InfoMan’s Christmas gift to
NCAA football – A PLAYOFF SYSTEM!
Here it is folks … The InfoMan’s NCAA
College Football Playoff System (CFPS).
The NCAA College Football
Playoff System is designed around the following assumptions:
1. THE BOWLS ARE SACRED AND
MUST BE KEPT IN TACT
2. A PLAYOFF BETWEEN MORE
THAN TWO TEAMS IS REQUIRED
3. ACADEMIC FINALS ARE
SACRED AND CAN NOT VIOLATED
4. REVENUE STREAMS MUST
MAINTAIN OR INCREASE
5. ANY CURRENT ENTITY THAT
HAS A STAKE MUST NOT BE EXCLUDED
6. CURRENT SYSTEMS MUST
CONTINUE TO THRIVE
7. FAIRNESS TO ALL
ASSOCIATED PARTIES IS A KEY
8. LENGTH OF SEASON SHOULD
NOT BE UNDULY LENGTHENED
#1. THE BOWLS ARE SACRED AND MUST BE KEPT IN
TACT:
The college football season is one of the most glorious things
that exist. Any type of playoff system
needs to embrace the bowl system and work within it. This is currently the case with one bowl taking the national
championship game in a four-year rotation between the major bowls.
However, a current negative aspect of this setup is that one of
the bowl games gets “pushed back” to a non-Saturday or non-New Year’s day (the
real staple of the college football experience) so that they can be the big
enchilada. This year, this “screwed up
the experience” of the Rose Bowl to all of those that love what this New Year’s
day bowl meant. This year, everyone has
to wait for the culmination of the event two days later so that the game can be
on a national stage. The fix to all of
this is to put all of the major bowls back on New Year’s Day.
#2. A PLAYOFF BETWEEN MORE THAN TWO TEAMS IS
REQUIRED:
The BCS system has produced questionable national championship match-ups
for the last two years. In 2000,
arguments centered around Miami & Florida State. In 2001, those same arguments center around Nebraska, Colorado
and Oregon. It is painfully obvious
that a playoff system is needed that starts with eight teams or more to
determine the REAL national champion.
#3. ACADEMIC FINALS ARE SACRED AND CAN NOT
VIOLATED:
Any type of playoff is going to take more games and the KEY is
that these games cannot have a negative impact on college finals. Sports are scheduled around finals week and
so any playoff system that is designed cannot tread on this hallowed ground.
#4. REVENUE STREAMS MUST MAINTAIN OR INCREASE:
The entities that exist in the current system do so because of
the revenue it generates. If no one
went to or watched these games, all of this discussion would be moot (and
mute). All of the current parties that
are benefactors of the current revenue streams must therefore see those streams
protected or, gasp, ENHANCED, under any new proposed system. The schools, the bowls, the NCAA, the media
entities, and even the ranking systems need to be taken care of with any new
system.
#5. ANY CURRENT ENTITY THAT HAS A STAKE MUST NOT
BE EXCLUDED:
The flip side of protecting revenue streams for the interested parties
is the notion of not threatening revenue streams for parties that are not part
of this plan. For instance, if you were
to come up with some type of playoff system that takes up three of the
Saturdays in January you would be bucking heads with the NFL. A minor impact on any outside entity like
this might be tolerated but a major impact is going to go up against stiff
resistance.
#6. CURRENT SYSTEMS MUST CONTINUE TO THRIVE:
The best way not to get any resistance to any new-fangled plan,
is to include everyone in the new plan.
The BCS (basically a ranking system for the playoffs) needs to continue
to thrive. The bowls need to continue
to thrive. The polls from the
Associated Press and the Coaches need to continue to thrive. The conference championships need to
continue to thrive. If any aspect of
the current setup changes with respect to these entities and the associated
revenue streams, the “new plan” has to be the same or a better plan for them or
they will resist.
#7. FAIRNESS TO ALL ASSOCIATED PARTIES IS A KEY:
Any new system that comes into play has to be fair to all of the
teams that will be playing their games under this system. There are teams that are not associated as
part of a football conference (most notably Notre Dame) so the system has to be
fair to them and to everyone that it supports.
