BCS 4-Team College Football Playoff: 7 Burning Questions Needing an Answer

For all the information that the BCS has leaked out regarding the proposed four-team playoff format for the 2014 season, really there are still more questions than answers.

Yes, we know that the top four BCS-ranked teams are likely to square off in a final four-type affair, and yes, we’ve heard that AQ status will be dropped and the existing BCS bowl games are likely to be involved.

We’ve also learned that attempts would be made to honor the traditional tie-ins between BCS bowl games and conferences and that the current BCS is likely intact as a showcase operating just below the playoff scheme.

Furthermore we’ve heard rumors that a bowl such as the Cotton Bowl or Chick-fil-A Bowl could be promoted to BCS status to accommodate for the rotating loss of existing games to the playoff plan.

It’s up for debate as to whether the proposal is just a stop-gap means of the BCS staying afloat with minimum commitment to a real playoff system, but what’s for sure is that there are a bunch of issues that still need to be addressed before we can feel warm and fuzzy about the mini-playoff scheme.

The following slideshow identifies seven questions that the BCS still needs to answer regarding the plot to improve college football.

 

 

Do Other Independents Get the Same Deal as Notre Dame?

When you read about the meetings taking place regarding the BCS revamp, it’s inevitable that you’re going to skim over a line that reads, “The 11 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick are discussing…”

Notre Dame, who has enjoyed its football independence since hitting the field back in 1887, has had a personalized golden ticket to the BCS sometimes known as the “Notre Dame rule.”

It’s pretty simple: If the Irish finish in the top eight of the BCS rankings, they are automatically in a BCS game, which is basically a guarantee no other team in the land can match (unless it is the conference champion of an AQ league).

So under the new scheme, which is supposed to be inherently fairer, what measures are in place to insure that other independent, non-Irish programs have a clear shot to both the BCS and the playoff scheme?

Yes, Navy is due to move to the Big East in 2015, but what about BYU and Army—where do they fit in?

In all fairness, every single team that declares itself independent should get the same deal as Notre Dame, meaning if it can advance to the top eight of the BCS (under the current proposal this may be amended to the top 10) then the team should be postseason bound as well.

It’s either equality among the independents or an insistence that all programs join a conference (which frankly seems highly prohibitive).

 

Are the BCS Standings Determined Using the Same Formula?

The BCS standings are critical to the current scheme of college football and will have even more impact if the four-team playoff proposition actually comes to fruition.

In the new scheme, the BCS standings will expand from determining the two participants in the title game to the four teams in the “playoff.”

The standings will also still presumably be used as the basis of who is eligible for the remaining BCS bowl games that aren’t part of the “final four” (i.e. teams have to be in the Top 15 to get in).

This all begs the question: Is the current formula fair, and will it be used moving forward in the new plan?

is the one-third equal weighting between the Harris Poll, the USA Today Coaches Poll and the computer rankings equitable?

This would be seem to be as good a time as any to revisit the formula, as it has such a huge impact on the outcome of the college football season.

If nothing else, a good starting point would be to determine if the Coaches Poll doesn’t operate under the guise of a complete conflict of interest.

Basically, how can a guy who can’t watch every game and who has his own team’s interest (and job security) as his primary concern be counted on to vote impartially and knowledgeably?

 

How Many Bowl Games Will Remain?

If the BCS opts for the four-game playoff and expands to retain 10 participants in the “showcase” bowls that aren’t a part of the national championship picture, what happens to the remaining bowl games?

In 2011-12 we were bombarded with one national title game, four BCS bowls and then 30 “other” bowl games.

This equates to one meaningful game and 34 meaningless contests, and it also means that 70 of the 120 teams in the FBS (or 58 percent) participated in the “postseason.”

So, if we are making a move to more fairly determine a national champion, is saying we have three meaningful games and 32 contests with no consequence the right thing for college football?

Should we continue to reward teams that reach the apex of .500 with another game, or should we consider moving the bar up for the good of the game?

As long as we’re in the revamping mood, college football should consider limiting bowl eligibility to teams that, at the very minimum, have won eight football games against FBS opponents.

 

What Day of the Week will the Semi-Finals and Championship Game be Played?

This seems, on the surface, like a bit of a shallow request, but if we’re going to have a “playoff” in college football, why not play all the games on a Saturday?

Saturday is the day of the week destined, preserved and sacrificially served up for college football; therefore why in the world would we play the biggest games of the season on Monday and Tuesday night?

There is a reason why Super Bowl Sunday works, and there is a reason that the NFL conference championships are all conducted on Sunday: It’s the day we are programmed to watch professional football.

