There is no controversy in college football, is there?
Controversy is not always a bad thing. Without controversy the world we live in would be boring. However, unnecessary controversy, that’s another story all together. If you believe the current college football system is a bit flawed, to say the least, I encourage you to read on. The power of this idea could revolutionize this game and create such an intense atmosphere in college football that no other sport will be capable of matching. This idea could generate more income than any sport in history, and may be more exciting to watch than any tournament or bowl game we have ever seen? Could this be the answer college football so desperately needs? You be the judge.
Brief Outline
1. Enhance the excitement of regular season competition.
2. Maintain the heritage of college football.
3. Works for all parties and includes every team in NCAA Division I?
4. Allows any team in the country an opportunity to win the big one?
5. Would determine a true national champion.
6. Will open up recruiting for schools, and provide more options to student athletes by allowing them to choose where they want to go without sacrificing the opportunity to make it to the big dance.
Where do we start?
All the major bowls would still be incorporated into this tournament. The position of the games would rotate each year allowing each sponsor the same opportunity. Here is the scenario: Round one: #3 vs. #6 in the Rose Bowl, #4 vs. #5 in the Orange Bowl. Round two: #1 vs. winner of #4 vs. #5 in the Fiesta Bowl while #2 plays the winner of #3 vs. #6 in the Sugar Bowl. The winner of these games will then go on to play in the BCS National Championship Game. The top six teams are selected based on their BCS rankings after all conference championship games have been played.
But all conferences don’t have championship games, right?
Another tweak to be added to the current system. Each League will play a league championship game or crossover game. If a league does not have enough teams to have their own conference championship they will match up with another conference. Examples: Big 10, Pac 10, and Conference USA would need to create a conference championship game. The Big East could face off against the Sun Belt. The WAC may battle the Mountain West. The ACC, SEC, and Big 12 continue on as usual. Independents join a conference or get left out of the championship opportunity. Example: Notre Dame could join the Big 10, while Army and Navy join the Big East.
Season ending rankings.
Teams should be rewarded for being ranked #1 - #25 in the country. That ranking should be earned not given. Once earned it should carry over to the following season and not taken away based solely on opinion, only formulas and numbers would determine rank changes. Should a school that finished number #2 the previous year be virtually unranked the following year as did Boise State after their huge win over Oklahoma? After Boise State’s 2007 undefeated season, they were unranked in 11 of the 12 2008 preseason polls. Should a school maintain their ranking until it is taken away on the field or be delegated by pollsters?
The current system, in my opinion, does a good job to determine who moves up and down each week, however, the current preseason ranking system favors the large programs too much. Even though teams may not seem as strong on the roster as they were the previous season, they should be ranked where they ended up the previous year. After all, the players are only part of the success of a given program. In some instances, such as the current U-Conn program, the coaches, and staff are largely responsible for the team’s success. This new system will allow smaller schools to increase their ability to obtain high profile recruits as the schools momentum and prestige will be a major draw for recruits following a successful season.
As a college freshman, if you were offered a starting position at a smaller school who has a good poll ranking from the previous season, and will be exposed to more media coverage the following year, would you be interested? Would attending that school be more appealing than taking your chance of sitting the bench until your junior year at a current big time program? For some, a shot at the national championship is a huge factor in where they choose to attend. Ben Roethlisberger, a perfect example of a kid who had to sit behind a name, started one year in high school after the coach’s son graduated, then he went on to throw for 10,829 yards in college. Would he have started if he went to a Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, or ACC School as a walk on? How many college starters are on the bench waiting for their shot when they could be starting at a smaller up and coming program?
This new approach to the pre-season ranking would allow smaller schools like Boise State and Utah to build a dynasty. It may also entice coaches to stay longer at a current program, or even coach at any location in the country, as they would have the same opportunity to coach in the big game at any Division I school. Urban Meyer moved on to Florida after leaving Bowling Green behind. Why? Because he had virtually no chance of making a small school like Bowling Green a powerhouse and would probably never have a chance at a national championship. With this new system some high profile coaches may even choose to coach at a small program with little notoriety or prestige, simply to build their own franchise or dynasty. How exciting and challenging would it be to the great minds of college football; to build something from nothing and leave a true legacy. It’s a simple formula; Winning games leads to a higher ranking and higher prestige. This in turn equals better recruits thus creating a dynasty.
Where do we start?
