It’s only the end of November, but that doesn’t mean I can’t suggest a detailed solution to put the BCS out of its misery”¦
***Note: Most of the material in this column is repeated from a column I wrote at the beginning of 2004 as Louisiana State University prepared to play the University of Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, a game that was supposed to determine college football’s national champion and really did nothing of the such.
It would probably be even more relevant to wait until the official end of the season to run it again and prove my point, but due to time constraints on my part and potential conflicts that exist now with the SYSTEM AGAIN that include multiple quality unbeaten opponents, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to bring the issue to light again”¦
Remember: scoogan@4sternstaging.com if you want to contact me.***
* * * * * *
Well, here we are. As I finish this column, the University of Oklahoma (at Norman), University of Southern California (USC) and Auburn University have all played at least 10 games and have not lost to this point. The three teams play the best college football competition in the country.
But”¦only two of the teams can play National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 1-A football championship. In an ideal world, this game would feature the two best college football teams in the nation as computed by the ridiculously nebulous Bowl Championship Series (BCS) computer rankings.
This new system was supposed to eliminate the idea of two teams “sharing” a national championship since the sportswriters vote in one recognized poll and the football coaches vote in the other. It happened in 1990 when the University of Colorado (Boulder) and Georgia Tech were #1 in different pools. This was repeated again a year later with Miami (FL) and the University of Washington. Amazingly, it happened again in 1997 when the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and the University of Nebraska (Lincoln) shared the championship. This happened because the championship was not decided on the field, it was decided by people who voted for the team they thought was best (a ludicrous notion considering every other sport creates their champion on the field). In 1990, 1991, and 1997 different polls voted for different winners, so it was considered a “split” national championship.
The NCAA realized this was inappropriate so they made the change to the new BCS format where these magical, mysterious, and, quite frankly, murky and muddy computer ratings were devised. Just about everything in regards to a college football team and their performance was considered when devising this ranking and “score” as determined by the BCS. Well, problems with the BCS came up almost immediately as the various computer rankings used placed the many undeserving teams high in various polls while others were ranked lower. If you think this paragraph makes little sense, then you understand how the average college football observer feels about the whole thing”¦
Anyway, this system has already screwed up a couple of times, most notably in 2002, putting an overmatched University of Nebraska (Lincoln) team that didn’t win its own conference championship and lost its most recent game six weeks before in the final championship game against the University of Miami (Florida). Predictably, Miami slaughtered Nebraska and won the national title.
And don’t even get me started about last year”¦It’s pretty sad that people argue about whether USC and Louisiana State University (LSU) actually SHARED the title. People argue about this? Sadly, yes. I don’t even want to get into it”¦
This year, it could be even worse if the standings now continue to hold form. There are three outstanding teams in college football and should have a chance to play for the national championship: USC, Oklahoma and Auburn University. Plus, the University of Utah (Salt Lake) and Boise State University are unbeaten and waiting for the postseason to start. Granted, these last two teams played slightly more inferior competition than the other three, but they went through the season, didn’t lose a game and would have a chance at the championship if they were playing in any other league.
In an ideal world, the top three teams and a wild card fourth (one of the two unbeaten teams or maybe the University of California at Berkeley) would take part in some sort of mini-tournament with the winner being the champion and the Earth would spin on its axis again.
Unfortunately, the insanity that is the BCS has stopped that from happening with its crazy ranking system and lack of some sort of playoff. So, there’s a good chance that four teams could finish the season without any losses and only one of them actually win the national championship.
HUH???
Yeah, I know”¦.good stuff”¦
So, ABC could be left with USC and Oklahoma in a “National Championship” game that will only determine which one of the five unbeaten teams is champion. That means the network could be left with a game that doesn’t mean as much and fans could be left wondering”¦What if the USC/Oklahoma winner played Auburn? Do Utah and Boise State deserve a chance?
