My BCS Solution

[SoCalDomer]

Part of the reason determining who plays for the National Championship game and who goes to bowl games is such a mess is the difficulty of comparing two teams who played very different schedules, and almost no teams in common. One team's 10-2 record may seem like more of an accomplishment than another's 11-1 record, given the opponents played, quality of win, etc.

I've previously posted that I think all of the conferences should go with a 10-member, round-robin style of conference play to determine the champion and eliminate the conf championship games. This would help the voters more accurately gauge which teams deserve to play in the title game, and the subsequent bowls.

So here's my solution:

1) NCAA takes over: The NCAA takes over the NC and bowls and administers them as follows:

2) Reorganize the CFB divisions. Instead of 11 conferences, there are only 6 conferences in Div-1: SEC, Pac-10, Big-10, Big-12, Big East, and ACC and some Independent schools.

The MAC, WAC, Mid-America, SunBelt, Conf USA and Mountain West are all renamed Div-2. The current D-1AA is renamed Div-3, and current Div II is renamed Div-4, etc. Everyone is shifted down. I don't really care what the lower divisions do for playoffs or bowls. They can do whatever the marketplace wants to see.

3) Even the Div-1 conferences out: The numbers of teams are reduced to 10, and the number of top teams and mid level teams should be approximately the same. (**With my system, there should not be any "pushovers". Any team that fails to regularly field a competitive team will be moved down, and lower division teams moved up and given a chance to compete in Div-1.)

Every Div-1 team plays 9-conf games, and 3 non-conf games.

This is one possible reconfiguration: ***note, moving a team from one conf to another is only for football. They can maintain their conf affiliiations for any other sport they want.***

Pac-10:
Arizona State (12)
USC (6)
Oregon State
Oregon State
Boise State (24) from WAC
UCLA
California
Arizona
Washington
Fresno State from WAC

**Washington State sent to new Div-2
**Stanford sent to new Div-2

Big Ten Conf:
Ohio State (1)
Tennessee (16) from SEC
Illinois (13)
Michigan
Wisconsin (18)
Penn State
Iowa
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

**Northwestern sent to new Div-2
**Minnesota sent to new Div-2

SEC:
LSU (2)
Florida (9)
Auburn (22)
Arkansas (25)
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi State
Mississippi
Vanderbilt
UCF from Conf USA

**Georgia (4) sent to the Big East
**South Carolina sent to the Big East
** Tennessee sent to the Big-10

Atlantic Coast Conf:
Virginia Tech (5)
Boston College (14)
Clemson (15)
Virginia (21)
Wake Forest
Florida State
Maryland
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Miami (FL)

**Duke sent to new Div-2
**North Carolina State sent to new Div-2

Big East Conf
Georgia (4) from SEC
West Virginia (11)
Connecticut
South Florida (23)
Cincinnati (20)
South Carolina from SEC
Rutgers
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Syracuse

Big 12 Conf
Oklahoma (3)
Kansas (8)
Missouri (7)
Texas (17)
Colorado
Kansas State
Nebraska
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma State

**Iowa State sent to new Div-2
**Baylor sent to new Div-2

Independents:
Hawaii (10) from WAC
Navy
Notre Dame
Airforce
Utah
BYU
(The Independents do not need to play eachother for "conf" games. They must schedule a minimum 9-games against other Div-1 conf members, and may play up to 3-games againts other Independents.)

4) No cross-division non-conf games: Div-1 teams may only play Div-1 teams for non-conf games. (Div-2, 3 and 4 can do whatever they want.)

5) Moving up and moving down: Teams that fail to be competitive year after year may be moved down a Division, and teams that dominate in lower divisions may move up. This is why I moved some teams into Div-1 conferences and moved some teams down to Div-2 conferences. An NCAA committee would decide who moves up and down.

6) The Bowls and NC: One of three options that the NCAA can decide on:

Option a) The two highest ranked teams (must have won their conf) play in the NC game. The remaining 4 conf winners, the top Independent team and one "wild card" (highest ranked team that did not win it's conference) play in 3 major bowls. Minor bowls are welcome to invite any two teams who finished the season with a winning record (7-5).

OR

Option b) The six winners of each conf, the highest ranked Independent, and a "wild card" team (highest ranked team that did not win it's conference) will play an 8-team bracket playoff (the playoff games are bowl games, at neutral sites, and no team may play in a bowl within 300 miles of its campus), the winner of the final game to be declared the NC. Minor bowls are welcome to invite any two Div-1 teams who finished the season with a winning record (7-5), and did not play in the playoff.

