SEC, Big Ten Compromise on BCS Playoff Would Leave Everyone Happy

The Playoff Debate

The SEC wants the top four teams in the playoff. The Big Ten would like most, if not all, of the playoff teams to be conference champions. Is there a compromise?

And beyond this question, what about preventing bracket expansion? That dividing line between No. 4 and No. 5 can be razor thin, and the outrage will only increase if lower ranked conference champions make the field.

A Pledged Solution

To Mike Slive of the SEC, this proposal gives not just the top four but the top five teams direct access to the National Championship. To Jim Delany of the Big Ten, this proposal ensures that all four playoff teams will be declared "champions," on the field.

And to college football traditionalists everywhere, this proposal will put a stop gap measure against bracket creep.

After all, a four-team playoff will catch all teams deserving of a National Championship (like 2003 USC or 2004 Auburn) that missed the two-team playoff but not at the expense of including teams that already lost their two biggest games of the season.

The Simple Playoff

The basic format of this playoff proposal is that four teams will play in New Year's Day bowls, and that all four teams will be "champions."

The feature of this proposal is that there will be a Wild Card Game (WCG) on the same weekend as the Conference Championship Games (CCGs). The winner of the WCG will be declared a "champion" and thus eligible* for the playoff.

Because these games will be played on the same weekend, the first weekend of December will be cleared of regular season games and reserved for CCGs and the WCG.

Additionally, CCGs will become defacto elimination games. So, a team like LSU this past year cannot lose the SEC Championship Game and still back into the playoff. This preserves the importance of conference play.

*The WCG is not a play-in game

2011 Example

Prior to the CCGs, the top of the standings looked something like this (using BCS standings):

No. 1 (12-0) LSU (SEC Championship Game)
No. 2 (11-1) Alabama
No. 3 (11-1) Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champion)
No. 4 (11-1) Stanford
No. 5 (11-1) Virginia Tech (ACC Championship Game)
No. 6 (12-0) Houston (C-USA Championship Game)
No. 7 (11-1) Boise State

Alabama and Stanford have been locked out of winning their conferences, so they would elect to play against each other in the WCG.

A team like Oklahoma State that has already won their conference, may also elect to play in the WCG if they feel like they would end up being the fifth-ranked "champion" in next week's standings.

However, by virtue of finishing the regular season in the Top Three, Oklahoma State is, by rule, guaranteed a playoff spot.

Virginia Tech dropped the ball, so to speak, on their playoff hopes by losing their second game of the season to Clemson. Houston, too, failed to pick up the last spot in the playoff, losing to Southern Miss.

Oregon, ranked No. 9 coming into the weekend, cashed in on these upsets and made the playoff.

Here is the likely standings at season's end (incorporating the Alabama-Stanford game):

No. 1 (13-0) LSU (SEC Champion)
No. 2 (12-1) Ala/Stan (WCG Champion)
No. 3 (11-1) Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champion)
No. 4 (11-2) Oregon (Pac-12 Champion)
No. 5 (11-2) Ala/Stan
No. 6 (10-2) Arkansas
No. 7 (11-1) Boise State

Satisfying the SEC

With two teams in the Top Five, the SEC has the opportunity to put two teams into the playoff. However, Alabama is penalized for losing to LSU.

While LSU has to play a tough opponent in the Georgia Bulldogs to make the playoff, Alabama has to play an even more difficult team in the Luck-led Stanford Cardinal.

The SEC may not like the idea of a team like Alabama having to play what amounts to a play-in game, but it is fair to the teams (Alabama did lose that game against LSU) and it is fair to the country (no conference should automatically take half of the playoff spots).

While there technically is no 'rule' stating that the Top Five teams all have direct access to the playoff, looking back on the history of the BCS, no more than two non-champions occupied positions in the Top Five. These teams would then have played in the WCG.

Satisfying the Big Ten

Delany backed away from his initial proposal to include only conference champions, because of the great injustice that would have ensued had No. 10 Wisconsin gotten a playoff spot over No. 2 Alabama.

This proposal goes a step further than Delany's updated "Top Six" rule, by giving teams like 2006 Michigan a shot at the title after losing 41-38 to Ohio State.

While a wash on whether this proposal specifically helps the Big Ten, it does an excellent job of preserving the regular season, part of the reason the Big Ten and Pac-12 talk so much about a "plus-one" and "champions only."

It does this by forcing any teams that lost their own conference to play against each other for a chance at the last spot.

Looking back on how things would have played out in the history of the BCS, no team outside the Top Six ever would have made the playoff, all teams would have been declared champions "on the field" and the only Top Three team to miss the playoffs (using the current BCS formula) would have been No. 3 Oklahoma in 2003, a team that lost the Big 12 Championship game.

Protecting the Post Season

As mentioned before, part of the worry of going from two to four teams is that there will be pushes to go to six or eight. With this plan, let us look at who is left on the outside looking in; refer back to the projected final standings above.

The loser of the Alabama-Stanford game is the first team out.

This team not only lost their biggest game of the regular season (to LSU or Oregon, respectively), but they also lost the WCG, their chance at redemption. Arkansas lost both of its two biggest games; winning big games is how you prove your mettle and worthiness for the National Championship. (See: 2007 Hawaii.)

No. 7 Boise State was the next team out.

They had only one heart-breaking loss to TCU, yet they finished three spots behind 11-1 Stanford at the conclusion of the regular season to miss out on the wild card game and three spots behind Oregon in the final standings, well outside the range of playoff teams.

So, as we see, no team really has an argument that they were just on the cusp of making the playoffs. And so the arguments for expanded access will not be as loud as they would be under a strict "Top Four" or "Champions Only" model.

And further, the rationale for "champions only" comes because a "champion" is an objective title. It was earned on the field. Similarly in this model, the WCG is an opportunity for teams to earn a playoff spot "on the field," every playoff proponent's mantra.

Feasibility

The WCG idea is very novel. Yes, it would be better than any hybrid models being discussed, like the 3+1 or Delany's Top Six model. Yes, it would give fans MORE FOOTBALL (and good football, at that).

But, the current projection is that the only compromise the SEC will make on its desire to have a strict "Top Four" model is if the method of determining those four teams (currently via BCS Standings) is changed to something like a selection committee.