This can only be solved with implementing a tournament that is played out on the field where one team survives. This exists in college basketball, hockey, and baseball. It also exists in professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. Hell, while the Division 1-A schools are determining their football championship in the polls, Division 1-AA, 2, and 3, schools take part in their own 16-team tournaments to crown a champion. If everyone else can do this, the Division 1-A football schools need to take note and do so as well.
Many people argue that it could never be done. They ask about the “student athletes,” the status of the current “bowl system” (a series of meaningless games between teams that would never play each other normally), and what the regular season would actually mean.
Well, I have a long-winded, yet perfectly sensible, way for a 1-A college tournament would work for just about everyone involved: student-athletes, coaches, administrators, fans, the media, and critics who fall into all of those categories. However, if this were to ever reach anything beyond the discussion stages, three important conclusions would immediately need to be agreed upon:
1. There are rarely more than two “postseason” bowl games that are significant to the final crowning of a championship. – In 2003-04, it was the Rose Bowl (where USC played against the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and the Sugar Bowl featuring Oklahoma and LSU. While there were some potentially interesting games and others fun to watch, none of them meant anything. There is a place for them and I don’t think these games should be abolished completely. However, to bestow them with an honor anything more than “exhibition” is giving these games too much credit.
2. The players taking part in a college football season ARE student athletes. – These isn’t necessarily a tough concession to make, especially from the perspective of the university administrators not in favor of playing their players, but it is one that should be considered. The students need to be in class since that IS the reason they are there.
3. Money is just as important in college football as it is in professional sports. – This will be a very hard compromise to come to since many university presidents and administrators still have the “high and mighty” view of collegiate athletics as being about the students and the love of the game, but we all need to be serious here. College football is a BIG BUSINESS and brings in A LOT OF MONEY to the universities that are most successful. Those that play the best will get sent to the higher paying bowl game and much of that money goes right back into the university in some way, shape or fashion. This makes recruiting the best players hiring the best coaches a cut-throat competition that requires as much success as possible. If university administrators finally accept this openly, then my plan could work.
Now, without further delay, here is the “Coogan Plan” for the NCAA Division 1-A football tournament:
Season layout
First, the same way the National Football League (NFL) has a definitive, set, “Week 1-17,” college football needs something similar. I suggest that the season always start Labor Day weekend (whether it’s early or late) with a full weekend of games (since the NFL usually starts their season the week after the holiday anyway). It doesn’t make much sense to me that various “kickoff classics” take place one to two weeks before most of the college football season begins.
Since this is a television column, I’ll throw this out there for consideration as well. Why not have a Labor Day night football game between two of the best teams in college football? I’ll admit that isn’t an original thought (Thank you ESPN Radio”¦). However, it is a valuable point to consider. I like official, grand introductions to new seasons (though Britney Spears performances aren’t really necessary…) and debuting college football Labor Day weekend would be a good way to do so.
Second, all college football teams need to play the same number of games. It also doesn’t make much sense to me that some teams play as little as 11 games while some play as many as 14. Everyone should be on the same “playing field.” There are 13 weeks between Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Each team can play 12 games and can allow for a week off. This will allow various ranking systems to evaluate the teams the same way instead of considering 14 games versus 11.
Further Commentary on the Season Layout: The same way the NFL works preseason games into their schedule, Division 1-A college football should do the same thing. That is why I suggest Labor Day weekend be the “official” starting point of the season. This way, if LSU feels the need to load up cakewalk opponents like Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana Tech, they can do that in the “preseason” (in August, before Labor Day) instead of wasting one of their 12 games against 1-AA opponents, teams won’t help the 1-A schools when the final rankings are released before my proposed tournament takes place.
That’s why I say 12 games in 13 weeks – Labor Day to Thanksgiving weekend. Play your best ball against the best possible teams that can be scheduled in those 12 games.
Tournament Details
I propose that the NCAA initiate a 16-team tournament starting the second week in December. I suggest that weekend because the regular season will run through Thanksgiving and the first week in December will have to be devoted to the Big 12, ACC, SEC, and (potentially) Mid-American conference championship games that will determine the automatic bids to the tournament. In addition, many people enjoy the Army-Navy game and that game could take place without being placed on the backburner of the first round of a championship tournament.