OR

Option c) Scrap the whole playoff/BCS system and go back to pre-BCS days.

A couple of things I am aware of:
1) The smaller conferences may object to moving down and not getting the big payday of playing a big, Div-1 school. Oh well. There's just no point in having Alabama play Louisiana-Monroe, even if they upset them. If a lower division team is dominating its division, they will be invited up with the chance to go to big payday bowls and share the money from the big conferences. My system provides the opportunity for lower Div teams to move up and Div-1 teams to move down if they aren't being competitive.
2) I know some teams would object to changing conferences and losing big rivalries like Tennessee vs. Alabama. (There's nothing that stops them from playing as non-conf opponents). But I think teams like Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee can see if they move into a weaker conference, for a few years they will have the chance to completely dominate.
3) I know this will never happen. Just a pipe dream.
4) I know I have too much time on my hands.

Have at it.

(Please please please do not quote my entire post if you reply. Just quote the specific portion you wish to address.)

 

[The Polish Irishman]

How about we just use a playoff system like every other sport

 

[johnnd05]

Sounds too statist to me. You also have to keep the schools' financial welfare in mind. And I think a playoff means too much time taken away from studies (or family).

What's the big deal with not having an uncontroversial national champion each year? Why can't we just go back to the old system?

 

[SoCalDomer]

How about we just use a playoff system like every other sport

we can do that, it's one of the options.

But I still see a problem of deciding who goes to the playoff. Why should X-state University who went 11-1 get to go to a playoff when they played a bunch of patsies while another school lost 2 more games but played top teams?

I think evening out the conferences ensures that top teams will win their conferences and ensure the teams with 10-2 records are actually deserving of a chance to play for all the marbles.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Sounds too statist to me. You also have to keep the schools' financial welfare in mind. And I think a playoff means too much time taken away from studies (or family).

What's the big deal with not having an uncontroversial national champion each year? Why can't we just go back to the old system?

I'm not sure what you mean by financial welfare of the schools.

All schools already play 12 games. The 12 member conferences already play 12 games, plus a title game, plus a bowl game (13-14). Many schools play 12 games plus a bowl game (13). My system would have each team playing 12 reg season games, and some would play a possible bowl game. Only those teams who go to the bowl or play in the playoff would play 13 or more.

Only four teams would play 14 games and only two teams could play 15 games. So for two teams that's only 1 more game than they could play right now. LSU, for example, will play 14 games this year.

I don't mind just having the NC being voted as it was prior to the BCS series. You could scrap that part of my system and I think all the other stuff would make Div-1 more competitive and more interesting in the reg season. And the bowls could invite whoever they want to come play.

 

[NDSMC78]

3) Even the Div-1 conferences out: The numbers of teams are reduced to 10, and the number of top teams and mid level teams should be approximately the same. (**With my system, there should not be any "pushovers". Any team that fails to regularly field a competitive team will be moved down, and lower division teams moved up and given a chance to compete in Div-1.)

Every Div-1 team plays 9-conf games, and 3 non-conf games.

This is what the new conferences look like: (note, you can rename the Big-12 if you want, to whatever you want)

Pac-10:
Arizona State (12)
USC (6)
Oregon State
Oregon State
Boise State (24) from WAC
UCLA
California
Arizona
Washington
Fresno State from WAC

**Washington State sent to new Div-2
**Stanford sent to new Div-2

Big Ten Conf:
Ohio State (1)
Tennessee (16) from SEC
Illinois (13)
Michigan
Wisconsin (18)
Penn State
Iowa
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

**Northwestern sent to new Div-2
**Minnesota sent to new Div-2

SEC:
LSU (2)
Florida (9)
Auburn (22)
Arkansas (25)
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi State
Mississippi
Vanderbilt
UCF from Conf USA

**Georgia (4) sent to the Big East
**South Carolina sent to the Big East
** Tennessee sent to the Big-10

Atlantic Coast Conf:
Virginia Tech (5)
Boston College (14)
Clemson (15)
Virginia (21)
Wake Forest
Florida State
Maryland
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Miami (FL)

**Duke sent to new Div-2
**North Carolina State sent to new Div-2

Big East Conf
Georgia (4) from SEC
West Virginia (11)
Connecticut
South Florida (23)
Cincinnati (20)
South Carolina from SEC
Rutgers
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Syracuse

Big 12 Conf
Oklahoma (3)
Kansas (8)
Missouri (7)
Texas (17)
Colorado
Kansas State
Nebraska
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma State

**Iowa State sent to new Div-2
**Baylor sent to new Div-2

Independents:
Hawaii (10) from WAC
Navy
Notre Dame
Airforce
Utah
BYU
(The Independents do not need to play eachother for "conf" games. They must schedule a minimum 9-games against other Div-1 conf members, and may play up to 3-games againts other Independents.)

