might consider adding another bowl and assigning an at-large spot to ONE of the conference champions from the orphan associations.

 

[dmcowen674]

I've always thought the College "system" is a joke. High School has playoffs, then you go to a buddy system and then you go back to real football when you go Pro.

 

[burnedout]

NCAA D1 football has required some sort of real playoff system for years. But going from 11-13 games a season to 15-17 games might be a tough sell to some in the admin.

The university presidents are already struggling (and failing) to wrestle the tremendous burden that commercial athletics places on our system of higher education. The last thing we need is more BS about how the most pressing issue facing our university system is the absence of a playoff in Div I-A football.

With the exception of Miami (FL), most of the other Top-25 D1 schools turn a profit with one or both of their two main revenue-producing sports. In most cases, men's football and basketball fund the entire athletic department. Therefore, a playoff system would only pad the coffers.

 

[Zebo]

They should stop with the farce of "going to class" and "education" and make football/coaching/training an BA major and extend the season.

Or just cut regular season to 9 games an have a 16 team playoff which will make a total of 13 games for the finalists as it is now for most schools.

This is abusurd to have contended/controversial national champions three outta the past five years... and many more before the BCS started. Anyone remember BYU in 84...winning while never facing a top 20?


Plus the BCS elminates late starters from contention like Kstate who would easily win the whole kabutal right now.

 

[MadRat]

bump!

 

[Zebo]

Mad rat, don't you think they should be paid too? I mean this is almost forced servitude for these guys since college is the only ruote to the pros...in addtion to all the xtra hours they endure while prohibited for jobs etc.

NCAA sucks.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

With the exception of Miami (FL), most of the other Top-25 D1 schools turn a profit with one or both of their two main revenue-producing sports. In most cases, men's football and basketball fund the entire athletic department. Therefore, a playoff system would only pad the coffers.

Miami did not turn a profit due to the onerous system in the Big East . . . the primary reason they bailed for the ACC. In most cases, football and basketball DO NOT fund entire athletic departments. Both may turn a profit in places like UNC (even in bad years) or Florida but the majority of the 114 Div 1-A football programs likely did not make money playing football. I believe there's 300+ Div-1A bball programs and I imagine the majority do not make significant sums of money. It's easy to see why considering the tremendous expense that goes into recruiting (people like Billy Donovan that will fly across the country to a recruits bball game, wave from the parking lot, and then fly back to Gainsville), scholarships (last time I checked there's no discount program so EVERY Duke football player costs 30K+ in tuition/fees), coaching salaries (most earn a little more than peanuts albeit it is often subsidized by Nike, Adidas, camps, TV, etc), and facility costs (half-empty stadiums/arenas cost just as much to build/maintain but do not produce profits . . . arguably the most identifiable campus structure named for a coach; Dean E. Smith Center at UNC . . . has NEVER earned a profit).

It's nice that TV rights, apparel, etc can defray some of the costs of running athletic programs but if every Div-1 program was limited to 64 scholarships I doubt you would see a huge fall in the interest in college football. In fact you would see even more parity in college football and a great increase in interest in mid-level programs as talent trickles down. Of course, the added benefit would be that the expense of running a football team might very well decreases while more people attended games throughout the nation.

Granted, that's all OT anyway. In the final analysis, football is just another activity of intercollegiate activities despite the cash cow illusion for some (Miami) and nightmare for others (most of the schools dropping football). As a side note look at arguably the most dominant current program in basketball (Connecticut). The men AND women are hugely popular, turn a profit, AND up until last year . . . Connecticut did not have Div-1A football at all.

Colleges need these 12-game seasons to make money some still fail to do so with 14. If the NCAA returned to a 10-game season (6-7 conference games), allow all conferences with 10 members to hold a championship game (or even a tournament if it's limited to 4 teams), and then institute a limited playoff system based on a BCS-like calculation of all qualified teams up to 16 (NO automatic berths) . . . then maybe this dog could fly.

The vast majority of teams will play 10 games (that's all they need . . . what's the point of being 0-13 . . . Army)?
Pretenders will be limited to 12 games (they likely had little fan support anyway so why continue the charade).
Bowls can pick up the playoff action but only two teams will play 16-games, four will play 15, eight will play 14 (which is already happening), and sixteen teams will play 13 (which is way too common in the current system).

Revenue sharing will be comparable to the NCAA where the costs of travel, lodging, etc is paid by the NCAA with minimal financial inducements going to the winning teams. In essence, the regular season pays the bills for a particular school but tournament revenues go to ALL member institutions.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

I think there should be an 8 team, 3 week playoff starting the third weekend of December and culminating around New Years Day. I think the way the BCS handles the mid major conferences is fine. Do North Texas and Utah even stand a slight chance again USC, LSU, and Oklahoma? Of course not. Those games would be wasteful. I'm not sure either if the Big East champ deserves a guaranteed spot in that pool of 8 anymore.

