Thursday, January 15

Details, details, details...

While a new idea can be presented with ease, it is impossible to address all the issues that can possibly arise. As with any system a number of foreseeable issues can arise. I will start with the biggest logistical challenge to the system.

Wild Card Game details:
The primary purpose of the wild card game is to maintain 10-11 teams in the BCS so the pool of teams for the remaining bowls is consistent regardless of the playoff format each year calls for.

2005 is the only year since 2004 that would not have resulted in the use of a Wild Card Game. The adjustments for one team or more than 9 teams would not have been needed for any year over this time period.

The logistics of hosting this game in a traditional BCS venue are very problematic, as it would basically be a double header with a traditional BCS bowl. Cities could bid on hosting these games, with the bids representing a place in line to host the game rather than the chance of having it a specific year. This would open up college football’s championship structure to venues beyond the four traditional sites.

With the month’s notice of cancellation the process would allow it may even be possible to expand the planned half-time show into an attraction of its own. A choreographed concert could have a large appeal to those outside the target audience of a wild card game and could recoup some of the costs of reserving the venue and hiring contractors to produce the game and prepare the performers.

BCS Bowl selection:
1) Teams are placed in the Bowl Championship System by the above procedures.
2) All remaining BCS conference champion tie-ins are assigned to their respective bowls.
3) All BCS bowls losing a team to the championship system and not selected to be a semifinal would make selections from the available teams in order of the seed lost.
4-A) All remaining selections would be made in order from the BCS bowl with the most distant Bowl Championship System participation to the most recent.
4-B) If two BCS bowls participated in the Bowl Championship System in the same year the bowls involved will alternate having the first selection as the need arises starting with the bowl that had the lower seeded host team the year of participation.

When all undefeated teams have a chance at the title there would be significantly less pressures to give less established conferences a seat in a premier bowl. The BCS bowls would have more flexibility to abandon the current qualification limits with this system. Allowing the bowls to be flexible with their invitations makes the system able to adjust in a more timely fashion if it is established that the conference strengths warrant it.

If the current qualifications and at large eligibility are maintained they should be changed to apply the 2 teams per conference limit to selections made after step 2.

2007 was one Hawaii loss away from showing that it might be prudent to lift the 2 team restriction for a third team from a conference in the top 8 of the BCS standings with no second team from any conference ahead of them after all conference champions in the top 16 have been selected.

Play-in Game details:
Hosting schools for play-in games may be required to use a stadium of their choice meeting a size requirement and make a specified number of tickets available to the visiting team.

Each year the number of games their locations and potential match ups, based solely on who wins each game, would be set once the final BCS standings are available. The venue for the play in games would be the only significant logistical issue, with two weeks to resolve any issues. If the home team can’t resolve the issues they would forfeit the game.

The number of teams participating in the BCS games would be 10 or 11 for all scenarios except 8 teams. This leaves a pool of teams for the other bowls that does not change systematically from one year to the next. The case of 8 teams could be handled by taking an existing first day bowl game and making it a neutral site game for the play-in game between the #4 and #5 seeds.

Problem Cases:
One problem case is when one team is a solid number one and three teams are nearly tied for the #2 spot with no undefeated teams, as was the case in 2001. This would leave only one team eligible. Another case would be like this but with a low ranked undefeated team. This case runs the risk of a close upset in the National Championship Game and a blowout between the #2 and #3 team in a BCS Bowl, leaving doubt as to the champion.

It is hard to imagine an undefeated team ending the season by beating two top 5 teams and not being the consensus #1. Both of these cases can then be addressed with the following rule:

If the base criteria only generate one team, or create a structure where a team below #4 in the BCS ranking would not play a semifinal game, the second gap in the ranking average of 1.5 would be used.

Another problem case is if the number of teams exceeds 8, which can be addressed by this rule:

If the base criteria generates more than 8 teams, eliminate all teams that did not have the highest conference record in their conference, excluding championship games. If more than 8 teams still remain, look for a gap in the rankings among the remaining teams.

The only remaining way this championship system could fail is if 9 teams ended the regular season undefeated, an extremely unlikely event.

#1 with no tie-in:
Situations where a #1 or #2 seed has no conference tie-in needs to be addressed or all teams should have a tie in defined for this purpose. For this purpose, and independently of any automatic qualification process, the Big East could be restored to the Orange Bowl. The MWC and WAC would fit geographical with the Fiesta Bowl. C-USA, the MAC and the Sun Belt Conference would fit best with the Sugar Bowl.

Incentives to Compete, strength of the regular season.

A big reason playoffs are resisted is that they could reduce the value of the regular season. Allowing all undefeated teams runs the risk of teams reducing the strength of schedule.

The games early in the season are important to climb into the top of the standings. Late losses have demonstrated a devastating impact on a team’s position near the top. Only one team since 2004, LSU 2007, would have qualified for the championship structure with two losses. Usually enough undefeated and one loss teams abound to make a second loss be the end of the story.

The undefeated teams are in by the first criterion. The one loss teams would need to build enough consensus among the BCS components to avoid being behind the first gap in the standings. A strong out of conference schedule could go a long way to this end. For these teams the cut off actually eases the system from the need to get into the top 2 as more than 2 could get in, slightly reducing the risk of a loss.

Utah earned 4.5 million more than normal in its conference revenue sharing package for their Sugar Bowl appearance. They earned 0.8 million for their trip to Michigan. Unless a team has a 2 out of 11 chance of going undefeated in their conference a team is better off getting the guarantees payout of playing a big name team. Plus, they have an opportunity to get noticed with a win.

Going undefeated in any conference is difficult. If you are running the table regularly in a smaller conference a bigger conference will eventually pick you up, reducing your chances of going undefeated. Utah and Boise State are the only teams without an automatic qualification for their conference to finish the regular season undefeated at least twice in the last decade. Few question their out of conference scheduling practice.

No comments:

Post a Comment