I don't agree with your premise at all, but putting that aside, your proposal to force teams in and out of conferences just is a bad one. Tennessee in the Big 10? Georgia and South Carolina in the Big East? Forcing teams to drop to Division 2? No way.

 

[SoCalDomer]

I don't agree with your premise at all, but putting that aside, your proposal to force teams in and out of conferences just is a bad one. Tennessee in the Big 10? Georgia and South Carolina in the Big East? Forcing teams to drop to Division 2? No way.

Well you could even the conferences out a different way. I'm not stuck on those re-ogranizations.

But, I don't understand how you can disagree with my premise that the major conferences aren't even. The Big East, ACC, Big-10 is just as tough top to bottom as the SEC, Pac-10 or Big-12? Don't forget to factor in the non-conf games the Big-10 likes to play. There are top teams in each conf, but the conferences definitely aren't even.

The other reason for evening out the conferences is to allow the round-robin style. If the SEC dropped Vanderbilt and Mississippi, that conf would be top heavy if we went to round-robin conference play. That is why you have to move the top teams out of some conferences and into weaker conferences.

An alternative could be forcing teams to play certain number of good teams, but that just gets trickier

 

[goldandblue]

Sorry SoCal, You put alot of work into the thought but not a good idea.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Boise St and Hawaii need to do something. Their 10 win seasons are meaningless.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Boise St and Hawaii need to do something. Their 10 win seasons are meaningless.

Right. And if they don't compete, down they go. But you can't fault them at this point for not beating the top teams if the top teams won't schedule them.

And a victory over Oklahoma isn't really meaningless. It doesn't mean they should have gone to the NC. But it tells me they are deserving of the chance to play in what is currently a BCS conf.

And lastly, the "why not" argument. Duke, Baylor, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Stanford aren't exactly meaningful competitors. Why do they get Div-1, top conference shares of what the real teams bring in? They don't bring any kind of excitement to D-1 football.

 

[NDSMC78]

And lastly, the "why not" argument. Duke, Baylor, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Stanford aren't exactly meaningful competitors. Why do they get Div-1, top conference shares of what the real teams bring in? They don't bring any kind of excitement to D-1 football.

But these schools are members of their conferences for all sports, not just football. Stanford has a damn good overall program, and has won the last umpteen Sears Directors cups in a row. Minnesota typically has a good baseball program and a good basketball program. And Duke, I seem to recall that they play some pretty good basketball down there. I don't think that the ACC would like to see Duke leave.

 

[SoCalDomer]

But these schools are members of their conferences for all sports, not just football. Stanford has a damn good overall program, and has won the last umpteen Sears Directors cups in a row. Minnesota typically has a good baseball program and a good basketball program. And Duke, I seem to recall that they play some pretty good basketball down there. I don't think that the ACC would like to see Duke leave.

Ah. I didn't mean that I would move the schools from the conferences for all purposes. Just footbal. It can be done. we play in conferences for most all our sports and are independent for football. Moving a team to a new conference would be for football purposes only. I will make the correction.

My thread is only intended to deal with CFB

 

[NDSMC78]

Ah. I didn't mean that I would move the schools from the conferences for all purposes. Just footbal. It can be done. we play in conferences for most all our sports and are independent for football. Moving a team to a new conference would be for football purposes only. I will make the correction.

My thread is only intended to deal with CFB

Then you are creating a different problem. In football, Cal's big rivalry game is Stanford. Illinois's big rivalry game is Northwestern. UNC's big rivalry game is Duke. Wisconsin's big rivalry game is Minnesota. So if you kick these schools out, even if only for football (which the conferences would never agree to), you are ending some of these big rivalry games. Not going to happen.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Then you are creating a different problem. In football, Cal's big rivalry game is Stanford. Illinois's big rivalry game is Northwestern. UNC's big rivalry game is Duke. Wisconsin's big rivalry game is Minnesota. So if you kick these schools out, even if only for football (which the conferences would never agree to), you are ending some of these big rivalry games. Not going to happen.

