Surprise! The BCS is Actually Paving the Way for a Playoff

BCS haters make various wild claims, i.e. that it is some media conspiracy to help the SEC by blocking a playoff. A bit of reality here: the BCS only exists because the other major conferences (the Pac-10, the Big 10, the Big 12, the ACC, and the SEC) go along with it.

Someone needs to explain to me why the other five conferences would support a pro-SEC conspiracy cartel.

Someone also needs to explain to me why the national media would favor an SEC which contains virtually no major media markets (basically those in Atlanta and central Florida are it) at the expense of ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-10 regions that have far more media, and much larger markets.

Or, to put it another way...if SEC football were of the Big East or Pac-10 (or at least the Pac-10 when USC isn't any good) caliber, they would be a mid-major league because of the lack of the New York (Syracuse), New Jersey (Rutgers), and Pennsylvania (Pitt) markets.

Also consider that the Big East had the Massachusetts (Boston College) market when the BCS was formed.

It also assumes that there was this large support for a playoff before the BCS was formed. The opposite is the case. The BCS merely replaced the Bowl Alliance, which existed from 1995 to 1997, and the Bowl Coalition, which existed from 1992 to 1994.

The BCS was created in response to a number of seasons where the No. 1 and No. 2 teams did not play each other in the national title games (i.e. Colorado and Georgia Tech in 1991, Washington and Miami in 1992, Nebraska and Penn State in 1994).

The goal was never a playoff, but rather a desire to see No. 1 play No. 2. The Bowl Alliance became the BCS when undefeated Arizona State was denied a chance to play undefeated Florida State for the national title in 1997, causing the Big 10, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl to join to create the BCS.

Even after the BCS was formed, in the initial years, there were virtually no calls for a playoff. Instead, the playoff push came only when, and largely because, the SEC began to dominate the BCS—when before the SEC only performed average, even mediocre or poorly for two to three years, in the BCS prior to 2003.

Ironically, the SEC's rise coincided with that of USC, and the cyclically declining fortunes of the Big 10, and the losses of Big 12 teams in the BCS title games (to USC and to SEC teams).

Add those to the long-term competitive problems with the ACC, Big East, and the other nine institutions of the Pac-10, and it created a lot of grievances, sour grapes, and envy that resulted in the current pro-playoff climate.

Many forget that until 2003, with the exception of the omission of Kansas State in 1998, the Big 10, Big 12, and Notre Dame were the primary beneficiaries of the BCS—and further, that very worthy SEC teams routinely did not receive at-large BCS bids.

During that time, and in times prior, the only large contingent wanting a playoff was Florida State University fans and Pac-10 fans.

The former were frustrated by losses to Florida and Miami that knocked them out of national title games (similar to the USC frustrations under Pete Carroll), the latter was angry due to the Pac-10's general difficulties in winning national titles under any system, especially with USC excluded.

However, even there Bobby Bowden and the FSU administration, as well as the ACC in general, opposed a playoff. They were not alone. So did the Pac-10 (despite the claims of their fans to the contrary), the Big 10, and the Big East conferences—as well as Notre Dame.

Other than a few individual coaches, university presidents, and athletics directors, the only major conference that supports a playoff and has actually made a playoff proposal is, surprise, the SEC .

Furthermore, the SEC made their playoff proposal not from 1999-2002, when they were doing poorly in the BCS (especially by their current standards), or in 2004, in response to the outrage of undefeated Auburn's both being shut out of the title game and not getting the AP title that a one loss USC received the prior year, but in 2008, after the SEC began their streak of four consecutive BCS titles .

The SEC's playoff proposal is still on the table, and is being ignored by the other conferences that are allegedly being harmed by the unfairness of the pro-SEC BCS. (Ironically, the only conference to even consider the SEC's playoff proposal was the SEC's longtime hated rival, the ACC.)

The media similarly ignored the SEC's proposal in order to begin a new round of BCS negotiations.

Consider that even the playoff posturing by the mid-majors is just that: posturing. When it was time to lay their cards on the table, the Mountain West and WAC (as well as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt) either folded or refused to join in the game, with several leading figures from those conferences coming out in support of the BCS.

The mid-majors know that they would not receive guaranteed spots in an eight team playoff on anything approaching an annual basis, and that they would have no recourse (no anti-trust lawsuits, for instance) were, say, a 12-0 Boise to be left out in favor of a 10-2 Iowa due to strength of schedule, because the NCAA would control such a playoff. 

While the mid-major power brokers are excellent at stringing their fans along, the playoff talk is simply a power play to gain more concessions from the BCS. A playoff formula that guarantees access, and revenue, to the mid-majors would need to include at least 12 teams.

And, in addition, any revenue-sharing component would also have to treat the MAC and Sun Belt as an equal to the Mountain West Conference.