 

[MadRat]

The only way an 8 team playoff is acceptable is if they break D-1 football up to three separate divisions rather than the current two. The D-1A division should be broken up into D-1A and D-1AA, with the current D-1AA slipping to the name of D-1AAA. Current D-1AAA memberships includes D-1A and D-1AA equivalents without football programs. Non-football D-1 ought to be simply referred to as D-1 since the requirements for D-1A and D-1AA are identical. Non-football sports would not really be changed at all since the D-1A and D-1AA divisions already only pertain to football.

The difference between D-1A and D-1AA should be the equivalent of ten football scholarships, perhaps letting the elite D-1A level have 85 and the lesser important D-1AA level mope around with 75. In the long run the D-1AAA and D-II divisions get the benefit of their scholarships becoming more important with the D-1A and D-1AA divisions becoming less prone to steal all of the talent off. Current D-1AA teams may even like the lesser pressure of the new D-1AA alignment and decide to move to 75 scholarships whereas 85 was too expensive.

Football is not as profitable for the lesser D-1A teams which play in front of smaller crowds, so the relaxed standards may be popular if given a chance. Contrary to popular belief, football schools are growing revenue faster than non-football schools. See ncaa.org for specific stats on revenue. Its just that the larger schools are doing the majority of the profiteering.

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Do North Texas and Utah even stand a slight chance again USC, LSU, and Oklahoma? Of course not. Those games would be wasteful.

This attitude would ruin March Madness. Champions need to be rewarded regardless of who deems which conference is weak or non-competitive. So what if North Texas loses to USC be 50-0, its no worse than #1 OU losing to the likes of KSU in the Big Twelve Championship. The NCAA tournaments need to be Champions sent first, then also-runs battle it for the leftovers. If teams don't like their conferences then they need to jump to a conference they feel is winnable. In the long run the smaller schools win because they get a meaningful schedule of games every year just like the bigger schools.

I think NCAA sports should be about common fraternity of its membership, and not about the profits to the big universities. Putting the conference champions into the final tournament is the best way to do that.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

You're comparing KSU (ranked #13 before beating Oklahoma) to North Texas?

Football != Basketball.

The reason March Madness is great is because basketball requires far fewer talented players. For a great basketball team, you need about 8 or 9 great players. For a great football team, you need about 30-35. Its currently unacceptable to have teams like North Texas and Utah be in a playoff for the national championship and omit 20 teams that had better seasons than them. This isn't an argument about conferences, its an argument about who deserves to play it off for the national title.

Having a 16 team, 4 round playoff is also unacceptable because of the length of it. Adding four football games to a football team's schedule is adding over a third of a season! Even my proposal of 3 rounds is asking a bit much. Again, Football != Basketball.

 

[MadRat]

D-II and D-III playoffs last five rounds after their respective eleven and ten game seasons. So why not D-1A?

 

[Mill]

Bali- Auburn makes like 40 million a year off of football.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc In most cases, football and basketball DO NOT fund entire athletic departments.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp

If you want a revenue expense list of the top 50 D1 teams in football and basketball, and are too damned lazy to look in order to defend your point, I'll compile it this weekend. Bottom line: football is huge business.

The vast majority of teams will play 10 games (that's all they need . . . what's the point of being 0-13 . . . Army)?

11-13, depending upon the year. Army is federally funded anyway.

Granted, that's all OT anyway. In the final analysis, football is just another activity of intercollegiate activities despite the cash cow illusion for some (Miami) and nightmare for others (most of the schools dropping football). As a side note look at arguably the most dominant current program in basketball (Connecticut). The men AND women are hugely popular, turn a profit, AND up until last year . . . Connecticut did not have Div-1A football at all.

Of course there are a few exceptions. Anyway, on average, football earns more revenue than any other DI sport - period. Even at Kentucky, where I attended one year, football earns more than basketball. Uh huh, that's true, in Coach Rupp's house no less.

Revenue sharing will be comparable to the NCAA where the costs of travel, lodging, etc is paid by the NCAA with minimal financial inducements going to the winning teams. In essence, the regular season pays the bills for a particular school but tournament revenues go to ALL member institutions.

TV and gate receipts composes some of revenues. Boosters and corporate donations make up a large part. This is why I'm against competitive payment of college athletes. Arkansas should not be forced to give the $60+ million received from the Walton family to the NCAA just because NC State has crappy staff in the athletic department who can't solicit donations.

 

[Lucky]

At best the BCS might consider adding another bowl and assigning an at-large spot to ONE of the conference champions from the orphan associations.

Unacceptable for the 60 plus teams that get currently screwed by the BCS.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Lucky

At best the BCS might consider adding another bowl and assigning an at-large spot to ONE of the conference champions from the orphan associations.

Unacceptable for the 60 plus teams that get currently screwed by the BCS.

Exactly why the conference champions need automatic berths into a national tournament or absolutely not even one red cent of NCAA money or effort should be spent on the BCS solution.