BCS or Playoffs?
WARNING: This post will only interest those who follow College Football! However, this would be good to read for those of you who DO follow CFB but are not familiar with or don't read Phil Steele's College Football Preview. Read at your own risk!
So I was reading a copy of 'Phil Steele's College Football Preview 2007,' and he makes a VERY convincing argument for a 4 TEAM PLAYOFF SYSTEM. I have mostly just put bits and pieces of the more important points of his very lengthy article in this, but I think he says it best. This is by far the best method for deciding the National Champ I have heard yet.
WHY IT WOULD WORK:
"Here is my plan to determine the National Champ, and actually it is very close to what we have now. It should be feasible in the foreseeable future and I feel it would establish a true National Champ. This is the 8th staight year I have called for it in my magazine. To determine the National Champ, I feel that they should continue with the BCS rankings but include the Top FOUR teams in the BCS chase. The two semifinal games would be played on Jan 1 and rotate as the bowls do now between the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta. The Top 4 teams in the country, according to the BCS, would be invited. If you look at the last 10 years, this would have included No. 3 Ohio St in 1998, No. 3 Nebraska in 1999, BOTH Oregon and Colorado in 2001, #1 USC in 2003 AND undefeated SEC Champ Auburn in 2004 and Michigan in 2006. In this scenario, the teams decide who is the National Champ on the field. No. 1 would face No. 4 and No. 2 would face No. 3 in the January 1 bowls. After the first round matchups, the Championship Game could be played during the bye week before the Super Bowl. This would allow the teams plenty of time for preparation and for fans to make travel arrangements, given the three to four week span. It also gives football fans something to look forward to during the week that the NFL is off. It would also prevent a team like Ohio St from playing in a national title game after not having played for 51 days which affected their performance...The other bowls would remain intact and would be a reward for teams after a solid season."
4-TEAM PLAYOFF & BOWLS SYSTEM VS. 8- OR 16-TEAM PLAYOFF:
"...I feel that the best team in the country did not win the National Title in at least three of the last ten years. The Title game foes were controversial in 8 of the 10 years with two split National Titles the last 10 years. I really think that a BCS conference team that suffers just one tough loss, but is dominating in every other game vs a decent schedule, deserves a shot at the National Title game (unless there are two unbeaten teams left). I see a lot of proposals for 8 and 16 team matchups but I feel that is going too far. As I previously pointed out, there is no reason to include teams with numerous losses as if they were true National Championship contenders. If they were, they would have taken care of business during the regular season. I also think, that by including teams with 2 or 3 losses in the National Championship picture, you dilute the greatness of college football during the regular season. There ARE many games with National Championship implications during the regular season. As an example, when Miami, FL and Florida St face off every year, normally one is eliminated from the championship race and the other is still alive. Why not let those games keep their "playoff-like" atmosphere, thus preserving their importance? If you expand the field to 16, you allow teams to be able to lose games like that and still look forward to the post season and a shot at winning the Title. It would take a GREAT end of the season matchup like Ohio St and Michigan (#1 vs #2 in '06) and make it less relevant. Instead of it being an all important destiny changing game if both teams are in the Top 10, they would probably make the 16 game playoff whether they win or lose to each other. I do not want to dilute college football during the regular season and feel that only a select few who meet the challenges of the regular season deserve to be in the Title chase. I feel college football regular season games are the most important games of any sport due to their impact on the Title chase.
"The [4-team] playoff is the only plan to make the situation perfect, as an 8 or 16 team playoff would not solve anything. It would destroy the bowls and make the regular season meaningless. I am a traditionalist when it comes to college football. I love the rivalries and the tradition of the bowls. During the holidays, I am a bowl junkie and I find each bowl to be interesting. I feel that bowls provide teams with a reward for a successful season, both financially, as well as for recruitment purposes and should be kept intact."
AND FINALLY, HERE'S HOW THE CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHUPS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS MIGHT HAVE LOOKED HAD THIS SYSTEM BEEN IMPLEMENTED INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM:
1997
#1 Nebraska (12-0) vs #4 N Carolina (10-1)
#2 Michigan (11-0) vs #3 Florida St (10-1)
#5 UCLA (two losses during regular season did not deserve to be in).
Title Game: Nebraska vs Michigan (instead of split Champions)
1998
#Tennessee (12-0) vs #4 Kansas St (11-1)
#2 Florida St (11-1) vs #3 Ohio St (10-1)
#5 Arizona (11-1) & #6 UCLA (10-1) had solid results but played in the weak Pac 10.