That is not going to happen unless the mid-majors agree to an initial "play-in" round before the eight team tournament. The truth is that the BCS is the best deal that the mid-majors are ever going to get in terms of revenue, access, or actually winning a national title.

Regrettably for the mid majors that deal is going to soon end. The reason is that the BCS—rather than blocking a playoff system that never existed, and virtually no one wanted before the BCS—is actually leaning toward the creation of an eight team playoff.

First, the sour grapes complainers are creating a critical mass that the NCAA and the conferences are going to have to heed at some point. (Ironically, the best thing for the survival of the BCS would be for Oregon, UCLA, Arizona State, and Boise to get into the BCS title game, and for a 12-1 SEC team to receive the 2004 Auburn treatment.)

Second, the BCS is forcing the major conferences to follow the SEC and Big 12 in forming 12 (or 14!) team conferences, with a conference championship game to survive.

The ACC, which prior to the BCS was doing only as much as they needed to do to survive in football, but no longer, was the first. Now the Big 10 and Pac-10, bound by tradition and with no particular need to change, have their hands forced by the TV networks to add a conference championship game.

That would create five conferences representing 60 schools, and five automatic bids for an eight team playoff chosen by the conference title games, and the other three spots chosen by the NCAA—who would run the playoff according to similar criteria that the NCAA uses to choose the at-large bids in its other playoffs. 

What of the Big East? Ironically, the Big East was originally in a better position than the ACC to form a 12 team conference with a championship game. It could have been accomplished simply by adding Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida BEFORE Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left.

However, the Big East, under out of touch commissioner Mike Tranghese, was determined to be a basketball league who played football, and to never have the football institutions outnumber the basketball ones.

Now, with virtually no viable football powers that would join with the Big East to form a 12 team conference (TCU, Houston, Boise, BYU, and Utah are geographically incompatible, the other options like Navy, East Carolina, Marshall, and Central Florida are not competitive enough), the Big East will join the Mountain West, Sun Belt, Conference USA, and MAC as a mid-major.

The worst part is that the college basketball product that Tranghese insisted had to be the Big East's primary one is in decline due to the best players spending no more than two years playing the college game before departing for the NBA.

Tranghese sacrificed the Big East's prospects in a sport that had a future to preserve the egos of non-football playing institutions, most of whom haven't done squat in basketball since the 1980s anyway.

This is not to say that the the Big East and the other mid-majors will be totally shut out of the coming playoff picture, however qualifying will be very difficult. Based on how the NCAA does their other playoff at-large bids, strength of schedule will be a dominant factor—and the non-AQ teams will be at a big disadvantage in that area.

Furthermore, it will actually be HARDER to schedule games against teams from the automatic qualifying conferences in this scenario. The NCAA eight team playoff will be nothing like the 64 team NCAA tournament, where there are dozens of spots available to teams who rack up quality non-conference wins.

Instead, there will only be three at-large spots available, meaning that if you don't finish at least No. 1 or No. 2 in your conference, you will have no realistic chance, no matter what you do out of conference. (Please recall: this was the situation with the NCAA basketball tournament before it expanded to 64 teams.)

So, there will be no benefit to scheduling Boise, Utah, or Pitt in hopes of impressing the selection committee, who will be basically left to choose the AQ conference teams with the best records. In virtually every season, the playoff field will consist of teams with two or fewer losses...and playing tough non-conference schedules is NOT the way to ensure that you have fewer than two losses.

The only way that the strength of a non-conference schedule would be a significant factor in realistically getting an at-large bid would be by expanding the playoff field to 10 or 12 (which means play-in games) or 16.

So, the Big East and other mid-majors would have to earn their way into the playoff by scheduling each other (i.e. Boise versus Cincinnati, or TCU versus Fresno, or East Carolina versus Pitt), and running the table.

Their reward? USC or some other "team of the decade" in the first round, and a 12-1 or 13-1 No. 4 seed (say Ohio State, Oklahoma, or LSU) in the second round.

So, mid-major fans who want a playoff...this is what you are going to get!

As to the results of the playoff; they will be largely the same as they are now, dominated by the usual suspects like USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC.

The playoff field would be teams who generally make the top eight, so teams that don't routinely make the top eight now aren't all of a sudden going to start.

As far as advancing in the playoffs, it is going to be the teams who actually regularly WIN GAMES against the top eight.

Quite honestly, the list of teams with more than four victories against teams that finished in the final top eight over the last 10 years is quite small. USC, Florida, LSU, Texas, and Ohio State are on it, but not very many other teams are.

The playoff will reward teams with the most depth, and who are great on the offensive lines and defensive front seven—meaning the ones that regularly sign top 10 recruiting classes. Teams that rely on strategy and schemes, or center what they do around a single player or position, will face matchup and consistency problems in attempting to win three games against top 8 competition. 

The result of this will not surprisingly be a "the rich getting richer" factor. Teams who routinely make and advance in the playoffs will receive a decided advantage in recruiting elite players and hiring the top head and assistant coaches.

