I want it. You want it. The new Commander-in-Chief wants it. Given his ties to Austin, the old Commmander-in-Chief probably wants it too.
It’s a college football playoff system: the Holy Grail of sports. Elusive, mystical, and believed to have great powers of healing. Desperately, passionately sought by thousands upon thousands, but never attained.
The benefits of a playoff have been stated many times in other places, and there is no need to recount them here. Instead, let’s focus on these two questions: (1) Why doesn’t it happen?, and (2) If it did happen, what should it look like?
(1) Why not?
College football playoffs may have become a Holy Grail to fans not so much because of the tangible benefits, but out of frustration that something that seems so obvious, and so overwhelmingly desired, is not being delivered. The fans are looking for a good answer to the question, “Why not?”
For starters, we know that the answer has nothing to do with the supposed concerns of college presidents about the academic impact that additional games may have on the players. It’s hard to believe that the college presidents actually care that much more for the student-athetes at Oklahoma and Florida than they do for those at Montana or Appalachian State or any other school that participates in playoffs in the FCS, Div. II, or Div. III.
Second, we know that the answer has something to do with money. We know that because the answer always has something to do with money. But the particular frustration is that in this case, that seems counterintuitive. On the surface, one would certainly think there is a truckload of money to be made from a college playoff. And as fans, we’re also consumers. We understand the basic laws of supply and demand. When it comes to sports, we’re accustomed to television supplying a heaping helping (and then some) of whatever we demand. So the ”money” answer rings a little hollow, or at least confusing. What gives?
I’ve never been invited to any back room NCAA deliberations on this topic, but it appears that one of the primary concerns of those who oppose a playoff is that whatever gains would be made in a college post-season would be offset by damage done to the regular season. For instance, the Oklahoma-Texas Tech game a couple of weeks ago has a very different tone if both of those teams know they are still likely heading to the playoffs, win or lose. Under this theory, the current system gives us a “mini-playoff” game each week, as some team or another must win to keep hope alive. The concern is that a playoff would diminish the importance and, more importantly, revenue generation of these regular season games. The model is basketball, where many casual fans often don’t even begin to watch games or follow the sport until late February. Playoff opponents fear this would happen in football as well.
Maybe. But I don’t think so. To begin with, I wouldn’t throw any stones at the basketball model. The NCAA tournament is arguably the second most valuable franchise event in sports, after the Super Bowl. So even if there were some decreased interest in the regular season, the postseason gains would likely still be worth it.
More importantly, I don’t think there would be decreased regular season interest. Football by its nature, and particularly college football with the tribal devotions of each school’s fans, is always a big event. Long after teams fall out of the championship hunt, the large program games still pull big numbers and generate excitement, just for the thrill of winning the game (and rubbing it in the face of your buddy who went to Loser U.). Notre Dame can be 4-7 and it’s still a humongous deal to most fans when they play anybody.
Baseball faced this a few years ago, when it decided to expand the playoffs by adding a wild card and two extra playoff spots in each league. To some extent, this watered down the pennant races and took a little something from the latter part of the regular season. However, that pennant race excitement was in turn transferred into a more compelling postseason, which has been very successful. Also, with more opportunities available, more teams found themselves staying in pennant races longer and later. This actually increased interest in more cities, and resulted in more theoretically “meaningful” games.”
This analogy translates well to college football. While a regular season game between two of the top 5 teams might lose some luster with an expanded playoff, there would be five other games each week which would grow in importance for having “playoff implications.” Because any game that has “playoff implications” by definition has “championship implications.”
In the later part of the season, if I am a fan of Georgia or Ohio State I am MUCH more interested in trying to squeeze into the playoffs than I am in, say, making it to the Fiesta Bowl. If I’m Utah or Boise State or Ball State, I know I have to stay perfect to get my shot–not a shot at a BCS bowl, but a shot at winning it all. So every game is of extreme significance. If I’m Penn State or Texas Tech, I know I better not slip up to an Illinois or a Baylor and blow my chances–not my chances at a nice bowl, but chances of grabbing the ring.
(2) How would it work?
The trick to balancing post-season excitement and a meaningful regular season is to determine the right number of teams to include in a playoff. Let’s face one fact: it’s false to say that college football doesn’t have a playoff system. It does have a playoff system, and has had one ever since the BCS was put into place.