Title Game: Ohio St vs Tennessee (instead of an undeserving Florida St)
1999
#1 Florida St (11-0) vs #4 Wisconsin (9-2)
#2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs #3 Nebraska (11-1)
#5 Michigan had two losses.
Title Game: Nebraska vs Florida St ("the top two teams in reality")
2000
#1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs #4 Washington (10-1)
#2 Florida St (11-1) vs #3 Miami, FL (10-1)
While Oregon St and Virginia Tech each had just one loss they combined to beat ONE Top 25 team all year.
2001
#1 Miami, FL (11-0) vs #4 Oregon (10-1)
#2 Nebraska (11-1) vs #3 Colorado (10-2)
#5 Texas lost to #4 Colorado in Big 12 Title game
2002
#1 Miami, FL (12-0) vs #4 Georgia (11-1)
#2 Ohio St (13-0) vs #3 Iowa (11-1)
#5 USC and #6 Kansas St both had two losses.
Title Game: Miami vs Ohio St (which "still would have happened but 2 or 3 weeks into Jan.")
2003
#1 USC (11-1) vs #4 Michigan (10-2)
#2 Oklahoma (12-1) vs #3 LSU (12-1)
The #5 and #6 seed not worthy - only Top 3 NEEDED to be in.
Title Game: USC vs LSU (the matchup that never happened)
2004
#1 USC (11-0) vs #4 Utah (11-0)
#2 Oklahoma (11-0) vs #3 Auburn (11-0)
The #5 and #6 seed not worthy (although Boise went undefeated, had a weak schedule and lost bowl game) - only Top 3 NEEDED to be in
Title Game: USC vs Auburn (Also the matchup that never happened)
2005
#1 USC vs #4 Ohio St
#2 Texas vs #3 Penn St
#5 Oregon with backup QB's not worthy and only Top 2 really NEEDED to be in
2006
#1 Ohio St vs #4 LSU
#2 Florida vs #3 Michigan
#5 USC lost to UCLA in their final game or would have been #2
Once again, ALL my facts came from the 'Phil Steele's College Football Preview 2007,' which is very excellent...his rankings have been dubbed the most accurate out of all the CFB preview magazines for the past 8 years.
So I was reading a copy of 'Phil Steele's College Football Preview 2007,' and he makes a VERY convincing argument for a 4 TEAM PLAYOFF SYSTEM. I have mostly just put bits and pieces of the more important points of his very lengthy article in this, but I think he says it best. This is by far the best method for deciding the National Champ I have heard yet.
WHY IT WOULD WORK:
"Here is my plan to determine the National Champ, and actually it is very close to what we have now. It should be feasible in the foreseeable future and I feel it would establish a true National Champ. This is the 8th staight year I have called for it in my magazine. To determine the National Champ, I feel that they should continue with the BCS rankings but include the Top FOUR teams in the BCS chase. The two semifinal games would be played on Jan 1 and rotate as the bowls do now between the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta. The Top 4 teams in the country, according to the BCS, would be invited. If you look at the last 10 years, this would have included No. 3 Ohio St in 1998, No. 3 Nebraska in 1999, BOTH Oregon and Colorado in 2001, #1 USC in 2003 AND undefeated SEC Champ Auburn in 2004 and Michigan in 2006. In this scenario, the teams decide who is the National Champ on the field. No. 1 would face No. 4 and No. 2 would face No. 3 in the January 1 bowls. After the first round matchups, the Championship Game could be played during the bye week before the Super Bowl. This would allow the teams plenty of time for preparation and for fans to make travel arrangements, given the three to four week span. It also gives football fans something to look forward to during the week that the NFL is off. It would also prevent a team like Ohio St from playing in a national title game after not having played for 51 days which affected their performance...The other bowls would remain intact and would be a reward for teams after a solid season."