An example where this would not be the case is any playoff system that
used the conference champions as a starting point. This would not work because the NCAA doesn't have the authority
to reorganize the conferences and force everyone to be in a conference. THIS IS NOT PRO FOOTBALL so you can forget
reorganizing it in that manner.
#8. LENGTH OF SEASON SHOULD NOT BE UNDULY
LENGTHENED:
In the current system, there are already enough games being
squeezed into the schedule with the “pre-season games” and the conference
championships to make it a long season for a game that is physically demanding
of the players. Any new system has to
take this into consideration and try to work within the current structure to
create a playoff. This is also seen
with the ability of the fans of a team to be able to follow their team to its
games. Any system that has fans
traveling to three away games at the end of the year is probably going to have
difficulties with attendance. If you
add games to be played, you almost have to make it a “home & away”
proposition for the teams playing the games to get the necessary attendance.
SO, HERE’S THE PUNCH LINE …
THE INFOMAN’S COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF SYSTEM …
COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF
SYSTEM
The BCS formula will be used to rank teams after the conference
championship game weekend which will be required by the NCAA to end by the
Saturday nearest to December 1st. The
next day, Sunday, (just like it is was done in 2001 only one week earlier) the
BCS top eight teams will be revealed and they will play in playoff games the
following Saturday (that was the 8th of December in 2001). The first ranked team will play against the
eighth-ranked team, second against the seventh, and so on. The games will be located at the home game
site of the team with the higher BCS ranking.
The winners of these four playoff games will then go to play on New Year’s
Day in the next level of playoff game which will be the bowl games. Two of the major bowls will be designated as
“playoff bowls” and two of the other bowls will be “normal bowls” just like in
the current system only with the ratio being 3 to 1. Note that the two normal bowls would select their teams on “BCS
Sunday”. So, all of the current four
major bowls will be played on New Year’s day (no need to delay one for a
championship). The winners of the two
playoff bowls will then advance to the “National Championship Bowl” which will
be held on a Saturday 1-2 weeks (most of the time, one week plus a few days)
following January 1st. The winner of
the National Championship Bowl will be crowned the BCS National Champion.
Well InfoMan, that sounds great but who puts on the National
Championship Bowl? This could be a new
entity but it could easily be comprised by the four major bowls who would
economically benefit and, through their experience at organizing such events,
would supply their expertise in organizing such a grand experience. All would fairly share in the economic cut
of the big game, just as they are attempting to do now only without messing up
their piece of their turf on New Year’s Day.
A new venue could be chosen or one of the four major bowls venue’s could
be used as a site which would rotate among the four major bowls.
All that is left to be said is a listing of the ADVANTAGES and
DISADVANTAGES of this plan. You are
encouraged to add to the list with your replies to webmaster@infoman.net
ADVANTAGES
---------------------
- All major bowl games will
be held on January 1st so they are back to being the “bowl game
experience”. No messing up one of them
by delaying the game two days later in the week just to get a national stage.
- Two of the bowl games, besides being major bowls, will now have
the added interest of being “playoff bowls” which should increase viewing (and
thus revenue) of those bowls compared to being a “normal bowl”. Two bowls is more than one bowl that is now
included in the national playoff system.
Instead of waiting once every four years to be “important”, they would
now have the added importance once every other year.
- Revenue streams increase
but with only the addition of five games to be played (4 + 2 + 1 – 2 = 5) so
it’s not a laborious playoff system involving too many weekends.
- Home game playoff bowls
would have NO attendance problems and they would provide more income to the
home team with some split-up of revenue to the away team (similar to the
current bowl/TV revenue structure).
- The bowls would love
this, the BCS would love this, the TV media companies would love this, but,
most importantly, the FANS would love this.
- Fans of the National
Championship game teams could much more easily afford a home game/bowl
game/championship game as opposed to attending three playoff games in remote
venues, which just wouldn't fly.
- Conference playoffs can
still be held and they are not taken “hostage” into a playoff system that
wouldn’t work because all teams don’t have conference playoffs anyway.
- Finals week in December
is not affected … in fact, if the system were in place this year, no games
would have been played later in the year than December 8th which seemed to work
just fine for the SEC folks in 2001.