We start with the BCS itself. As the saying goes, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water! There are many things that the BCS has to offer that can be contributed to the success of this proposal. For example, keep intact the current formula determining strength of schedule (with a slight tweak which you will see a bit later), post season rankings, etc. The current ranking system determining the top 10 teams seems to be pretty reasonable. I feel we could continue to use this system to determine who gets in and who stays out. We will need to change a few things slightly for all this to work but it is definitely within reason and definitely not rocket science.
Who gets in and who’s left out?
Let’s start with an obvious, legitimate complaint. If a team goes undefeated it should not have to play a long series of games to get to the national championship thus negating the need for a large season ending tournament. After all, do we really want a 7-4 team to have a shot at the title? I say no way. Undefeated, and in some cases, one loss, is the only way you should have a chance at the title. Keep in mind, no matter what we do or what plan we choose, someone is going to be upset. Controversy will always be a factor but is there really a legitimate gripe if the controversy is coming from a one or two loss team? If they won all their games they wouldn’t have anything to gripe about!
Who gets in and who’s left out?
Let’s start with an obvious, legitimate complaint. If a team goes undefeated it should not have to play a long series of games to get to the national championship thus negating the need for a large season ending tournament. After all, do we really want a 7-4 team to have a shot at the title? I say no way. Undefeated, and in some cases, one loss, is the only way you should have a chance at the title. Keep in mind, no matter what we do or what plan we choose, someone is going to be upset. Controversy will always be a factor but is there really a legitimate gripe if the controversy is coming from a one or two loss team? If they won all their games they wouldn’t have anything to gripe about!
How many teams are we talking here?
Six teams max! Why only six teams and not four or eight? Six teams would allow any team in the country, who goes undefeated, the opportunity to be ranked in the top six as long as they had a reasonable strength of schedule. In the following formula, for some smaller programs, achieving this ranking has a slight chance of taking back-to-back seasons to obtain. This approach may still have flaws but seems to me more ethical and logical than the current system. In the current system many Division I teams do not have a legitimate shot at a title. Taking only the top four would not create a just system and would be much like the one we have in place now. It also has a high chance of leaving a legitimate contender out. Eight teams would allow too much room for a two loss team to sneak in and would dilute the importance of an undefeated season. Four or eight teams would also take away the benefit of the bye week for finishing #1 or #2.
Six teams max! Why only six teams and not four or eight? Six teams would allow any team in the country, who goes undefeated, the opportunity to be ranked in the top six as long as they had a reasonable strength of schedule. In the following formula, for some smaller programs, achieving this ranking has a slight chance of taking back-to-back seasons to obtain. This approach may still have flaws but seems to me more ethical and logical than the current system. In the current system many Division I teams do not have a legitimate shot at a title. Taking only the top four would not create a just system and would be much like the one we have in place now. It also has a high chance of leaving a legitimate contender out. Eight teams would allow too much room for a two loss team to sneak in and would dilute the importance of an undefeated season. Four or eight teams would also take away the benefit of the bye week for finishing #1 or #2.
By allowing room for only six teams the regular season would be amazing! Every week fans of every undefeated, NCAA Division I, team would be sitting on the edge of their seats, holding their breath in agony during the last seconds of each game, wondering if their team has what it takes for a shot at the title. This opportunity would not only be for fans of the big programs such as Texas or Alabama, but also the smaller schools such as TCU or Central Michigan. If your team wants a shot they can’t lose (with the exception of a few). #1 and #2 would receive a first round bye as a reward for finishing at the top of the regular season.
What happens to the Major bowl games, bowl sponsors, and the private interest groups?
What happens to the Major bowl games, bowl sponsors, and the private interest groups?
All the major bowls would still be incorporated into this tournament. The position of the games would rotate each year allowing each sponsor the same opportunity. Here is the scenario: Round one: #3 vs. #6 in the Rose Bowl, #4 vs. #5 in the Orange Bowl. Round two: #1 vs. winner of #4 vs. #5 in the Fiesta Bowl while #2 plays the winner of #3 vs. #6 in the Sugar Bowl. The winner of these games will then go on to play in the BCS National Championship Game. The top six teams are selected based on their BCS rankings after all conference championship games have been played.
But all conferences don’t have championship games, right?
Another tweak to be added to the current system. Each League will play a league championship game or crossover game. If a league does not have enough teams to have their own conference championship they will match up with another conference. Examples: Big 10, Pac 10, and Conference USA would need to create a conference championship game. The Big East could face off against the Sun Belt. The WAC may battle the Mountain West. The ACC, SEC, and Big 12 continue on as usual. Independents join a conference or get left out of the championship opportunity. Example: Notre Dame could join the Big 10, while Army and Navy join the Big East.
Season ending rankings.
Teams should be rewarded for being ranked #1 - #25 in the country. That ranking should be earned not given. Once earned it should carry over to the following season and not taken away based solely on opinion, only formulas and numbers would determine rank changes. Should a school that finished number #2 the previous year be virtually unranked the following year as did Boise State after their huge win over Oklahoma? After Boise State’s 2007 undefeated season, they were unranked in 11 of the 12 2008 preseason polls. Should a school maintain their ranking until it is taken away on the field or be delegated by pollsters?
The current system, in my opinion, does a good job to determine who moves up and down each week, however, the current preseason ranking system favors the large programs too much. Even though teams may not seem as strong on the roster as they were the previous season, they should be ranked where they ended up the previous year. After all, the players are only part of the success of a given program. In some instances, such as the current U-Conn program, the coaches, and staff are largely responsible for the team’s success. This new system will allow smaller schools to increase their ability to obtain high profile recruits as the schools momentum and prestige will be a major draw for recruits following a successful season.
As a college freshman, if you were offered a starting position at a smaller school who has a good poll ranking from the previous season, and will be exposed to more media coverage the following year, would you be interested? Would attending that school be more appealing than taking your chance of sitting the bench until your junior year at a current big time program? For some, a shot at the national championship is a huge factor in where they choose to attend. Ben Roethlisberger, a perfect example of a kid who had to sit behind a name, started one year in high school after the coach’s son graduated, then he went on to throw for 10,829 yards in college. Would he have started if he went to a Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, or ACC School as a walk on? How many college starters are on the bench waiting for their shot when they could be starting at a smaller up and coming program?
This new approach to the pre-season ranking would allow smaller schools like Boise State and Utah to build a dynasty. It may also entice coaches to stay longer at a current program, or even coach at any location in the country, as they would have the same opportunity to coach in the big game at any Division I school. Urban Meyer moved on to Florida after leaving Bowling Green behind. Why? Because he had virtually no chance of making a small school like Bowling Green a powerhouse and would probably never have a chance at a national championship. With this new system some high profile coaches may even choose to coach at a small program with little notoriety or prestige, simply to build their own franchise or dynasty. How exciting and challenging would it be to the great minds of college football; to build something from nothing and leave a true legacy. It’s a simple formula; Winning games leads to a higher ranking and higher prestige. This in turn equals better recruits thus creating a dynasty.
What about the rest of the bowl games?
The rest of the games will be scheduled as usual. The only difference is they will have more of significance than they ever have. Winning these bowl games will improve your teams rank for the following season. More people would watch these games simply because they will impact how the following season will begin. Strength of schedule incentives would be added based on conference records in bowls each year. Example: If the Mountain West wins four out of five bowl match ups against so called major conferences their conference strength will rise increasing their opponent’s strength of schedule the following year. Major conferences won’t be afraid to schedule teams such as Boise State as they will receive more strength of schedule points whether they win or lose.
In conclusion
Obviously some will like this idea, while others will cry foul. Either way, something needs to be done. I don't know about you but I am not satisfied with an Alabama vs. Texas or a Florida vs. Oklahoma championship every single year (excuse me if I left those few others out that make it almost every year). I am not satisfied knowing that talent is going to waste as potential starters and All Americans sit the bench behind a big name. I would like to see more average Joe's have a chance to defeat Goliath on the largest stage in America. In 2003, if Miami University, led by Ben Roethlisberger, hadn't lost to Iowa the first week, would they have had a shot at title or would they have been snubbed by the BCS system which featured a one loss LSU against an unbeaten Oklahoma? Unfortunately, Miami did lose to Iowa so we will never know what would have happened, but year in and year out we see Cinderella teams, much like in college basketball, being benched in favor of big name programs. One big difference between college basketball and college football is that Cinderella teams can become powerhouse programs. Gonzaga accomplished that feat in a few short years and are no longer considered a Cinderella team. Their name can now be referred to as one of the elite programs in college basketball and is typically found every year while filling out a tournament bracket. Yet in college football, smaller schools can only dream of become a powerhouse in the current system that has them set up for failure? We live in a country originally founded on freedom principles, it’s time someone put a stop to this major injustice. We can no longer allow this great game to be molested and defiled, a game so many Americans hold dear to our hearts, for the sake of greed or personal interest. Now is your chance to make it right corporate America, university presidents, conference commissioners, athletic directors, and private interest groups. Will ethics prevail, will freedom ring, or will this be another dark chapter in the history of this great country? Freedom is crying out from households all over America. It is up to you!
Written by Scott Miller
No comments:
Post a Comment