We are one month away from the start of another college football season, and quite frankly I can't wait. The first game is between my South Carolina Gamecocks and the UNC Tar Heels on August 29, which will kick off a year filled with the intriguing story lines of Johnny Football, Teddy Bridgewater, Alabama trying to win their 3rd straight national championship (and 4th in 5 years) and the yearly "Is this the year someone else besides the SEC wins a national championship?" - which, of course, the answer is NO.
But that's the kind of stuff that everyone else is writing about. Not here.
This year is the last year (thankfully) of the BCS as we have known it since its inception in 1998 before major college football switches to the "plus-1" format, meaning there is a 4 team playoff to decide the national champion.
Which means there will be so many "what-if" scenarios discussed on television networks and various articles written about it, all of which will inevitable praise the "plus-1" system and express their anxiousness awaiting its arrival. It will fix college football!
And then there will be people writing and discussing how an 8-team playoff will be better than a 4-team playoff because it would allow for a true champion to emerge and not rely as much on the rankings - but a 16-team playoff would be allowing way too many teams in, because you still want to preserve the BCS' shoddy defense of "it makes every game in the regular season matter!"
FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision - formerly known as Division 1-A or as you probably know it, just regular college football) football is broken. We know this, which is why the playoff formatting is coming into place. But it won't fix it.
The way to make college football the best it can be, for everyone involved with the sport - players, fans, schools, conferences, coaches, sponsors, the NCAA - is to have a 32-team playoff. College basketball style.
What is the most glaring problem in college football today? The gap between the big conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12) and the rest of the field. This giant gap is in place because of one simple reason - money. The Big 5 (formerly the Big 6 until the Big East, now the American Athletic Conference, essentially folded) have a ton of it, and the smaller conferences don't. Now, this is in large part due to the size of the universities and booster funding, but a good chunk of it is due to the BCS as well.
The BCS was a top-heavy system favoring powerhouses from the big conferences - of the 8 spots for the original 4 BCS bowls - 6 were given to the Big 6 conference champions, with two for at-large teams, which usually came from those power conferences as well, since they had the higher ranked teams. Then it added another game to the mix, which added two more at-large spots and the BCS inserted guidelines in order to help non-Big 6 schools make a BCS game (for example, if a non-Big 6 team finished in the top 16 of the BCS standings, they are guaranteed a spot in a BCS game).
Why is playing in a BCS game so important? Those are the big money makers for the conferences which translate back to the teams - and teams that make the BCS bowl get to keep a little more. To give you some numbers, the BCS makes about $150 million in revenue each year and they give around 81% of that money to the Big 6 schools with only 19% going to the smaller conferences - at least according to BCS executive Bill Hancock.
But from 2006-2009, the Big 6 conferences received $492 million from the BCS with the smaller conferences getting only $62 million - a 87%-13% split. This money goes back to the schools which they use to increase their recruiting budget, upgrade facilities, etc., to make their school more attractive to football recruits. It is also worth noting that the Big 6 conferences have more regular bowl tie-ins than the smaller conferences do, meaning 10 SEC teams may go to bowl games while only 3 Sun Belt teams may get to, further contributing to the money discrepancy.
The more money you have, the more you can put into your football team. And the more you put in, the better your team will be. The better you are, the better chance you have of going back to a BCS bowl. It's a cycle that feeds and compounds off of itself, creating even more disadvantage to smaller conference schools over time to where they just can't compete.
And that's not to say there should be an equal playing field - it's good for the sport to have the Alabama's and LSU's of the world, but it's also necessary to have the Boise State's and TCU's of the world as well.
One thing that critics of tournaments say - especially fans of the BCS and those opposed to a college football playoff - is that the best team doesn't always win. The one thing that tournaments do, however, is make you earn everything you get. No one says Butler basketball team wasn't very good the two years they almost won a national championship. Why? Because they proved they were good by beating people thought were better. Did Notre Dame deserve to be playing for the national championship last year? Maybe, but they proved they were not the second best team in college football, and probably wouldn't have won enough games in a playoff to get there. And think about all the teams that were great for a season but didn't get a chance to play for what everyone should be playing for - the 2006 Boise State and 2008 Utah teams were the only undefeated teams in college football those years, yet didn't get to play for a championship; in 2009 when there were 5 undefeated teams, yet only 2 got to play for the ultimate prize; or in 2004 when Auburn went undefeated and didn't get to the title game even though they didn't lose AND played in the SEC. Teams like these are why an extended playoff needs to be put in place - to let teams prove they're champions and eliminate the "what-ifs".