The last part I know, that's why i said:

3) I know this will never happen. Just a pipe dream.

The rivalry thing is probably the last reason why conferences/teams won't do this. But let's look at it anyway.

Stanford v. Cal, Illinois v. Northwestern, UNC v. Duke. whoopity do. (not to you, to these teams) These rivalries may mean something to the alumni and locals, but they mean absolutely nothing to CFB as a whole and to solve the problem of determining a worthy National Champion. In trying to determine the true champion, some teams' desires get stepped on regardless of the type system in place. No system can solve every problem or appease every team.

These conferences can't have their cake and eat it to. One the one hand, they want to have only deserving teams go to the NC and major bowls. On the other hand, they want to keep these meaningless games that do nothing to prove how good a team is. VT vs Duke and Texas v Baylor does nothing to tell us how good either team is.

If these teams want to get together and play these traditional rivalries, my sytem allows them to do so as non-conf games. For teams that are demoted to Div-2, it's because one team is so terrible they have no business playing in Div-1 football, Minnesota, Northwestern, Baylor and Duke are good examples. These teams regularly go 0 and whatever.

But even a team that is moved down could have someone sponsor a non-sanctioned bowl or schedule a pre-season game and play their traditional rival.

 

[NDSMC78]

Stanford v. Cal, Illinois v. Northwestern, UNC V. Duke. whoopity do. (not to you, to these teams) These rivalries may mean something to the alumni and locals, but they mean absolutely nothing to CFB as a whole and to solve the problem of determining a worthy National Champion. In trying to determine the true champion, some teams' desires get stepped on regardless of the type system in place. No system can solve every problem or appease every team.

Yeah, these games do mean a lot to the teams and their fans. If I am not mistaken, the Wisconsin/Minnesota game has been played more times than any other division 1 rivalry. These games date back to the 1800's, long before anyone was concerned with a national champion. I think you would be surprised at how intense some of these rivalries are.
To your suggestion that these games mean nothing to CFB as a whole and solving the problem of determining a NC, I don't think we have a problem in that regard. And I sure don't want to toss a lot of these historical rivalries in the trash, just so we can have a cleaner championship.

 

[SoCalDomer]

that's what she said.


(not directed at anyone, I just decided I'm going to reply to everything with cliche one-liners)

 

[SoCalDomer]

Yeah, these games do mean a lot to the teams and their fans. If I am not mistaken, the Wisconsin/Minnesota game has been played more times than any other division 1 rivalry. These games date back to the 1800's, long before anyone was concerned with a national champion. I think you would be surprised at how intense some of these rivalries are.
To your suggestion that these games mean nothing to CFB as a whole and solving the problem of determining a NC, I don't think we have a problem in that regard. And I sure don't want to toss a lot of these historical rivalries in the trash, just so we can have a cleaner championship.

I can appreciate those rivalries, just like I appreciate ND v. Navy.

But the reason i started this whole thread is because teams talk out of both sides of their mouth. They want things the way they were, but they also don't like the result. Teams who play patsy schedules wonder why they're left out of the big games, but they hold tightly to the rivalry games because of local appeal and tradition.

I don't mind if teams hold on to tradition. But then someone should slap them (the teams or conferences) for complaining about the BCS. I do think it's an either or.

I also think the teams/conferences should take their medicine: they were the ones who agreed to the BCS out of self-interest. The fact it bit them in the buttocks this year is tough nouggies.

before I forget, reps for good discussion

 

[Domendomer]

Saying someone else is more qualified because of their credentials commits the falacy of appeal to authority

 

[SoCalDomer]

I see from the history of posts that DomenDomer appears to be Wham (or someone who had a beef with HCTI), but any idea why he posted this last post?

I believe that was something I wrote in a prior thread about politics, specifically about socialism vs. communism. But no one was trying to use credentials to make their argument here more valid. The arguments against my post were internally cogent (meaning not fallacious), even if I didn't agree with their persuasiveness.

 

[ACamp1900]

How about we just use a playoff system like every other sport

becuase that would suck... obviously

 

[johnnd05]

I'm not sure what you mean by financial welfare of the schools.

All schools already play 12 games. The 12 member conferences already play 12 games, plus a title game, plus a bowl game (13-14). Many schools play 12 games plus a bowl game (13). My system would have each team playing 12 reg season games, and some would play a possible bowl game. Only those teams who go to the bowl or play in the playoff would play 13 or more.

Only four teams would play 14 games and only two teams could play 15 games. So for two teams that's only 1 more game than they could play right now. LSU, for example, will play 14 games this year.