The top 18-24 college football programs will be a "mini-NFL" of teams who not only often make the playoffs, but actually advance when they do. For not only the mid-major programs, but the clear majority of the five team super-conference programs, the realistic goal will be to make the playoffs and win a game.

Again, that is little different from the current system, where only a precious few programs regularly win major bowl games. (Honestly, even in the AQ conferences, most of the teams haven't won a major bowl game in the past 15 years, and more than a few haven't even been to such a game.)

The playoff will simply make the line between the "top programs" or "top jobs" for head coaches, and everybody else, even clearer than they are now. This will result in a huge salary gap between the coaches of such programs and the coaches of the other programs.

Indeed, it will be difficult to justify paying $2.5 million a year for a head coach who rarely, if ever, makes or advances in the playoffs. (Think about it...how many college football programs have finished in the top four in the past 10 years? And of those, how many have done so more than once? The answer: not many!)

The good news for the programs that are not in the top 18-24: there will still be a viable bowl system! The BCS, and in particular the addition of the extra BCS game, has helped prove this to be viable.

The Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls have proven over the BCS era to still be capable of drawing ratings and attendance, despite not A) being a national title game, or B) not having a conference champion.

The best proof of this: the Rose Bowl...which has been fine, despite the best Big 10 team during the BCS era, Ohio State, playing in the game only once. The Rose Bowl has done just fine with Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Wisconsin, and even Big 12 interlopers!

Also, the major bowl games would not necessarily be bound to pick the top rated teams. They could rather egregiously and blatantly seek teams based on tie-ins, ratings, attendance, tradition, interest, money, etc. In this respect, it would be a return to the pre BCS/Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition days. 

For instance, let's use the final BCS poll (which comes out before the bowl games) as a guide, with the exception that Iowa would have likely been the eighth team in the playoff instead of Boise, based on strength of schedule. (Sorry Boise. Then again, not really.)

The Rose Bowl then would have been USC vs. Penn State (sorry Arizona and Oregon State, but not very much), a traditional Big 10/Pac-10 matchup of national powerhouses.

The Orange Bowl, similarly, would have likely been Nebraska-Miami, a game similar to the classic games between the Big eight and Miami in the 1980s and 1990s. The Sugar Bowl would have LSU vs. Virginia Tech, an ACC-SEC matchup. (Sorry Ole Miss. Actually, no I am not, and neither would the Sugar Bowl be.)

The Fiesta Bowl would take Boise and BYU. (Pitt, West Virginia, Oregon State...try winning a game that matters. Arizona...try having more than two good seasons in a decade, and not being the third team to hire John Mackovic.)

Those matchups would sell tickets and generate strong ratings, and be a good distraction from the playoff teams beating each other up in games that may actually not be as entertaining as everyone thinks—especially a championship game that the last two teams left standing would basically limp through, and the first two rounds, which feature mismatches (i.e. Florida-Cincinnati), and teams playing not to lose. 

What about the other bowls? Well the minor bowls will be what they were before. However, the big losers will be the mid-level bowls, the ones who previously got the teams that just missed the major bowl games. The Cotton, Holiday, Chik-Fil-A, Capital One, and Gator Bowls would go from featuring top 15 (and even occasionally top 10) teams to having much lower profile matchups.

This season would have seen unranked Missouri or Texas Tech against Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl (once a major bowl game), and 7-5 Tennessee versus 8-5 Clemson in the Chik-Fil-A Bowl. The Capital One Bowl: Wisconsin against 7-5 Auburn.

The next round of bowl games, games like the Alamo, Outback, and Sun—which technically aren't minor because they feature AQ schools that are, at times, ranked—would fare even worse.

Now a 16 team playoff would require drastic changes. It would basically kill off the bowl system and also return the regular season to 11 games, which is the length of the FCS season. (The reason: a 12 game regular season, a conference title game, and a four game playoff would result in the national champion playing 17 games.)

As the 12th game was added to generate more revenue, a 16 team playoff would actually cost college football more money than it would put into the system. This would be increasingly the case with the loss of the revenue-generating bowl games.

The Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowl would be relegated to teams ranked 17-25, and would regularly involve teams with four losses. So, for economic reasons, an eight team playoff is the only one that is viable.

That is the route that the college football landscape is headed, either after the next BCS contract expires, or possibly before then, if the federal government acts.

To the people who want a playoff...this is where the game is headed: 60 teams in five automatic bid conferences. Of those, about 20 are the real players.

Furthermore, the 40 teams in the five conferences would have no real advantages over the better mid-majors in terms of the results.

Ultimately, not very many things would change, except for four teams having to play an extra game or two, a whole lot of coaches making less money, and a lot of fans having to face the facts that their programs aren't as good as they thought they were.

Hope you all like what you've been asking for!