But how would you make a tournament like this happen?
The other 22 spots can be filled in by using BCS rankings - we all agreed that the BCS system was flawed, but it was one of the most objective way to rank teams. Plus, it's either that or a selection committee like in basketball, and they tend to leave us with more head scratching picks. You'd simply use the rankings, take the top 32 teams (already seeded by where they rank in the poll), and if one of the automatic qualifiers finished outside the top 32, then you'd take the top 31 and so on. Simple.
The bracket would be broken into four 8-team regions based on the BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar regions), and teams would play one game every week, as they do during the regular season, with the highest seeded team playing host for the first two rounds. The regional final would be held at the site of the BCS bowl, ensuring these bowl games that have been the biggest and have the most history in college football are still included on a major basis. Then you have the final four and the championship game that can go to the highest bidding city/stadium, rotating around like the Final Four does in basketball.
Now, you might be saying 32 teams is too much, the players would play in too many games and risk injury, that's too much travel, sponsors won't like it, and whatever else you might think. But that's just not true.
The biggest reason why it would work is simply because it would make more money. Right now there are 34 bowl games, and even the biggest college football fan really only cares about 10, which has created low TV ratings and even lower attendance. This system would have 31 meaningful games that even the most casual of college football fans would enjoy watching, causing TV ratings to increase significantly. The current TV contract ESPN has with the BCS was for $500 million for 4 years, and they recently re-upped with the new "plus-1" formatting in a 12-year deal that they paid $6-$7.2 billion for.
Big money right?
But you know what makes twice as much? The NCAA Basketball Tournament.
CBS's current deal with the NCAA is for 14 years and $11 billion to televise every round of the tournament. Now, CBS has marketed March Madness and has turned it into a Super Bowl like event, but could you imagine how easy it would be to turn a football tournament of the same magnitude into something that takes over the sporting world? Football is the most popular sport in America that makes markedly more money than any other sport, which translates to their postseason as well, with the exception of college basketball - and the only thing college basketball does differently is have a tournament. Is it too hard to imagine that same 12-year deal ESPN made with the BCS to be for $15-$20 billion if it was for a giant playoff? I certainly don't think so.
The other reason why this works - and would make more money - is to have the higher seeded team host the first two round games. These games would be on par with those first couple bowl games that no one really cares about (like Little Caesars Bowl or whichever bowl they play in Boise), but would likely be hosted in mammoth stadiums like Ohio State's or Alabama's - and they'd be FULL, thereby increasing ticket revenue. The home-field advantage keeps the regular season important, but also makes the first couple rounds extremely interesting. What if the Sun Belt champion walked into Death Valley and won? Can you imagine how many people would want to watch them see if they could beat Michigan at the Big House in the second round?
Bowl games are great for the economy of whatever city it is being held in because fans travel to the game and spend money on hotels, restaurants, nightlife, etc. But why should Texas fans be funding the economy of Jacksonville or Charlotte when all of that money could stay and help boost Austin's economy further? You'd still have streams of opposing fans coming to your city to watch their team, plus all of your fans that want to pack the 100,000+ person stadium you have to create an amazing home-field advantage.
Each of these games would have a sponsorship, just like the bowls do now, which also brings in even more money for the NCAA. Little Caesars enjoys the promotion they get from sponsoring a bowl game, but don't you think they'd rather sponsor (and probably shell out a little more money for) the Little Ceasars Orange Regional Semifinal between Oregon and Nebraska instead of their bowl game between Central Michigan and Western Kentucky?
*Central Michigan won 24-21 last year, in case you were wondering*
But all this sounds like it's too much, right? Well, if a team makes it to the championship game and plays in their conference championship game, they would've played 18 games that season. Too many? Well, high school teams generally play about 11 regular season games, and usually 5 playoff games if they make the state championship, they play 16. In the NFL, Super Bowl teams play 19 or 20 games over the course of their season. I never understood why people threw a fit about how many games college football players played when they play more in high school, but this tournament keeps it less than the NFL.
And it is a bit more travel for the teams and fans, but that also increases the importance of getting home-field advantage. However, the extra money that the schools make from the previous game would be more than enough to cover it, but chances are if you're playing too many away games, you might not go as far in the tournament anyways. Also, the playoff would be during winter break for the schools, so the player don't have to worry about any complications from missing too much class - always important for the "student-athlete".
So there you have it.
A way to fix college football forever and always - that is, until you want to expand it, because somehow these things always get expanded.