I think 14-15 games is WAY too many, even if it's for just a few schools. When would they be? Either during finals, or Christmas break, or at the start of a new semester ... having football cut that heavily into two different terms strikes me as unwise. The only way to have a playoff would be to cut the reg. season down to 10 games, which takes money away from the schools that don't get into the BCS.

 

[ColonialHead]

The Big East, ACC, Big-10 is just as tough top to bottom as the SEC, Pac-10 or Big-12?

You think the Big East is as tough from top to bottom as the SEC?

 

[SoCalDomer]

I think 14-15 games is WAY too many, even if it's for just a few schools. When would they be? Either during finals, or Christmas break, or at the start of a new semester ... having football cut that heavily into two different terms strikes me as unwise. The only way to have a playoff would be to cut the reg. season down to 10 games, which takes money away from the schools that don't get into the BCS.

I disagree it would be much more difficult that it is right now, but forget that part, it's on the cuting room floor.

 

[SoCalDomer]

You think the Big East is as tough from top to bottom as the SEC?

No, i was responding to a poster who seemed to disagree with my premise that the conferences need to be evened out. I don't believe the conferences are even. I believe the 3 former conferences are the weaker ones, while the 3 latter ones are the stronger conferences.

 

[ColonialHead]

oh I see... my bad.

 

[SoCalDomer]

This is an interesting blog on the strength of schedule for those going Bowl-ing. I don't particularly like most methods of calculating strenght of schedule (wins vs losses of opponents), but it is the only mathematical measure we have to compare.

Her Loyal Sons » Those Who Dare?

I think this is a major reason why the bowl and championship system will never be fixed. Only 4 teams going to bowls this year played what is considered a top 25 schedule.

Only two teams were in the top 25 and are playing in a BCS bowl.

The moral of the story: 1) win all your games, 2) don't play tough opponents, and 3) hope others don't do #1, and do do #2

 

[MeanGreen]

I agree with part of this. The conferences need to go back to a max of 10. Scheduling needs fixed. Do we really want the day to come when ND play App St? Since they all want a conference championship game require there to be 8 conference games. During the conference championship games the Independents would schedule games against one another. This way no one has too much time off. I suggest the NCAA form a committee and rank teams over the past 10 years. The criteria should be won/loss record, Diff. of Schedule., Grad. Rates, and violations. Teams the rank in the top 50 would qualify for the 3 non-conference games. Schedules need to be split evenly 6 home 6 away. No more scheduling 5 years down the road. Schedules are made every two years, with the rank list being revised every two years.
The next part will be the most difficult. The polling system needs to be changed. Frankly, we need to take the writers and coaches out this. I suggest the SID's get involved. Create regions I suggest 6, NE, SE, NW, SW, North MW, and South MW. The SID's would rotate on a weekly basis watching games in each region. Every Sunday they will conference all or do a video conference and rank the teams. One poll comes out every Monday or Tuesday. They would have the ability to see almost every team and therefore at the end of the year provide a ranking that would be valid. The computers would entire the equation by ranking the teams based purely on their numbers. I would not have margin of victory has a criteria in the program, but would opponents ranking to create the computer ranking for the teams.
Since the bowls and their sponsors will want to be a major part of the process the top 8 teams square off in some mid-size bowl games (gator, independence, etc) in the first round scheduled around Christmas. The next set on New Years day would be the 4 big bowls. Then finally two weeks later the NC game. The other bowls can still happen and pick who they want and schedule their games between Dec 1 and the first round of bowl games.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Youve got some good ideas and point out some of the major flaws (like having the coaches vote).

Someone else, I think it was Her Loyal Sons, also did a blog measuring which coaches voted for which teams. Coaches tended to favor their own conferences, etc., etc. It was terribly biased. (the voting, not the blog)

 

[chadder20]

Dude,

You need another hobby to get rid of all that wasted space in your head......... How long did it take you to come up with this let alone type it all out...........WOW

 

[go_irish63]

I like your idea for chageing the BCS, but it is way to complicated. a lot of people would not like there team being moved into another conference(but i think that need to be done), or being down graded to div 2. what i think they should do is have a ten game reg season, no conference play championship game and have the conference champ determined like the pac-10 and big 10, them you take the top 8 teams based off the same way the BCS poll works right now and bracket style playoff. and for the people who think that a playoff will take time away from studies or anything like that then i hope that they also dont like the NCAA basketball tourn as well.