December 8, 2008

A BCS Proposal

Everyone, even President Elect Obama, wants a playoff, and I guess now is about the time to allow some room for these pressures to vent.

"Take the top 8 teams, have a playoff."

Plan A:
- Seed teams using BCS Standings.
- Use the BCS Bowls and, starting with the game with #1, assign games to the Bowl with conference tie ins for that team, if it is still available.
-If any games are not assigned after all eight teams are examined by this process let the top team not assigned pick from the remaining BCS Bowls)

1) Oklahoma vs 8) Penn State (Fiesta Bowl)
4) Alabama vs 5) USC (Rose Bowl)

2) Florida vs 7) Texas Tech (Sugar Bowl)
3) Texas vs 6) Utah (Orange Bowl)

Plan B:
- Take any conference champions in the top 8 and place them in the contracted BCS Bowls.
- Place the remaining teams to make the Bowls and brackets as close to even as possible.

1) Oklahoma vs 4) Alabama (Fiesta Bowl)
5) USC vs 8) Penn State (Rose Bowl)

2) Florida vs 7) Texas Tech (Sugar Bowl)
3) Texas vs 6) Utah (Orange Bowl)

Add a play in game
Wait, not everyone advocates for a straight playoff. Take BYU Coach Bronco Mendenhall.

What he put forward is the plus one format with a new wrinkle that is independent of the plus one format, a play in game. Allow the 2 conference champions, undefeated then highest BCS ranking, without an automatic qualification to play in a bowl game for a BCS slot. It would make sense to add undefeated conference champions to the list of teams eligible for the play game, regardless of BCS ranking, for the play in game. If two such teams are not BCS eligible they would be replaced by an at large qualifier (maybe even a third team from a BCS conference) . This adds one slot to the BCS system.

He used the Las Vegas Bowl but I would argue the Liberty Bowl is a better choice for the job. The MWC vs C-USA history, that was ended when the WAC champions was substituted for the MWC champion in 2004, is the basis of this statement.

And about the opposition to a playoff anyways? Aren't the SEC, ACC and Big 12 championship games already play in games for the BCS?

#2 vs #3
But adding a play in allows more flexibility as well. This game could be used to occasionally determine between two closely ranked teams at #2 and #3. This adds flexibility to the championship system for close cases at the boundary, without pushing the boarder problem down to whatever line is drawn.

If the #3 team is within 0.04 BCS points of #2, the #2 and #3 teams participate in the play in game and the two non BCS teams would participate in BCS bowls instead.

Play in games since 2004, using this system: (Additional team in italics)
2008: Florida vs Texas (Utah and Boise State in BCS Bowls)
2007: Hawaii vs At Large
2006: Florida vs Michigan (an extra At Large spot would have been available)
2005: TCU vs At Large ( no 2nd non AQ conference champion eligible )
2004: Auburn vs Oklahoma (Utah and Boise State in BCS Bowls)

Pay Outs:
Currently the first BCS outsider gets 9 million and the second would get 4.5 million (this is actually in print, page 10). 4.5 million is also the amount a second team from a BCS AQ conference gets.

With the play in, the non BCS teams would each get 4.5 million for participation in the play in, plus an additional 4.5 million if they qualify for a BCS bowl. If the play in game is used for the #2 and 3 teams they would get the normal BCS payout, less 2.25 million, for their BCS slot, plus 4.5 million if they go to the championship game. The non BCS teams would get 6.75 million each for their BCS slots. No net change in payout is experienced if the usage of the game is changed.

Either way, the Play-in game would pay out an additional 1.1 million, or 0.65 million per team, over the current 1.7 million per team Liberty Bowl Payout. This is a reasonable value for the quality of team they would be getting.

In concert with a plus one
In a plus one, the top two teams would maintain their traditional bowl ties. #3 would then play #2 and the play in winner would play #1. The winner of these games would meet in a follow up game. The remaining BCS slots would be filled using current selection processes.

If a second BCS non AQ team is not available the #4 team would play in the Play In game. If no teams without an automatic qualification are available the #4 and #5 teams would play. (These rankings use BCS eligibility rather than actual standings. A third team from a conference in the top 5 would not count.)

If two teams are selected to participate with a contract with the same bowl the pairings could be arranged to facilitate this arrangement. Only the Rose Bowl has agreements with two conferences. For Example, If USC were #2 and Penn State were #4, and no second team without an AQ is eligible, #1 would be paired with #3 that year and USC would be paired with the play In winner in the Rose Bowl.

That sure looks a lot less likely to screw up than what we have. I certainly can't imagine 2 teams ending up undefeated with such a system.