I think it'd be fun.
Don't like it? Have other suggestions? Did I miss something? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.
But that's the kind of stuff that everyone else is writing about. Not here.
This year is the last year (thankfully) of the BCS as we have known it since its inception in 1998 before major college football switches to the "plus-1" format, meaning there is a 4 team playoff to decide the national champion.
Which means there will be so many "what-if" scenarios discussed on television networks and various articles written about it, all of which will inevitable praise the "plus-1" system and express their anxiousness awaiting its arrival. It will fix college football!
And then there will be people writing and discussing how an 8-team playoff will be better than a 4-team playoff because it would allow for a true champion to emerge and not rely as much on the rankings - but a 16-team playoff would be allowing way too many teams in, because you still want to preserve the BCS' shoddy defense of "it makes every game in the regular season matter!"
FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision - formerly known as Division 1-A or as you probably know it, just regular college football) football is broken. We know this, which is why the playoff formatting is coming into place. But it won't fix it.
The way to make college football the best it can be, for everyone involved with the sport - players, fans, schools, conferences, coaches, sponsors, the NCAA - is to have a 32-team playoff. College basketball style.
Why it Needs to Happen
This is right around the point where everyone raises their eyebrows - either because you're intrigued or think I'm the stupidest man on the planet who doesn't know anything about college football. Hear me out.What is the most glaring problem in college football today? The gap between the big conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12) and the rest of the field. This giant gap is in place because of one simple reason - money. The Big 5 (formerly the Big 6 until the Big East, now the American Athletic Conference, essentially folded) have a ton of it, and the smaller conferences don't. Now, this is in large part due to the size of the universities and booster funding, but a good chunk of it is due to the BCS as well.
 |
| Northern Illinois was no match for Florida State in the Orange Bowl, and money is a big reason why |
Why is playing in a BCS game so important? Those are the big money makers for the conferences which translate back to the teams - and teams that make the BCS bowl get to keep a little more. To give you some numbers, the BCS makes about $150 million in revenue each year and they give around 81% of that money to the Big 6 schools with only 19% going to the smaller conferences - at least according to BCS executive Bill Hancock.
But from 2006-2009, the Big 6 conferences received $492 million from the BCS with the smaller conferences getting only $62 million - a 87%-13% split. This money goes back to the schools which they use to increase their recruiting budget, upgrade facilities, etc., to make their school more attractive to football recruits. It is also worth noting that the Big 6 conferences have more regular bowl tie-ins than the smaller conferences do, meaning 10 SEC teams may go to bowl games while only 3 Sun Belt teams may get to, further contributing to the money discrepancy.
 |
| Mid-major teams like Boise State get held back every year |
And that's not to say there should be an equal playing field - it's good for the sport to have the Alabama's and LSU's of the world, but it's also necessary to have the Boise State's and TCU's of the world as well.
One thing that critics of tournaments say - especially fans of the BCS and those opposed to a college football playoff - is that the best team doesn't always win. The one thing that tournaments do, however, is make you earn everything you get. No one says Butler basketball team wasn't very good the two years they almost won a national championship. Why? Because they proved they were good by beating people thought were better. Did Notre Dame deserve to be playing for the national championship last year? Maybe, but they proved they were not the second best team in college football, and probably wouldn't have won enough games in a playoff to get there. And think about all the teams that were great for a season but didn't get a chance to play for what everyone should be playing for - the 2006 Boise State and 2008 Utah teams were the only undefeated teams in college football those years, yet didn't get to play for a championship; in 2009 when there were 5 undefeated teams, yet only 2 got to play for the ultimate prize; or in 2004 when Auburn went undefeated and didn't get to the title game even though they didn't lose AND played in the SEC. Teams like these are why an extended playoff needs to be put in place - to let teams prove they're champions and eliminate the "what-ifs".
But how would you make a tournament like this happen?
Tournament Formatting
Automatic qualifiers. With 32 slots available, granting each of the 10 conference champions a place in the playoff guarantees that these small conference schools have a chance to compete and earn more money while also keeping the lucrative conference championship games in place and maintaining the importance of the regular season. Most of the major conference champions would have probably already qualified for this anyway, but keeping it open to the Arkansas States of the world would help increase the overall level of competition in all levels of the sport.The other 22 spots can be filled in by using BCS rankings - we all agreed that the BCS system was flawed, but it was one of the most objective way to rank teams. Plus, it's either that or a selection committee like in basketball, and they tend to leave us with more head scratching picks. You'd simply use the rankings, take the top 32 teams (already seeded by where they rank in the poll), and if one of the automatic qualifiers finished outside the top 32, then you'd take the top 31 and so on. Simple.