4-TEAM PLAYOFF & BOWLS SYSTEM VS. 8- OR 16-TEAM PLAYOFF:
"...I feel that the best team in the country did not win the National Title in at least three of the last ten years. The Title game foes were controversial in 8 of the 10 years with two split National Titles the last 10 years. I really think that a BCS conference team that suffers just one tough loss, but is dominating in every other game vs a decent schedule, deserves a shot at the National Title game (unless there are two unbeaten teams left). I see a lot of proposals for 8 and 16 team matchups but I feel that is going too far. As I previously pointed out, there is no reason to include teams with numerous losses as if they were true National Championship contenders. If they were, they would have taken care of business during the regular season. I also think, that by including teams with 2 or 3 losses in the National Championship picture, you dilute the greatness of college football during the regular season. There ARE many games with National Championship implications during the regular season. As an example, when Miami, FL and Florida St face off every year, normally one is eliminated from the championship race and the other is still alive. Why not let those games keep their "playoff-like" atmosphere, thus preserving their importance? If you expand the field to 16, you allow teams to be able to lose games like that and still look forward to the post season and a shot at winning the Title. It would take a GREAT end of the season matchup like Ohio St and Michigan (#1 vs #2 in '06) and make it less relevant. Instead of it being an all important destiny changing game if both teams are in the Top 10, they would probably make the 16 game playoff whether they win or lose to each other. I do not want to dilute college football during the regular season and feel that only a select few who meet the challenges of the regular season deserve to be in the Title chase. I feel college football regular season games are the most important games of any sport due to their impact on the Title chase.
"The [4-team] playoff is the only plan to make the situation perfect, as an 8 or 16 team playoff would not solve anything. It would destroy the bowls and make the regular season meaningless. I am a traditionalist when it comes to college football. I love the rivalries and the tradition of the bowls. During the holidays, I am a bowl junkie and I find each bowl to be interesting. I feel that bowls provide teams with a reward for a successful season, both financially, as well as for recruitment purposes and should be kept intact."
AND FINALLY, HERE'S HOW THE CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHUPS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS MIGHT HAVE LOOKED HAD THIS SYSTEM BEEN IMPLEMENTED INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM:
1997
#1 Nebraska (12-0) vs #4 N Carolina (10-1)
#2 Michigan (11-0) vs #3 Florida St (10-1)
#5 UCLA (two losses during regular season did not deserve to be in).
Title Game: Nebraska vs Michigan (instead of split Champions)
1998
#Tennessee (12-0) vs #4 Kansas St (11-1)
#2 Florida St (11-1) vs #3 Ohio St (10-1)
#5 Arizona (11-1) & #6 UCLA (10-1) had solid results but played in the weak Pac 10.
Title Game: Ohio St vs Tennessee (instead of an undeserving Florida St)
1999
#1 Florida St (11-0) vs #4 Wisconsin (9-2)
#2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs #3 Nebraska (11-1)
#5 Michigan had two losses.
Title Game: Nebraska vs Florida St ("the top two teams in reality")
2000
#1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs #4 Washington (10-1)
#2 Florida St (11-1) vs #3 Miami, FL (10-1)
While Oregon St and Virginia Tech each had just one loss they combined to beat ONE Top 25 team all year.
2001
#1 Miami, FL (11-0) vs #4 Oregon (10-1)
#2 Nebraska (11-1) vs #3 Colorado (10-2)
#5 Texas lost to #4 Colorado in Big 12 Title game
2002
#1 Miami, FL (12-0) vs #4 Georgia (11-1)
#2 Ohio St (13-0) vs #3 Iowa (11-1)
#5 USC and #6 Kansas St both had two losses.
Title Game: Miami vs Ohio St (which "still would have happened but 2 or 3 weeks into Jan.")
2003
#1 USC (11-1) vs #4 Michigan (10-2)
#2 Oklahoma (12-1) vs #3 LSU (12-1)
The #5 and #6 seed not worthy - only Top 3 NEEDED to be in.
Title Game: USC vs LSU (the matchup that never happened)
2004
#1 USC (11-0) vs #4 Utah (11-0)
#2 Oklahoma (11-0) vs #3 Auburn (11-0)
The #5 and #6 seed not worthy (although Boise went undefeated, had a weak schedule and lost bowl game) - only Top 3 NEEDED to be in
Title Game: USC vs Auburn (Also the matchup that never happened)
2005
#1 USC vs #4 Ohio St
#2 Texas vs #3 Penn St
#5 Oregon with backup QB's not worthy and only Top 2 really NEEDED to be in
2006
#1 Ohio St vs #4 LSU
#2 Florida vs #3 Michigan
#5 USC lost to UCLA in their final game or would have been #2
Once again, ALL my facts came from the 'Phil Steele's College Football Preview 2007,' which is very excellent...his rankings have been dubbed the most accurate out of all the CFB preview magazines for the past 8 years.