FBS Playoff Series: Three Teams

A Rigid Game with a Flexible Outcome

When the final BCS standings come out, how often do we find the difference between the second and third place teams such that a random pick between the two would be just as satisfying as the actual choice?

I would wager that such is the case most years. The years of 2003 and 2004 are the largest such examples of when a single playoff game would be extremely beneficial to the system. But what about years like 2005 where the top two teams are beyond obvious? Do we cancel the playoff game, or perhaps we should still seed the number two team against the third?

We can have it both ways, believe it or not, without canceling the game or placing a deserving team in an unnecessary playoff.

1) Analysis Of The Problem

In 1998 (Florida St), 2001 (Nebraska), and 2007 (Ohio St) a team with a bye week slid from outside the top two into the National Championship Game (NCG) because of a conference championship loss by a team ahead of them.

In 2006 (Florida), 2007 (LSU), and 2008 (Florida) a team with a conference championship win jumped a team which was sitting idle on the final week and landed in the second slot of the NCG.

A game at the end of the season is not just another tally to put in the win or loss column, it is a qualifying measure for teams which are at the cusp of the NCG.

While the above sets of examples show that these games have the propensity to make (2006, 2007, 2008) as much as break (1998, 2001, 2007) a team's national title hopes, it is important to note that there are many other teams which don't have a game to showcase their talent at the end of the season.

Also of note is that the three teams above which slid into the NCG all lost, while the three teams which jumped into it all won. More evidence that an end of the year showcase is a great way to get only the best teams into the NCG.

2) Showcasing Teams On The Cusp

In the above years (1998, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008) a discrepancy between teams playing in conference championship games the last week and teams sitting the last week was highlighted. Beyond this, it is important to note that sometimes two teams can be sitting idle on the last week, both on the cusp of the NCG with nothing but human opinion separating the two of them.

To absolve these two circumstances, comes the creation of a BCS play-in game. This game is not a play-in for the NCG but rather to the BCS as a whole (a concept more pertinent when only 8 teams participated in the series). It functions in a similar way to the current Big 12, SEC, and ACC championship games.

The top two teams in the second to last BCS poll which have no game scheduled on the final week will participate in the BCS play-in game. If the top team in the poll has a bye that week then they may freely abstain from the BCS play-in game because they are, for all intensive purposes, the best team in the nation.

The play-in game will feature two top flight teams in a game which will either elevate the winner to the NCG or at least keep them in competition with other teams playing their conference championship games that weekend.

3) The Tangible Outcomes Of A BCS Play-In

In five of the BCS's eleven years, the winner of the play-in would be all but guaranteed a NCG spot.

*1998: No. 4 Florida State vs. No. 5 Ohio State (UCLA and Kansas State lost on the last week)

*2000: No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 3 Miami (these teams were neck and neck in the actual BCS)

*2001: No. 3 Oregon vs. No. 4 Nebraska (Tennessee lost on the last week)

*2002: No. 2 Ohio St vs. No. 4 Iowa (both 8-0 in Big Ten, Iowa could have vaulted Georgia)

2007: No. 3 Ohio St vs. No. 4 Georgia (Missouri and West Virginia both lost on the last week)

In three of the BCS's eleven years, the winner of the play-in game would have a chance at the NCG.

*1999: No. 2 Va Tech vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (No. 3 Nebraska won the Big 12)

2006: No. 3 Michigan vs. No. 5 LSU (USC lost the last week; No. 4 Florida won the SEC)

2008: No. 3 Texas vs. No. 6 Utah (No. 4 Florida beat No. 1 Alabama)

And finally, three of the past eleven years (notably the same 3 given in this article's introduction) would have had a minimal impact on the NCG.

*2003: No. 4 Michigan vs. No. 6 Texas (USC vs. LSU in the NCG)

2004: No. 5 Texas vs. No. 6 Utah (USC vs. Oklahoma in the NCG; Auburn still left out)

2005: No. 4 Penn State vs. No. 6 Ohio St (both 7-1 in Big Ten; USC vs. Texas in NCG)

*updated BCS values for years up to 2003

Conclusion

Altogether, 10 teams which before were sitting, watching other teams play their way into the NCG will have been given a chance to compete and prove their own meddle. An additional six teams which went on to play in the NCG will also have been forced to prove their own worthiness on the field.

Imagine the excitement this year should Oklahoma inexplicably lose to Missouri in the Big 12 Championship. Could Texas take care of business against the Utes to prove they belong in the NCG, or would Utah prove it is the real deal by beating the Longhorns and advancing to the NCG against the Florida Gators.

While not a true three-team playoff, this model would grant much larger access to the NCG. Indeed, this very year (and 2004) would prove an example where a mid-major has a chance at the title. In years where the top teams are known (2005) the play-in game would still be a marquee matchup. In years where No. 2 and No. 3 are close (2000) the game would be the penultimate matchup of the year.