In terms of the participants, this is a bit harder to determine. Should it be required that every conference have a representative in this field? Or, would it be better to have a larger group of great teams that didn’t win their conference (in the case of this season, that would include teams like the University of Texas (Austin) and California-Berkeley)?
That’s a much tougher decision. If I were in charge, I’d probably award the following conferences automatic bids:
— Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)
— Big East (even the new Big East which isn’t as strong)
— Big 10
— Big 12
— Southeastern Conference (SEC)
— Pac-10 (Pacific 10)
— Mid-American
— Play-in between the winner of the Mountain West/Western Athletic Conference (WAC) conferences
— Play-in between the winner of the Conference USA/Sun Belt conferences
(both of these games to be played in the first week of December, the same weekend as the larger conference championship games)
I lay it out this way because I feel a team in Division 1-A that wins their conference deserves to be at least in the mix for the national title even if it’s likely they will not beat one of the winner of bigger conferences or other invitees. These teams should not necessarily be excluded because they aren’t as large and prestigious as the other schools, but they will have to work a little harder to prove they can hang with the big boys”¦
So, at this point, the tournament has nine automatic bids and seven that will be given out to deserving teams that didn’t quite win their conference title, but are obviously in the Top 16 in the country. The question that needs to be answered next is: How do we determine how those other 7 teams will be? Well, I suggest two alternatives:
1. Keep some form of a MODIFIED BCS computer ranking system in effect, take out all the conference winners and the seven teams with the highest rankings and scores will be invited and everyone else isn’t allowed to participate.
2. See the NCAA basketball tournament – This means that a group of Division 1-A football administrators would coup themselves up in a hotel room for days at a time determining who should be invited and who shouldn’t. Of course, there will always be controversy about the “wrong” decisions being made, but I think most would agree it’s much more “forgivable” to overlook the 17th or 18th best team in the country as opposed to 3rd best which is the case in this season. They are going to have to determine rankings of these teams, so it makes sense to allow “man” (administrators) decide the participants in the tournament instead of “machine” (the computer systems).
Once the 16 schools taking part in the tournament is determined, it needs to be decided where these games will take place. I believe it’s perfectly acceptable to rank the 16 teams 1-16 and then follow the traditional tournament format where #1 takes on #16, #2 takes on #15 and etc. all the way to #8 vs. #9. The top 8 teams would get home games and in each round, the higher ranked team would get the home game until it comes down to the final two teams. Once it comes to the final two, they would play each other in one of the “Bowl Championship” bowls, already determined to be the Orange (played in Miami, FL), Sugar (New Orleans, LA), Fiesta (Phoenix, AZ) and Rose Bowls (Pasadena, CA). It would rotate every four years as the championship game. Once the final two teams play in one of the four bowls, the winner of the game would (obviously) be crowned the Division 1-A football champion.
In terms of the time layout, according to my schedule, the tournament would begin the second week in December. Most schools have finals during the third week in December leading up to holiday season and January 2004. So, I find it perfectly acceptable that there would be a break in football action during that third week so the student athletes could worry about going to class, studying, and passing their finals. If it is determined that more schools have finals during the second week of December (as is the case at Syracuse University, where I am now), then the tournament can run from the third week of December until the second week of January instead. That is only 5-10 days after the date of the championship game now.
Since the players involved in this championship ARE student athletes, it is very valuable to give the players some time off to focus on their studies and not football. The participants in the BCS final game have not played football in a month. That’s too long. However, two weeks (in some cases three depending on the format) would be more acceptable.
The one slightly disconcerting element to this new plan is the fact that the importance of New Year’s Day football will be reduced significantly and that’s it’s fun and exciting to have all the important bowl games on New Year’s Day and on television. Well, two responses to that: 1) the importance of New Year’s Day has already been reduced with several games taking place after January 1st. 2) If it means that much to hardcore traditionalists, then the tournament games of that week can take place on New Year’s Day instead of the following Saturday.
