Every year there’s some shmoe that feels slighted because their team was left out of the BCS (and/or championship game).
Last year, the Utah Utes actually deserved to be in it against Florida – Oklahoma had no business being there whatsoever. (Frag off, Sooner fans… tell me again what Oklahoma’s bowl record in BCS-era bowls is? Zero-for-what?)
Anyway, Congress, being a bunch of foolhardy people with apparently nothing better to do, decided to hold a hearing on the whole mess – wasting taxpayers’ money, natch – and threaten “legislation” if the scenario isn’t fixed to their liking. Really, the only thing they can do is try to pass a law saying the BCS Champion cannot be named the “National” champion.
Really, the whole reason the other schools feel slighted is because of the money involved – an $18 million payoff for teams that end up in a BCS bowl. You bet that the other 5 conferences and those 4 Independent schools want a piece of that!!!
So, if the BCS people actually cared to listen, there’s an easy way to fix this without resorting to a playoff: Add two more bowl games to the “BCS”.
Right now, the BCS consists of four bowl games plus the Championship game – the Fiesta, the Rose, the Sugar, and the Orange Bowls. Each bowl has “tie-ins”, meaning that a specific conference championship is contractually obligated to play in a specific bowl unless that team qualifies for the BCS Championship game. The tie-ins are:
Fiesta: Big 12 champ
Rose: Big Ten and Pac-10 champs
Sugar: SEC champ
Orange: ACC champ
Note that the Big East does not have an official “tie-in”, but historically the Big East ends up in the Orange Bowl as well.
The conference champions of the aforementioned six ‘power’ or ‘BCS’ conferences automatically gain a berth in those bowl games. Ok, so that’s six teams for 8 slots, not counting the BCS Championship. But really, the BCS Championship game has always featured two teams from those six conferences, just sometimes not the conference champions (which ALSO is a stupid loophole that needs to be fixed).
The following proposal leaves the current BCS ranking system in place while allowing for other conference champions to “play” in the BCS (and thus getting a share of that $18 mil…):
New rule – no team can be a part of the National Championship game if they are not a conference champion. This means that after all scheduled and conference championship games have been played and the final end of season standings have a team that is not a conference champion ranked #1 or #2:
- If #1, the team will be re-ranked to #3, the #2 team will become #1, and the highest-ranked conference champion will be the new #2.
- If #2, the team will be re-ranked to #3, the #1 team will stay #1, and the highest-ranked conference champion will be the new #2.
- If both #1 and #2 teams are not conference champions, the teams will be re-ranked #3 and #4 and the two highest ranked conference champions will be re-ranked #1 and #2.
- National Championship game: #1-ranked team in BCS vs. #2-ranked team in BCS.
- Fiesta: Big-12 champion vs. MAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, or Independent champion
- Rose: Pac-10 champion vs. Big Ten champion
- Sugar: SEC champion vs. MAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, or Independent champion
- Orange: ACC champion vs. MAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, or Independent champion
- Holiday: WAC champion vs. Mountain West champion
- Gator: Big East champion vs. MAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, or Independent champion
In theory, the Holiday bowl could be any of the champions available, but realistically, being in San Diego, it will be anchored by the WAC and/or the Mountain West teams since it’d be difficult for any other team other than a Big East team to bring a lot of supporters (almost literally) cross-country. This also allows the bowls to select a conference champion pairing based on potential matchup and ticket sales. Order of selection of remaining champions will be based on the ranking of the host champion. However, if a bowl loses a host team to the National Championship Game, then that bowl will select a replacement team from among the automatic-qualifying teams (BCS Top 16) before any other selections are made, the bowl losing the higher ranked team receiving the first pick. If the Rose Bowl should lose both its teams to the National Championship Game, it shall receive two replacement picks. The bowl that picks first for replacement picks shall pick last for conference champion selection to fill its bowl slot.
Note that the way the proposal is presented ensures a conference champion is present in any of the BCS Bowl games except in the rare case of the Rose Bowl losing both its obligated members to the National Championship game.
If we use the Final 2008 season results as a barometer: (note again, I don’t condone Oklahoma’s final ranking here… I’m just using the data from 2008)
- Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)
- Florida (SEC champ)
- USC (Pac-10 champ)
- Utah (Mountain West champ)
- Texas Tech
- Penn State (Big Ten champ)
- Boise State (WAC champ)
- Ohio State
- Cincinnati (Big East champ)
- Oklahoma State
- Georgia Tech
The remaining auto-bid conference champs:
19 Virginia Tech (ACC champ)
22 Ball State (MAC champ)
— East Carolina (Conference USA champ) – #47 computer rankings
— Navy (Independent champ) – #53 computer rankings
— Troy (Sun Belt champ) – #73 computer rankings
Then the bowl matchups would have been:
- Gator: Cincinnati (Big East champ) vs. Navy (Independent champ)
- Holiday: Boise State (WAC champ) vs. Utah (Mountain West champ)
- Fiesta: Texas (BCS #3) vs. East Carolina (C-USA champ)
- Rose: USC (Pac-10 champ) vs. Penn State (Big Ten champion)
- Sugar: Alabama (BCS #4) vs. Troy (Sun Belt champ)
- Orange: Virginia Tech (ACC champion) vs. Ball State (MAC champ)
- National Championship game: Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. Florida (SEC champ)
No matter how you slice it, there’s going to be someone that complains. In this case, it’ll be the Sugar and Fiesta bowls for having to take East Carolina and Troy for their games. At least the Sugar gets a team that’s close to the Bowl location – East Carolina would have to travel cross-country to Glendale, AZ. And realistically, neither team really deserves to be included in the BCS – they’re just not that good. The Cincy/Navy matchup is a good one though, as is the VaTech and Ball State matchup.
A post for another time is relegating two conference champions to “odd man out” status based on their rankings – lowest two teams don’t get the auto-bid, allowing for “replacement” picks as well. If that were the case, Navy and Troy would be dropped, Cincy would be playing East Carolina (an ok matchup), and Sugar would probably pick Texas Tech, while Fiesta would probably have taken Ohio State.
I would also like to see the human polls weighed less than the computer polls. It is obvious in the past three seasons that the human polls have been manipulated to include certain teams and exclude others based on personal agendas. Right now, the human polls account for fully 2/3 of the final tally – the Harris Poll and USA Today are each 1/3 of the equation, while the 6 computers are “summarized” into the last 1/3.
I propose that the computer poll summary be 1/2 of the equation, that two more computers are added to the mix to ensure a “truer” average, that four of the eight polls be allowed to use Margin of Victory in their calculations – because the human polls certainly do – and that the two human polls account for 1/4 each. This would be a fairer way of ranking since then neither the computer polls nor the human polls could unduly influence the other’s rankings.