- The NCAA would sanction
this and thus a REAL National Champion would be crowned that, without a doubt,
would be the agreed-upon National Champion because the system was fair to all
teams.
- DID I MENTION THAT WE
WOULD HAVE A TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPION!!!
DISADVANTAGES
- One bowl would not be the
National Championship game like it is now.
But, I will counter argue that they really don’t want to be a “two days
after New Year’s Day” bowl game anyway (a fate that has just been recently
thrust upon them due to the national champion outcry). They love the revenue but why not pick it up
as a “bonus share” of the National Championship game that they would help to
organize? So, they have their bowl game
revenue which may have the added revenue of being a playoff bowl that year and
then you put a cherry on top by giving them a cut of the National Championship
bowl revenue … REVENUE GALORE!!!
- Extra games. Yeah, there are five more games but that
seems pretty insignificant when you look at the thousands of college football
games played. I think they will easily
fit in the schedule that has been increasing the last few years anyway. We never used to have pre-season games but
look at those now. If you have a beef
with it, dump the pre-season games (NCAA require teams to play after September
1st) and get those folks to be the organizers of the playoff games or National
Championship bowl. This probably
wouldn’t work though because it might threaten their revenue streams (maybe you
could work it out though) and you don’t want that. Just add the five games … it’s not that big of a deal but if not
adding games were a requirement, folks would trade the pre-season ones for a
true national championship in a New York minute.
- It might be tough for
team supporters to scrape up enough cash to travel to a bowl game and to a
National Championship bowl but I don’t think so. A National Championship Bowl is not going to have attendance
problems so the only issue is if team supporters might “wait” to see if their
team is in the National Championship bowl before traveling. This probably wouldn’t deter most of the
people that have the funds required for travel though and the New Year’s Day
bowls have the “bowl experience” attached that would keep their attendance
high. I think playoff significance
would simply add to the numbers.
- Treading into the NFL’s
territory. The only conflict with NFL
football would be the National Championship game in January. This is something to be worked out but it
seems to me like you could still have playoff games in the NFL on a playoff
Saturday at 11:30 AM, and 2:30 PM … leaving the 7:00 PM time slot open for
college football’s National Championship game.
Being on a Saturday would make it so glorious as to restore it’s
“significance and feel” as to what college football should be!!!
- One disadvantage could be
the fact that no one gets to gripe any more about the outcome. Sure, there would still be “BYU is
undefeated and ranked ninth and deserved to be in the playoff” but that’s a far
improvement over this year. I am not
able to determine if the media outlets simply thrive on this controversy as
part of their revenue so that what we have will perpetuate forever but, if they
don’t, then I don’t see how they could be against it.
- Infoman … it will never
happen due to current contracts! I
agree that the current contracts are a hurdle, but they would vaporize quickly
if the affected entities are economically considered. A coach may have a contract for six years but what happens when
his team is a loser … asta la vista baby!
If they can take care of this contract situation, then why can’t they
junk the current playoff system, pay everyone off, and implement The InfoMan
CFPS!!!
So, now that you see the plan, I want you to support it … tear it
down … forward it onto all national media outlets … or print it out and use it
in the bottom of the bird cage. I once
had a very bright college professor tell me when it was time for reviews “Don’t
just tell me I suck … tell me why I suck”.
To all of the former, save space on my hard drive and don’t reply … to
all of the latter, tell me how it can be made better and maybe YOUR IDEA will
be incorporated into the final plan.
The last thing to say is that this concept is copyrighted and the
author requests that you forward it onto others or reuse it as you see fit but
please supply appropriate credit to The InfoMan, Oklahoma Cornhusker Club
Webmaster. The fully documented plan
will be maintained at http://www.infoman.net/occ/playoff.htm the web site for
the Oklahoma Cornhusker Club.
Thanks for reading … discuss it … compile your relevant arguments
… and make a reply to improve it. It
will happen some day … it is inevitable!!!
John Prevette
Oklahoma Cornhusker Club
Webmaster
http://www.infoman.net/occ
http://www.infoman.net/occ/playoff.htm
webmaster@infoman.net