All national championship-determining college football games should be played on Saturday.

This is the only way to even begin to give the college football playoffs and title game a chance to compete with the Super Bowl for a spot in the national consciousness.

Does a Team Have to Win Its Conference to Be Included?

The question of whether or not to make a conference title a requirement to enter into the upper echelon of the four-team college football playoff may well kick off the most heated debate amongst those who love the game.

On one hand, it seems ridiculous that a conference championship runner-up would participate in the final four (say the 2011 Alabama team) while Wisconsin (who won the Big Ten in 2011) sits home.

To illustrate, if we applied the four-team playoff scheme to last season, it’s LSU vs. Stanford in the Sugar Bowl and Alabama vs. Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl.

The winner of these two contests would meet in the BCS title game in the city that bid the highest for the right to host the championship celebration.

Sitting home would be Pac-12 champ Oregon (though Stanford, who was ranked higher in the BCS standings, would be in the mix), Big Ten champ Wisconsin, ACC champ Clemson and the winners of the Big East (West Virginia, Cincinnati and Louisville).

On the other hand, how can you leave Alabama (who only lost one game, to No. 1 LSU in overtime) out of the picture when they are clearly one of the top three teams in the country?

And, what about teams that play in “watered down” conferences that would technically be eligible if the AQ conference designation truly is dropped?

Think about it, if Southern Miss wins C-USA, should they be considered more suitable for the playoff than say the No. 2 (or even No. 3) team in the SEC?

Furthermore, what do you do with conferences that don’t have a championship game?  It is a serious advantage to be able to win a league title without a title game (i.e. the Big East and the new Big 12) vs. having to play for the title (i.e. the new Big Ten and Pac-12).

At the end of the day, this all makes it clear that a four game play-off is inadequate, meaning that you still won’t have a “true” national champion because logically there are more than four elite teams in college football.

The NCAA Men’s Division I basketball tournament is a perfect example of how this works (as is the NFL playoff scheme). Teams don’t have to be a conference champ to get in, but if they are, the road to the title is much easier (based on seeding). 

The difference is both of these systems have more than four participants, a fact which causes the level of fairness to skyrocket to another universe.

Based on history, it seems a long shot that the BCS would opt to require a conference title for inclusion in the playoff, which means the debate will continue over the topic until a more comprehensive and logical plan is applied.

 

Is There A Limit To How Many Teams Conferences Can Send?

In the current BCS scheme, only two teams from each conference can participate in the BCS. This leads to the question of whether these limits will apply under the new scheme.

The debate will likely be along the same lines of that regarding requiring a conference title to get into the playoff—to what degree can you hold a team back because they play in a good conference and how much to reward a squad that plays in a weak conference?

Can three teams from the SEC be in the playoff or just two?  Or, should only one team from each conference be included in the four-team bracket? And, after that is decided, how many programs from each conference can appear in the BCS bowls?

This is likely to be another hot topic which frankly can’t be fairly answered until the playing field is truly leveled in college football.

And this involves an expanded playoff, requiring conferences to all have championship games to win, banning games against FCS teams and finally determining whether the FBS shouldn’t be split into two divisions (i.e. the Sun Belt and SEC aren’t really competing for the same thing).

 

 

How Are the Remaining BCS Bowl Participants Selected?

One of the glaring deficiencies of the current BCS scheme won’t be fixed by a four-game playoff, and that flaw is how teams are selected by the BCS bowls.

 If the BCS standings determine who can play for all the marbles, then why not use them as a guide for who ascends to what has become the elite portion of the watered-down postseason?

As it stands, BCS bowls can pick a team from the Top 16 teams in the final standings regardless of who they leave out in the cold.

To illustrate, BCS No. 7 ranked Boise State went to the Las Vegas Bowl in 2011-12 while No. 13 ranked Michigan went to the BCS Sugar Bowl.

If you’re sitting there thinking, “Well, those guys played in the MWC,” then consider the fact that No. 8 ranked Kansas State went to the Cotton Bowl (a great game, but not a BCS game) while No. 11 Virginia Tech went to the BCS Sugar Bowl.

It’s fairly obvious that teams get picked over others (regardless of how they finish in the all-important standings) because they historically draw well on TV and have fanbases that travel and purchase game tickets.

How many hotel rooms a school can book and its Nielson rankings should have absolutely nothing to do with the opportunities a team can achieve through success on the football field.

Hey guys…even if we win 10 games, we won’t go with the big boys because our fans don’t have a bunch of money and nobody wants to watch us on TV.

Isn’t this America?

Again, if we’re really shooting for a better system, this needs to be addressed and fixed.