The difference is that, instead of a field of 64, college football has a field of 2. The BCS exists to select two teams to invite to what amounts to a one-game tournament. As with the basketball selection process, it’s not always clear who should make the field and who should not. But with only a 2 team field to work with, the selection process is virtually impossible and the injustices significantly greater. Imagine trying to sit down at the end of last basketball season and determine which two out of Memphis, Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA or Texas should be given the privilege of playing in the final?
So…two is the wrong number. What is the right number? There are many who lobby for 16 teams, but that’s too inclusive, and runs the risk of including truly undeserving teams (see: Georgia). There are those who say that anything more than four teams would do that, but yet here we have a season where seven big conference schools have one or fewer losses and a legitimate claim to inclusion, plus three undefeated schools from smaller conferences. Four is not enough.
I believe the correct number is 12. Here’s why: That is large enough to include all 6 BCS conference champs (it is important that the conference champs receive an automatic entry, to maintain the meaning of those chases), and still leave enough room for deserving at-large teams, without being too inclusive. There is a second benefit to a 12-team pool, as well: it allows for the top four teams to be rewarded with a first round bye. This keeps the regular season games meaningful even for those who are likely in, and recognizes that the upper tier teams deserve some special treatment.
If Obama makes me the Football Czar (a job for which I am lobbying hard, BTW), I’d make these additional rules: While the BCS rankings could be used as a tool, in the way the RPI is used in basketball, the 6 at large teams should be chosen by a selection committee. First and second round games would be played at the home site of the higher seeded team. The semi final and final games would be played at neutral sites to be rotated (and selected) as in basketball. The teams earning automatic entry by winning their conference would not be entitled to the top 6 seeds; they would simply be entitled to inclusion in the field of 12. The other bowls continue to exist for the non-playoff bowl eligible teams. This works well for the Independence Bowl and the Chick Fil-A Bowl and such; there are delicate issues involving the Rose, Sugar, etc., which would have to be addressed.
Here is how this approach would play out this season. Assume for these purposes that Oklahoma will beat Missouri, that Boston College will beat Virginia Tech, and that Florida will beat Alabama (in fact, assume that under this approach conference title games would likely die out, but that’s another discussion for another posting):
Automatic bids: Florida, Cincinnati, Boston College, Penn State, Oklahoma and USC.
At-large: Texas, Alabama and Texas Tech are no brainers. Utah and Boise State are in as well–one of the purposes of this system is to give those teams a chance. That leaves one spot open. Although some other teams may argue, it would likely come down to Ohio State versus Ball State for that last spot, throwing open a philosophical question about the big conference school with two losses against the undefeated MAC team.
Ohio State is ahead of Ball State in the current BCS by two positions. But they lost twice. Would you really pick them? Can you justify leaving out Ball State when you let in Utah and Boise State? My guess is the money concerns would put Ohio State in, but just for grins let’s go with Ball State for our hypothetical playoff. (This goes to show that there will always be an argument…but isn’t it better to have this argument, instead of a subjective selection of Oklahoma over Texas, or vice versa, into a field of two?).
Note that Oregon State, by beating Oregon, could have claimed an automatic bid, making USC an at-large, and therefore kicking out both Ohio State and Ball State. There’s an example of a regular season game that becomes MORE meaningful under a playoff. Did you really care that much whether Oregon State went to the Rose Bowl or not? Me, neither. But what if that game had been for a shot at the national title, and could have simultaneously ended hopes in two other places? More interesting, don’t you think?
Using the current BCS standings to seed (and flipping Florida and Alabama, on the assumption that Florida will win), we get the following matchups for our playoff:
#12 Boston College at #5 USC; winner plays the following week at #4 Alabama
#11 Cincinnati at # 6 Utah; winner plays the following week at #3 Texas
#10 Ball State at #7 Texas Tech; winner plays the following week at #2 Oklahoma
#9 Boise State at #8 Penn State; winner plays the following week at #1 Florida
There are some legitimate concerns and logistic issues which keep an expanded playoff field from being a no-brainer. But a glance at the above gives a taste of the possibilities that could occur with the right system. Like the Holy Grail, it is a quest worth continued pursuit.
