Frank the Tank's Sensible Solution to the BCS Conundrum
Check out Frank the Tank's sensible solution to the BCS mess. Taking his cue from Jim Delaney's comments at a panel at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum last week where the Big Ten Commish made it clear that the BCS exists to serve the major conferences (and that won't change), FtT gives us his rules that any viable postseason system needs to follow:
- The AQ conferences must make more revenue than today in an absolute sense
- The AQ conferences must maintain their revenue advantages over the non-AQ conferences in a relative sense
- The AQ conferences must maintain their access advantages over the non-AQ conferences
- Don’t f**k with the Rose Bowl anymore
- The BCS bowls [must stay] as elitist toward the non-BCS bowls as the AQ conferences are toward the non-AQ conferences
- The bowl system can’t become completely NIT-ish
Read the article for an extensive discussion of why those rules matter. With those in mind, FtT comes up with this "BCS Final Four" plan:
- Separate semifinal games: Take the top 4 teams in the final BCS rankings and have them play in 2 semifinal games that are separate from the BCS bowls (just as the national championship game is now). This would mean that there would be 2 semifinal games, the national championship game and 4 BCS bowls incorporating 12 total teams in the BCS system every year.
- BCS bowls keep tie-ins: The 4 BCS bowls keep their traditional tie-ins with the same at-large selection rules as today, except that (i) the at-large pool is expanded to the top 18 in the final BCS rankings, (ii) the cap on BCS bids from any single conference is raised from 2 to 3 and (iii) as a political concession, the highest ranked non-AQ school gets an automatic BCS bid no matter what (even if it’s ranked below #12).
- Double-hosting of semifinals and final at BCS bowl sites: The sites of the semifinals and national championship game will rotate among the 4 BCS bowl locations, meaning that each location gets to host 2 semifinal games and 1 national championship game in each 4 year period (resulting in lucrative double-hosting seasons 3 out of every 4 years).
- Semifinal site tie-in preferences: Each semifinal site each season gets a preference in hosting the game that involves one of its traditional conference tie-ins, if applicable. For instance, if New Orleans and Pasadena were to host semifinal games this year, then New Orleans would take the game involving the SEC champ (#1 Auburn vs. #4 Stanford) and Pasadena would get the game featuring the Pac-10 champ (#2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU). The higher ranked team gets priority if both semifinal sites have a claim to the same game.
- Championship Game in Mid-January: The national championship game would be played at least a week (probably 10-14 days) after the semifinal games are completed.
Seems pretty elegant to me and this is the key: it doesn't upset the existing power structure making it plausible. In any given year, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where more than four teams were arguably the number one team in the nation at the end of the year. This proposal discards the unworkable tournament approach, puts more money into the pockets of the bowls and the AQs, increases non-AQ access to the national championship game and provides more opportunities for compelling match ups in the big bowls.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
I like the plus one format, and i like this idea except for #3 for the final four plan. i would like to see the top 2 teams host the semi-final game. This way, it is an advantage for you to win still during the regular season so as not to diminish it, does not take away from any bowl games, and the top 2 teams are rewarded for their accomplishments. Maybe this would start to encourage teams to stop scheduling cupcakes because a semi final game at home late in the middle of winter would be huge for whoever gets it. Also, having a home game is easier for fans, it can be difficult to get a fan base to travel that much especially in december/january. just my 2 cents
December 17th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
The problem that I have with this approach is that in 2008, Utah was ranked 6th going into the bowls. After they demolished Bama, they were ranked 2 and 4 in the AP and Coaches polls.
You either need to include more teams, have undefeated teams automatically qualify, or pick the 4 teams after the bowls.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:26 AM ^
...perfect solution, only workable solutions. What you describe is a tourney and that's not going to happen because the powers that be won't allow it.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Crazy as it may seem, I find myself agreeing with Mark Cuban's proposal and plan to create a playoff.
His plan uses grassroot influence and guaranteed payouts to affect change. He also hits at the heart of the issue: money. His proposal, in essence, bribes and blackmails the schools into a playoff. It might seem shady, but the bowl system payouts and revenue seem to be the major reason that schools don't push the playoff issue any harder.
Everyone, complains about the system and the money, but no one with major financial power has attempted to change the system. So if Cuban wants to tackle this behemoth, I support him. In this case, the ends justify the means, as nothing else has worked.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
I gave 3 options. One starts going toward a tourney, another suggests that teams need to auto-qualify if they are undefeated, and the last just moved the time that you pick your teams back. It's not a workable solution if the Utah's of the world have no shot at the NC.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
But is a 4 team playoff where participants are chosen by voters really any better than a 2 team playoff where participants are chosen by voters?
Personally, with the Big Ten & Pac Ten both adding championship games, I love to see them drop out of the BCS altogether. The new thing that nobody seems to have processed yet is that with those conference championship games in place the winner of the Rose Bowl would have two very impressive late season wins. That is a strong resume and would stack up well against anything that another conference (SEC, ACC, etc.) could present.
I guess that what I'm saying is that when you get right down to it, I would rather have the "mythical" national champion crowned the traditional way via post season votes (AP poll, USA today, etc) than create a new system (or expand a system) where all the participants themselves are determined by vote.