Comments:

A BCS Proposal
Everyone, even President Elect Obama, wants a playoff, and I guess now is about the time to allow some room for these pressures to vent. "Take the top 8 teams, have a playoff." Plan A: - Seed teams using BCS Standings. - Use the BCS Bowls and, starting with the game with #1, assign games to the Bowl with conference tie ins for that team, if it is still available. -If any games are not assigned after all eight teams are examined by this process let the top team not assigned pick from the remaining BCS Bowls) 1) Oklahoma vs 8) Penn State (Fiesta Bowl) 4) Alabama vs 5) USC (Rose Bowl) 2) Florida vs 7) Texas Tech (Sugar Bowl) 3) Texas vs 6) Utah (Orange Bowl) Plan B: - Take any conference champions in the top 8 and place them in the contracted BCS Bowls. - Place the remaining teams to make the Bowls and brackets as close to even as possible. 1) Oklahoma vs 4) Alabama (Fiesta Bowl) 5) USC vs 8) Penn State (Rose Bowl) 2) Florida vs 7) Texas Tech (Sugar Bowl) 3) Texas vs 6) Utah (Orange Bowl) Add a play in game Wait, not everyone advocates for a straight playoff. Take BYU Coach Bronco Mendenhall. What he put forward is the plus one format with a new wrinkle that is independent of the plus one format, a play in game. Allow the 2 conference champions, undefeated then highest BCS ranking, without an automatic qualification to play in a bowl game for a BCS slot. It would make sense to add undefeated conference champions to the list of teams eligible for the play game, regardless of BCS ranking, for the play in game. If two such teams are not BCS eligible they would be replaced by an at large qualifier (maybe even a third team from a BCS conference) . This adds one slot to the BCS system. He used the Las Vegas Bowl but I would argue the Liberty Bowl is a better choice for the job. The MWC vs C-USA history, that was ended when the WAC champions was substituted for the MWC champion in 2004, is the basis of this statement. And about the opposition to a playoff anyways? Aren't the SEC, ACC and Big 12 championship games already play in games for the BCS? #2 vs #3 But adding a play in allows more flexibility as well. This game could be used to occasionally determine between two closely ranked teams at #2 and #3. This adds flexibility to the championship system for close cases at the boundary, without pushing the boarder problem down to whatever line is drawn. If the #3 team is within 0.04 BCS points of #2, the #2 and #3 teams participate in the play in game and the two non BCS teams would participate in BCS bowls instead. Play in games since 2004, using this system: (Additional team in italics) 2008: Florida vs Texas (Utah and Boise State in BCS Bowls) 2007: Hawaii vs At Large 2006: Florida vs Michigan (an extra At Large spot would have been available) 2005: TCU vs At Large ( no 2nd non AQ conference champion eligible ) 2004: Auburn vs Oklahoma (Utah and Boise State in BCS Bowls) Pay Outs: Currently the first BCS outsider gets 9 million and the second would get 4.5 million (this is actually in print, page 10). 4.5 million is also the amount a second team from a BCS AQ conference gets. With the play in, the non BCS teams would each get 4.5 million for participation in the play in, plus an additional 4.5 million if they qualify for a BCS bowl. If the play in game is used for the #2 and 3 teams they would get the normal BCS payout, less 2.25 million, for their BCS slot, plus 4.5 million if they go to the championship game. The non BCS teams would get 6.75 million each for their BCS slots. No net change in payout is experienced if the usage of the game is changed. Either way, the Play-in game would pay out an additional 1.1 million, or 0.65 million per team, over the current 1.7 million per team Liberty Bowl Payout. This is a reasonable value for the quality of team they would be getting. In concert with a plus one In a plus one, the top two teams would maintain their traditional bowl ties. #3 would then play #2 and the play in winner would play #1. The winner of these games would meet in a follow up game. The remaining BCS slots would be filled using current selection processes. If a second BCS non AQ team is not available the #4 team would play in the Play In game. If no teams without an automatic qualification are available the #4 and #5 teams would play. (These rankings use BCS eligibility rather than actual standings. A third team from a conference in the top 5 would not count.) If two teams are selected to participate with a contract with the same bowl the pairings could be arranged to facilitate this arrangement. Only the Rose Bowl has agreements with two conferences. For Example, If USC were #2 and Penn State were #4, and no second team without an AQ is eligible, #1 would be paired with #3 that year and USC would be paired with the play In winner in the Rose Bowl. That sure looks a lot less likely to screw up than what we have. I certainly can't imagine 2 teams ending up undefeated with such a system.