College Football: Are Playoffs Really the Answer to the BCS System?

Here we go again.  As we close in on the final weeks of another fantastic college football season, controversy threatens to rear its ugly head and mar the chase for the national title.

The names are familiar.  Boise State is in the final throes of their second consecutive undefeated season.  TCU is likewise putting together another perfect run.  They're both still sitting just outside of the "money spots" that would lock them into the National Championship Game. 

The arguments are the same.  Neither of those schools plays in a BCS automatic-qualifying conference.  Their schedules are considerably lighter than most schools from AQ conferences (though an argument could easily be made about the Big East not being any tougher than the Mountain West).

Do they deserve a shot at the national title? 

The debate rages on, and both sides are adamant in their support for their positions.  

The most obvious way to settle the debate is to institute a playoff system where the teams can play it out on the field.  Virtually every other major sport has some kind of tournament or elimination system to determine their champion.  College football stands alone as the one that insists on doing things differently.

Conference Champions Don't Always Cut It

One of the best-received playoff proposals has the six BCS AQ-conference champions combined with two at-large entries to form an eight-team playoff.  The idea is simple, generally effective and fair.  If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve to play for the national title.  End of discussion.

Or is it?

This proposal does allow for teams like TCU and Boise State to get a berth in the tournament as at-large teams, should they rank highly enough in the BCS standings.  This year, they would both likely get a bid, as it would be nearly impossible to overlook two undefeated teams that have both defeated ranked opponents.

However, the Big East and ACC now would have to raise some eyebrows.

Pittsburgh leads the Big East with a 3-0 conference record, but boasts a very boring 5-3 overall record.  In fact, no team in the entire Big East has fewer than three losses, and not a single team in the conference is rated in the BCS Top 25.

So, by a show of hands, who really thinks that any team from the Big East deserves a shot at a national championship?  Anyone? 

The ACC does have one team in the Top 25.  Virginia Tech sits at No. 20 in the current rankings.  The Hokies had a rough start to the year, losing first to Boise State in the season opener and then dropping to FCS James Madison five days later.

Since then, Frank Beamer's crew has rattled off seven straight wins.  At 5-0 in conference play, the Hokies are firmly in control of the ACC Coastal Division and the most likely candidate to win the conference title.  No other team in the ACC has fewer than two conference losses.

However, Virginia Tech has yet to beat anyone currently rated in the BCS.  In fact, they haven't beaten a team currently ranked in any of the three major polls (AP, Coaches' or BCS). 

Does a good, but unproven VT team really deserve to be in a national title tournament while teams like LSU, Stanford, Ohio State or Oklahoma State are left out?

Speaking of Ohio State, let's address the Big Ten for a moment.  That whole deal is a bit of a mess. 

Right now, there are four teams in a dog fight for the conference championship.  Wisconsin has one conference loss to Michigan State.  Michigan State has one conference loss to Iowa.  Iowa has one conference loss to Wisconsin, as does Ohio State.

In a couple of weeks, Iowa will face Ohio State, and one of those two teams will be eliminated from the discussion.  For the simple sake of argument, however, let's assume that Iowa sneaks out a win at home to secure a piece of the Big Ten pie.

With three conference co-champions, the BCS would likely forget all about who beat whom and take the co-champion with the highest BCS standing.  Right now, that would be Wisconsin at No. 7.

However, since Wisconsin only narrowly escaped Iowa (31-30), but was beaten by 10 points by Michigan State (34-24), who was in turn throttled by Iowa 37-6, can anyone outside of Madison really claim that Wisconsin is clearly the better choice of the three?  It's kind of a toss-up as to who is the best team in that gaggle.

Substitute Iowa with Ohio State, and the argument doesn't get a lot better.  Certainly, the Buckeyes lost to Wisconsin cleanly (31-18), but they don't face Michigan State this year.  Who really knows who would have won between those two programs, so Ohio State might have an argument that they belong in the discussion as well.  It might be a weak argument, but an argument nonetheless.

Add to that the fact that Michigan State cleanly defeated Wisconsin and the Spartans would have a serious argument for being the Big Ten team selected to the tournament, rather than the Badgers.

Thankfully, by the time any playoff is proposed (if ever), the Big Ten will no longer be such a confusing picture.  When Nebraska starts play with the conference in 2011, the Big Ten will institute a championship game to settle this whole conundrum.

As the BCS standings sit right now, if a playoff were to be seeded according to the "conference champion plus-two proposal," these are the teams that would get a shot at the crystal football (assuming that highest-rated teams within each conference were conference champions).

Pac-10: Oregon (seed No.1) (BCS No. 1)

SEC: Auburn (seed No. 2) (BCS No. 2)

At-large: TCU (seed No. 3) (BCS No. 3)

At-large: Boise State (seed No. 4) (BCS No. 4)

Big Ten: Wisconsin (seed No. 5) (BCS No. 7)

Big 12: Nebraska (seed No. 6) (BCS No. 8)

ACC: Virginia Tech (seed No. 7) (BCS No. 20)

Big East: Pittsburgh (seed No. 8) (BCS Not Ranked)

Here are the BCS Top 10 teams that would be left out:

LSU (BCS No. 5)

Stanford (BCS No. 6)

Ohio State (BCS No. 9)

Oklahoma State (BCS No. 10)

Throw into that mix the nine teams that sit between Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech in the BCS standings.  Toss in the multitude of teams that have a legitimate argument about being better than Pittsburgh or anyone else from the Big East. 

Is this what you want?

The argument can easily be made that a team like Oregon would quickly dispose of Pittsburgh and/or that Auburn should handle Virginia Tech.  After all, if these teams really are the "best in the nation," they should have little trouble with unranked and 20th-ranked teams, respectively.

Upsets happen, though.  We nearly saw upstart Iowa State knock off Nebraska for the second year in a row.  We did see Oklahoma lose to Texas A&M and Missouri drop to Texas Tech.  We've seen teams like Ohio State lose to teams like Purdue on numerous occasions.  These things happen.

If they happen in a playoff, though, the entire tournament is forever altered.  We see it happen in the NCAA basketball tournament frequently.  The "best teams" don't always play for the championship. 

The NFL almost yearly sees a championship-caliber team fall to a Wild Card in the playoffs.  It can be infuriating to the fans of a team that loses to a clearly inferior opponent and has to spend the next year(s) wondering what might have been.

What about the Plus-One Format?

This year, this might actually be the best option, though that may prove to be debatable as well.

Currently, there are four undefeated teams.  Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Boise State can all claim to be perfect on the season and have solid arguments behind their national championship propaganda.

If we had to implement a playoff-type system today, at least we could sleep well knowing that the four teams involved had done everything right (to this point).  Anyone else trying to make a claim that they belonged in the discussion would have to justify, beyond all shadow of a doubt, the loss(es) on their records.

However, the season isn't done yet.  What if Auburn loses to someone like Alabama?  What if Oregon drops to in-state rival Oregon State?  Then what?

That would leave TCU and Boise State as the only undefeated teams in America.  Who gets the other two spots?

Of course, that depends on just how far Oregon and/or Auburn fall in the standings.  As the standings sit right now, we would have to assume that they'd at least fall behind LSU and Stanford.  What if Auburn and Oregon still win their respective conferences?

Then the arguments could go on that they still deserve a shot at the title, while opponents might argue that LSU and/or Stanford really deserve the shot.

What about Wisconsin or Nebraska?  Both are sitting not far outside of the Top Five, and both have only one loss. 

The debate about whose loss is less damaging can be just as maddening as the debate that would likely rage throughout the SEC and Pac-10.  How does strength of schedule fit into the entire picture, especially if a team that doesn't win their conference has a stronger schedule than a team that does?

The plus-one format isn't a bad idea, but any time there are fewer than four undefeated teams (most years), there will still be some highly unhappy fans who think their team "got screwed" out of a shot at the national title.

We Could Also See a Real Mess of the Standings

Both of these proposals operate under the assumption that the BCS won't meddle with the ranking system as it is now.  That might be a huge assumption.

If you think Boise State, TCU and Utah have been upset in the past about being left out of the national title picture, just wait until the BCS decides to "clarify things a bit further" by tweaking the strength-of-schedule calculations and increasing how important they are to the standings. 

For simplicity, let's use the computer portion of the BCS standings as a basic guideline for what could happen.

As it stands right now, TCU is in good shape.  Even the computers have them at No. 2.  Boise State however, doesn't fare quite as well.  The computers only have them at No. 5.

Now suppose for a moment that a playoff is instituted.  The BCS anticipates what kind of arguments there will be out there and really tweaks the formula for figuring out the SoS.  Maybe they decide that AQ conference opponents get a little extra "boost" while non-AQ conference opponents don't.  Maybe non-AQ opponents are held in the same light as FCS opponents.  Ouch.

The Mountain West is in their third year of a five-year review for possible AQ status.  Boise State moves to the Mountain West next season, so they could get in on that fun. 

However, as it stands right now, the MWC is not an AQ conference, and therefore, every conference opponent these two programs face would be a major detriment to them.  And while they're looking very good for getting that upgraded status, it's not necessarily a slam dunk.  What if they're denied?

Imagine a scenario where Boise State and TCU fight it out for a MWC conference title.  Let's say TCU wins and ends the season undefeated and having faced four ranked opponents throughout the year.  It's the kind of season 50 other schools would drool to have and another forty more would secretly admire.

However, two of those ranked opponents count for less than your average Big East opponent because they're MWC foes.  That leaves the Horned Frogs with only two ranked opponents to boost their strength of schedule and every other team actually deducts points from their possible total. 

Imagine a 12-0 TCU team having an average human rating of No. 2, but an average computer rating of No. 20 (or something crazy like that).  Suddenly, a perfect season means absolutely nothing, as they're relegated to a 12th-place average in the standings and miss out on the playoffs. 

Why?  Because the debate fuels viewership and discussion and helps drive the money train to Richville.  And because the world just seems like a saner place when the championship comes down to teams like Alabama and Nebraska rather than Boise State and TCU.

It would all be done in the name of "leveling the playing field," of course.  One schedule is "clearly stronger than the other and should be reflected as such in the standings."

Would this happen?  I don't know.  Could this happen?  Yes, it could, and it would have supporters to boot.

Would anyone be truly satisfied with that scenario? 

You Want to Protect the Regular Season

I hear you.  So do I.

Nothing turns my stomach more than the idea of turning college football into a version of college basketball.  No offense to the NCAA on that one, but they royally screwed up a great collegiate sport.

It doesn't have to be that way, though.  The big problem with "March Madness" is that there are far too many teams involved.  A team doesn't have to win their conference.  They don't even necessarily have to be in the top three of their conference.  They just have to have a record that's better than about half of the other schools out there.

What's more, they're talking about increasing the number of participants from 65 to 96.  And you think the bowl thing is getting ridiculous?

Any playoff system would have to be kept in check.  The two proposed above would do just fine for that, especially the plus-one format.  The current bowl layout could even be kept largely intact.  At least, the teams that don't make the playoffs could still participate in bowl games that take them to warm climates and sunny destinations.

By taking only conference champions, the conference schedule would still hold as much meaning as it does today—maybe more.  The out-of-conference schedules might actually start to become tougher, as teams realize that those games don't mean as much and strive to prepare themselves for the rigors of the conference schedule rather than just notching up wins.

The plus-one format maintains the sanctity of the regular schedule throughout.  One loss might well be enough to knock a team out of the top four of the BCS standings and eliminate them from any hope of a national title—just as it is now.

Just because college football looks into a playoff system doesn't have to mean that the regular season gets plowed asunder.  It just means that the powers that be have to be vigilant not to oversell the whole idea and follow in basketball's footsteps.

It's All about Shedding the "Best" Label

You may not like it, but we need to be completely honest about something here.  You'll never, ever...ever satisfactorily determine who the "best team in America" is.  Never.  It's impossible.

Why is it impossible? 

It's impossible because the label "best" is largely subjective.  If you want to clarify by saying that you're looking for the team with the "best overall record," then there are problems.  Teams will schedule every high-school quality and community college opponent they can find to boost their chances at a perfect record.

Clarify it further by saying you're looking for the team with the "best record against the toughest opponents."  Then it really gets subjective.  Who are the "toughest opponents"? 

Right now, we have strength of schedule ratings, but they base those on win-loss records that aren't always indicative of true strength.  There are teams out there that will finish with 9-3 records that are arguably better than teams that will finish with 11-1 records, who will also lose to teams that end up with 7-5 records (or worse).  It happens more frequently than you might think.

The best way to decide who the "best team in America" is would be to have all 119 FBS schools play each other and find out who ends up with the best record. 

By my calculations (leaving at least four bye weeks, so the players don't die of exhaustion), that would take roughly two years, four months and a week.  Obviously, that's not even in the same universe as feasible. 

Minus the ability to do that, there's no real way to determine who the "best" really is.  At some point it will have to include some kind of perception about strengths, weaknesses and quality of opponents.  That means opinions.

We call the winner of the national championship bowl our "national champion."  We only loosely label them as "the best team in America."  Anyone with any common sense knows that such a label is subject to debate and scrutiny.

However, we can clearly and indisputably crown a "national champion," and leave it at that.  

If a playoff is ever to be instituted, the fans would have to come to the agreement that they'll never really know who the "best team in America" is.  They'd have to settle on the agreement that having an undisputed champion is the best we can do.

Then comes two questions:

1. Is any system really fair enough to make everyone happy?

and

2. Do we really want to take the risk just to find out?