The only thing I am worried about is convincing the Tournament of Roses and Rose Bowl people that having the Pasadena played after New Year’s Day would be a good idea”¦Could be a real tough sell”¦
Another vital question that needs to be considered is: What happens to the current bowl system with the new tournament?
That’s pretty simple”¦for the most part, it stays the same”¦.
Outside of the four BCS bowls (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose), there are still 24 other bowls featuring 48 other teams playing in meaningless “postseason” games. Many of the games could be filled right after “regular season” ends Thanksgiving weekend since there will be a series of good teams that won’t be invited the tournament but would be asked to play in another “postseason” bowl (this year, these teams include the THE Ohio State University’s and University of Florida’s of the world).
In addition, due to corporate sponsorships or projected payouts to the teams involved, the BCS bowl system could be expanded to a Tier 1 and Tier 2 system involving the teams involved in the tournament. The Tier 1 bowls would be the current BCS bowls (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose) and as teams get eliminated, they would have first right of refusal to invite the losers to their bowls or wait for other teams to lose later on. If the Tier 1 bowls aren’t interested, then the Tier 2 bowls (like the Cotton, Gator, Outback, and Peach) would have the second right of refusal to those teams eliminated. If those bowls are not interested, then at that point, any bowl will have the right to invite the losers in the tournament to their bowl and it would be played without a hitch.
If that gets confusing because more than one bowl might invite a particular team, then the obvious solution would be that the team in question would be able to accept whatever invitation is offered to them instead of worrying about conference rankings and the 5th place SEC team playing a 4th place Big 10 team like the setup is now.
Admittedly, this emphasizes many of the bowls being merely “consolation” games more than any other system. In addition, there is a good chance that the series of bowls that exist now will carry over into January and there won’t be much preparation involved with the bowls since several will be at the mercy of the teams in the tournament. However, this system that I am suggesting still allows for the tournament to take place while keeping the bowl system in tact in still guarantees some great match-ups the teams that get eliminated from the tournament.
Thankfully, since the student athletes are on semester break until the middle of January (at least), it won’t matter if the season extends as late as January 10th or 12th.
Why this is relevant to a weekly television column
There are several reasons why the television industry would benefit from the plan that I’ve outlined”¦
1. The Labor Day weekend would be a great introduction to the season and the Monday evening game will be a nice prime time broadcast either for ABC or ESPN. Another possibility is starting a new tradition where NBC would air a University of Notre Dame game (hopefully against a quality opponent like the University of Michigan) that night since the network will likely be in summer reruns at that point.
2. Thanksgiving weekend should be a prime weekend for football and while the NFL is still going on, by that point, college football has pretty much faded away into not much of anything with the exception of a few random games. I am sure fans and the television networks wouldn’t complain if they had a full slate of games that Friday and Saturday as opposed to a patchwork schedule with just a few rivalry games and random leftover games.
3. With my perceived plan, in addition to the countless bowls already available, the networks would have a series of meaningful college football games to air between Christmas and the first week in January, traditionally a barren time when looking at television programming. Original programs aren’t airing new episodes. Instead, they will often show movies, various program “marathons,” and, when possible, sporting events, especially football. It would mean more for the television networks (ratings = big time advertisers) and therefore, more for the universities and the NCAA if they had an additional 15 games to air during that time of year until the new episodes of our favorite shows are pumped out again. It really makes perfect sense”¦
Is the system perfect? I would suggest that it may cause some problems, especially to those hardcore traditionalists and those people attempting to plan many of the current bowls and recruit fans and boosters who would come to those games.
However, the system does allow for a 16-team playoff while keeping the existing bowl system in tact as much as possible, something that many people affiliated with college football are adamant about.
I know that I have never been much of a fan of college football, partially because of my upbringing in the Celtics/Red Sox/Patriots/Bruins town, partially because of the system being so foolishly set up. If a tournament is set up, maybe I could appreciate college football as much people from places like Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma.
What do YOU think?
— Coogan