December 17th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
I don't think this is plausible at all. By adding four teams to the BCS you necessitate selecting three teams from a conference. The Big East and the ACC have no reason to support this, since they never even get two under the current system. More money overall in the system probably only really means more money for the Big Ten and the SEC. Combine the Big East, the ACC and all non-BCS schools, who want a more competitive balance, and you have enough NCAA votes not to sanction the new proposal.
Also, I'm of the belief that that the Rose Bowl is a lesser event every year that matches teams other than the Big Ten and Pac 10 champ. This would occur almost every year if you pull the top four teams out of the BCS.
December 17th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
There are a few points to disagree with in Frank's proposal, to be sure. But I can get behind it, if for no other reason than this: Frank's one of the very few people who bother to think about it from the perspective of the people who actually make the decisions about these things. A group in which I snobbily include myself. Most people - and this includes all the assholes in public places like Cuban, Shurtleff, Orrin Hatch, Dan Wetzel (especially Wetzel) and the unwashed masses, all say, "hay you guyz i totally thought of this sweet idea what if we had a playoff that looked like this itd be totally awesome man fuk the BCS!!11!"
This makes Frank one of the few people qualified to put forth a proposal. So good on him. Fundamentally, I have an issue with the idea that four teams = playoff yay, and two teams = computers deciding championship bad. And it wouldn't shut up the whiny Wetzel types. And I'm still not sold on multiple neutral-site games. But it might quiet some people down. And it's a worthy proposal if for no other reason than that Frank looks at the shape of the hole and tries to find a peg that fits, instead of grabbing his favorite peg (I know what you're thinking, shut up) and trying to reshape the hole. I'd much rather debate over whether there's a better-fitting peg, than try and reason with a bunch of two-year-olds that no amount of shoving and crying will make it fit.
December 17th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
I haven't read the article yet (I will), but I did read all of your summary, which was interesting. My first thoughts:
Would the existing bowls make as much money if the top 4 teams get bumped out of the BCS bowls? If you take Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Wisco/Stanford away for the playoff, they get replaced in the BCS games with MSU, LSU, Bama, and Nebraska. Then the lesser bowls that they are playing in lose their big draws, and it keeps on going down the line. I think it ultimately dilutes the importance of the BCS bowls, and they will eventually lose their perceived importance, and therefore the money. When multiple 3-4 loss teams get a bids to BCS games, fans will eventually see they are not such a big deal, as they were historically. The Cotton Bowl and Citrus Bowls have already lost some of the brand equity they once had because they are a clear drop-off from the BCS. When it's not only improbable, but now impossible that the Big Ten-Pac-12 champions will play in the Rose Bowl, what's the point? It's not good.
December 17th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
...would have happened this year and last with FtT's proposal in place:
2010
Semifinal 1: #1 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. #4 Stanford (top 4 auto-qualifier)
Semifinal 2: #2 Oregon (Pac-10 champ) vs. #3 TCU (Non-AQ auto-qualifier)
Rose Bowl: #5 Wisconsin (Big Ten champ) vs. #11 LSU (Pac-10 champ replacement)
Sugar Bowl: #8 Arkansas (SEC champ replacement) vs. #6 Ohio State (at-large selection #1)
Orange Bowl: #13 Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs. #9 Michigan State (at-large selection #2)
Fiesta Bowl: #7 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. Connecticut (Big East champ/at-large selection #3)2009
Semifinal 1: #1 Alabama (SEC champ) vs. #4 TCU (non-AQ auto-qualifier)
Semifinal 2: #2 Texas (Big 12 champ) vs. #3 Cincinnati (Big East champ)
Rose Bowl: #8 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #7 Oregon (Pac-10 champ)
Sugar Bowl: #5 Florida (SEC champ replacement) vs. #13 Penn State (at-large selection #3)
Orange Bowl: #9 Georgia Tech (ACC champ) vs. #12 LSU (at-large selection #2)
Fiesta Bowl: #6 Boise State (Big 12 champ replacement) vs. #10 Iowa (at-large selection #1)
Some compelling games there. Rose Bowl is Big Ten - Pac 10 in 2009, but not in 2010, only because Pac 10 has two reps in the semis. This would likely not be a frequent occurrence.
Cotton Bowl and Capital One Bowl match ups may end up being slightly less compelling, but only because AQ conferences are more likely to have more teams in Semis/BCS bowls. Seems like an ok tradeoff.
December 18th, 2010 at 2:01 AM ^
Frank's exact proposal might be new, but the idea of a very limited playoff has been tossed around before. I like certain aspects of the proposal and it seems like one of the very few ideas that actually have a chance. Unfortunately, Jim Delany and the other Big 6 commissioners appear to be concerned that even a four-team playoff would let the genie out of the bottle and, once out, the genie would be impossible to control:
Similarly, most of the biggest conference commissioners were united in saying that they did not want to pursue a plus-1 format that would add a championship game in college football. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany warned that the plus-1 format would lead to a slippery slope, where conference commissioners would not be able to stop further expansion. “Take a look at regular-season basketball,” he said, adding that the expanded tournament has devalued the regular season. "One leads to four, and four leads to eight. You won't be able to stop it.