The bracket would be broken into four 8-team regions based on the BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar regions), and teams would play one game every week, as they do during the regular season, with the highest seeded team playing host for the first two rounds. The regional final would be held at the site of the BCS bowl, ensuring these bowl games that have been the biggest and have the most history in college football are still included on a major basis. Then you have the final four and the championship game that can go to the highest bidding city/stadium, rotating around like the Final Four does in basketball.
Why it Works
Now, you might be saying 32 teams is too much, the players would play in too many games and risk injury, that's too much travel, sponsors won't like it, and whatever else you might think. But that's just not true.
The biggest reason why it would work is simply because it would make more money. Right now there are 34 bowl games, and even the biggest college football fan really only cares about 10, which has created low TV ratings and even lower attendance. This system would have 31 meaningful games that even the most casual of college football fans would enjoy watching, causing TV ratings to increase significantly. The current TV contract ESPN has with the BCS was for $500 million for 4 years, and they recently re-upped with the new "plus-1" formatting in a 12-year deal that they paid $6-$7.2 billion for.
 |
| The NCAA Basketball Tournament brings in billions to the NCAA and CBS |
Big money right?
But you know what makes twice as much? The NCAA Basketball Tournament.
CBS's current deal with the NCAA is for 14 years and $11 billion to televise every round of the tournament. Now, CBS has marketed March Madness and has turned it into a Super Bowl like event, but could you imagine how easy it would be to turn a football tournament of the same magnitude into something that takes over the sporting world? Football is the most popular sport in America that makes markedly more money than any other sport, which translates to their postseason as well, with the exception of college basketball - and the only thing college basketball does differently is have a tournament. Is it too hard to imagine that same 12-year deal ESPN made with the BCS to be for $15-$20 billion if it was for a giant playoff? I certainly don't think so.
The other reason why this works - and would make more money - is to have the higher seeded team host the first two round games. These games would be on par with those first couple bowl games that no one really cares about (like Little Caesars Bowl or whichever bowl they play in Boise), but would likely be hosted in mammoth stadiums like Ohio State's or Alabama's - and they'd be FULL, thereby increasing ticket revenue. The home-field advantage keeps the regular season important, but also makes the first couple rounds extremely interesting. What if the Sun Belt champion walked into Death Valley and won? Can you imagine how many people would want to watch them see if they could beat Michigan at the Big House in the second round?
 |
| What if Appalachian State vs. Michigan was a playoff game? |
Bowl games are great for the economy of whatever city it is being held in because fans travel to the game and spend money on hotels, restaurants, nightlife, etc. But why should Texas fans be funding the economy of Jacksonville or Charlotte when all of that money could stay and help boost Austin's economy further? You'd still have streams of opposing fans coming to your city to watch their team, plus all of your fans that want to pack the 100,000+ person stadium you have to create an amazing home-field advantage.
Each of these games would have a sponsorship, just like the bowls do now, which also brings in even more money for the NCAA. Little Caesars enjoys the promotion they get from sponsoring a bowl game, but don't you think they'd rather sponsor (and probably shell out a little more money for) the Little Ceasars Orange Regional Semifinal between Oregon and Nebraska instead of their bowl game between Central Michigan and Western Kentucky?
 |
| College football fans deserve better postseason games |
*Central Michigan won 24-21 last year, in case you were wondering*
But all this sounds like it's too much, right? Well, if a team makes it to the championship game and plays in their conference championship game, they would've played 18 games that season. Too many? Well, high school teams generally play about 11 regular season games, and usually 5 playoff games if they make the state championship, they play 16. In the NFL, Super Bowl teams play 19 or 20 games over the course of their season. I never understood why people threw a fit about how many games college football players played when they play more in high school, but this tournament keeps it less than the NFL.
And it is a bit more travel for the teams and fans, but that also increases the importance of getting home-field advantage. However, the extra money that the schools make from the previous game would be more than enough to cover it, but chances are if you're playing too many away games, you might not go as far in the tournament anyways. Also, the playoff would be during winter break for the schools, so the player don't have to worry about any complications from missing too much class - always important for the "student-athlete".
So there you have it.
A way to fix college football forever and always - that is, until you want to expand it, because somehow these things always get expanded.
I think it'd be fun.
Don't like it? Have other suggestions? Did I miss something? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment