In my perfect college football world...
As I close my eyes at night thinking about ways to fix the world, one of my dreams is how to repair college football. College football is broken, can't you see? There are 5 undefeated teams in the FBS. Yet, through a maze of numbers, TV contracts and sponsorships, 3 of those teams won't get a chance to play for the National Championship.
My solution is twofold: fix the regular season and fix the post season. You could do one and not the other, but true fairness can only be found by doing both. Let's start with some numbers, shall we?
Here's a list of the number of schools per FBS conference. Every conference is equal. Yes, the WAC is on the same level as the SEC.
That's 11 conferences plus 3 independents. 107 schools. Plenty of teams there to put together an out of conference schedule. But for the sake of intrastate "rivalries" we'll allow 1 game per year against a directional opponent.
RULE CHANGE: TEAMS ARE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF ONE (1) NON FBS OPPONENT PER SEASON.
RULE CHANGE: EACH FBS TEAM SHALL PLAY AN ELEVEN (11) GAME SCHEDULE.
The problem with conferences of varying sizes is creating a schedule that is balanced. From an NCAA standpoint, they will allow the conference to decide the number of games in a conference schedule and how they will determine the champion.
RULE CHANGE: THERE WILL BE NO +1 GAME TO DETERMINE THE CONFERENCE CHAMPION.
So, now we've completed a season and each conference has determined the order of finish.
RULE CHANGE: EACH CONFERENCE CHAMPION WILL RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC BID INTO POST-SEASON TOURNAMENT.
Let's look at this year and see what we have (remember, I'm tossing out conference championship games)
Florida gets a * for the following reason:
RULE CHANGE: THE BCS STANDINGS WILL STILL EXIST FOR SEEDING PURPOSES. EACH CONFERENCE WILL SEND NO MORE THAN TWO (2) TEAMS TO THE TOURNAMENT, TO GIVE BROADER ACCESS TO TOURNAMENT.
Florida is SEC champion in the scenario only because there is no way to tell a difference between Florida and Alabama by comparing schedules. They were both undefeated. Florida is champion because they were ranked higher in the BCS, and Alabama will get in the tournament anyhow. The Conferences will obviously have to change their procedures.
For this instance, we'll use the November 29 BCS Standings, as (for the most part) it is the final poll prior to the conference championship games. I'll walk through the top of the poll and show you how the tournament is seeded:
So, Penn State and LSU get passed over. Worse things have happened. But that leaves us with these matchups (and possible venues):
The top 8 revenue generating conferences get to select the first round venues. That will aid ticket sales, merchandising and overall venue management. In this manner, conferences can schedule this game years ahead, just as they do in the current scheme. As you can see by the above chart, the "home team" will be the team from the host conference, if possible. The ACC Champion Georgia Tech was not a top 8 seed, and therefore could not "host" so Alabama goes there to replace them, because they are the only At-Large team in the top 8. In years where there is more than one case of this, then the higher seed picks the venue.
The quarterfinal games would use current, non BCS bowls, selected due to their demographics and quality of previous bowls. Possible nominees are: Cotton Bowl, Holiday Bowl, Gator Bowl and Peach Bowl. The conferences would need to schedule their 1st round venues after the NCAA schedules the venues, so they don't match.
The semifinals and National Championship games would rotate between the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and the Rose Bowl...or at least their venue.
As far as the calendar goes:
Round 1 games played 2nd Saturday of December (Dec. 12)
Quarterfinal games played 3rd Saturday of December (Dec. 19)
Semifinal games played on New Year's Day (Jan. 1)
National Championship played on Monday following NFL's first round games (Jan. 11)
So what can we conclude from all of this?
*Should a team go to the National Championship, they will have play a total of 15 games. That's only 1 game more than some teams play now.
*Only 4 teams will play more than 13 games.
*In this scenario (and I haven't figured out dates for other years yet) the National Championship is only 4 days after what's actually scheduled.
*The "BCS" in this scenario would encompass 7 games (from the quarterfinals to the championship). That would mean the NCAA would control the media/advertising/etc. money for 7 games instead of 5.
*The top 8 conferences would control the rights to the 8 games that they host in the first round. That contrasts with the 3 conferences that actually stage a championship game currently.
FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I still have a problem with doing away with a conference championshp game
So, what happens if Texas and Missouri are both undefeated in conference, but Texas is 11-0 and Missouri lost to Alabama in non-con, so isn’t ranked high enough to get an automatic bid? Missouri is just screwed? I mean, I know they’d be screwed in the current setup, but that’s a HUGE loss of money to Missouri, who might have a chance to win it all if they were allowed a chance to play for the conference championship. To me, there’s a logical disconnect between saying that “the BCS isn’t good enough to pick the top 2 teams” and “the BCS is good enough to pick the one team that wins the conference”. You can’t have it both ways, if you want to decide it on the field, decide it on the field. Make every conference that is too large for all teams to play each other have a championship game.
hold up...
Who makes the money in the conference championship game? The schools only get an appearance fee, that I know of. So if you’re trying to argue from a financial point of view, then you might be right that the conference championship game loser would lose that appearance fee. But the conference would still be able to generate the income from that game…and maybe more since it would be a guaranteed game with (most likely) the conference champion participating in it.
So, what happens if Texas and Missouri are both undefeated in conference, but Texas is 11-0 and Missouri lost to Alabama in non-con, so isn’t ranked high enough to get an automatic bid? Missouri is just screwed?
You’re telling me that if Missouri and Texas went undefeated in the Big 12 (which wouldn’t happen in this year scenario since they played Texas) and Texas was 11-0 and Missouri was 10-1 overall because of a loss to Alabama….You seriously don’t think Missouri would be ranked high enough to earn the Big 12 At-Large bid? Remember, with no conference championship game, in 2007, Missouri would have been #1 overall in this scenario heading into a first round game in Kansas City. Chew on that for a minute.
Make every conference that is too large for all teams to play each other have a championship game.
So you’re telling me one of two things. Either you’re happy that the big conferences and big schools get to play an extra game, while smaller conferences aren’t. That means you like that the system currently uses benefits the large conferences the most.
Or, you want across-the-board conference re-alignment (which a buddy of mine supports) that has 9 12 team conferences and 1 11 team conference. Good luck getting that done and not destroying a natural rivalry.
What I'm saying is that Missouri would lose out on the money of competing in the tournament
if they’re not allowed a chance to win the Conference even though they have the same record as a team from the south, just because they’re ranked lower in the BCS (or whatever) standings.
Yeah, I didn't use a great example, I admit that
First off, I don’t think that having a conference championship game benefits the TEAMS who have to play it. The conferences benefit financially, but the teams risk another loss that knocks them out of contention for a BCS Bowl.
If we’re going to all this trouble of trying to find an equitable way of coming up with a playoff because the right way of determining the national champion is by having the teams play each other, then it’s illogical to then propose something other than a playoff to determine the champion of a conference. There is no need for a conference championship game in a conference with 9 (or less) teams, because all teams can play each other, and the champion can be decided on the field. However, if you don’t play all teams, you will have cases where two teams have equal records, or a team with a weaker schedule has a slightly better record than another. At that point, you need to go to something other than the results of a game to decide (BCS rankings, for example). Given the reasons for being against the current system, we should avoid this at all costs.
okay, you've lost me
if Missouri is 10-1 (8-0) and Texas is 11-0 (8-0), then it would be up to the conference to determine the champion. The conference determines the champion and the “BCS” poll (in this instance…I’d like to see that overhauled also) determines the at-large bid. In this scenario, do you honestly think Missouri wouldn’t be one of the 5 at-large bids?
by CPC on Dec 7, 2009 2:07 PM CST up reply actions
what about this
2 teams are tied at the end of the regular season. say mizzou and texas are both undeafeted, then have mizzou and texas play a championship game solely to decide the conference champion, they could play at a neutral site outside of both states (no letting texas play at cowboy stadium) but the big 12 will designate 3 to for sited for this game, thus allowing teams/fans to know where they would be headed. THIS GAME WOULD HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE BCS STANDINGS. this is my main point, whoever wins is conference champ, loser is still undefeated and can be selected as an at-large. this game could be played the week before the 1st playoff round.
This sounds feasable to me, but maybe it’s a terrible idea. that’s my 2 cents on the matter
" If I had a gun on a boat I would shoot you right here, right now"
couldn't mizzou still be an at-large in that scenario?
" If I had a gun on a boat I would shoot you right here, right now"





















