This is a two-part proposal to revamp the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), along with benefits and solutions, involving the bowl setup and ranking system.
What would you say to a major bowl and ranking system that works hand-in-hand by adding fairness, makes the major conferences possibly even more money, makes every major bowl a major game with significance instead of just one, and rids college football of divisiveness by canning the label of “BCS” on teams and conferences?
Well here it is. What the TSR proposal will present is this:
1. A comprehensive ranking system that will include the fans by starting in the beginning of the season and becomes more accurate as the season progresses.
2. Eliminates divisiveness by ridding the BCS label on schools and conferences.
3. Adds a fifth major bowl that would be profitable to the networks and conferences if arranged according to the plan below.
4. Uses the major bowls by pitting the Top Ten against each other as one more series of games to weed teams out without being part of a tiered playoff system.
5. Two different major bowls would host the number one team each year, instead of only once every four years.
6. Makes every major bowl a major game with significance, as opposed to only one in the current system.
7. Practically guarantees that a team does not finish in the Top Ten without deserving it, as opposed to potentially finishing there with “sympathy” votes because of the opinion polls having too much influence.
8. Tremendous excitement generated over teams trying to enter the Top Ten at the end of the season. For example, teams ranked eight through twelve.
9. Adds fairness to all schools, especially the so-called “non-BCS” schools that upgrade their schedule, win their games and get that top ten ranking in a deserving manner.
10. Adds a national championship game AFTER the five major bowls are completed without rendering the major bowls meaningless but actually adding greater meaning to them.
11. All five major bowls will have two top ten teams in their bowl with each one also having a top five team.
12. A final, BCS poll to be released after the bowl season.
13. The NCAA to recognize the BCS champion as the NCAA champion.
This will be broken down into categories and shown how this proposal would affect the structure of college football in steps.
THE TOP TEN
Mandate the Top Ten as something for every team to shoot for with real meaning. Open up the top ten to any team that makes the Top Ten ranking, automatically earns a major bowl bid.
With this one rule, divisiveness among the schools and conferences, politics in choosing teams for a major bowl bid and the BCS label are wiped out.
And for good measure, the much-maligned BCS has the heat taken from them, all in one swipe of the pen.
There is no need to have a label such as a BCS team or BCS conference. This label is a big part of the problem because it’s turning conferences against each other.
Only the major bowls need to be called the BCS-a true Bowl Championship Series where every major bowl means something.
This is how it should be done: The Top Ten would play each other but not in a tiered playoff system, as in No.10 vs No.1 and No.9 vs No.2, etc. This would lead to a need for multiple games after the major bowls are played.
The NCAA, as well as the BCS, do not want that and rightfully so. Too many games would be overkill. Instead, this is what could be, and needs to be done:
#10 vs #5
#9 vs #4
#8 vs #3
#7 vs #2
#6 vs #1
The top five would play the second five. This system allows just one game to be played after the major bowls.
The point here is that the farther a team is from No. 1 (10 vs 5), the more help a team should and would need to reach the top two; the closer to No. 1 (6 vs 1), the less help a team would need.
What aids in this not being a tiered playoff system, is that the farther a team is from No. 1 (#10), the lower their opponent’s rank is. For example: No. 10 v. No. 5. There is no big argument if No. 10 beats No. 5 as their would be if No. 10 beat No. 1 in the traditional tiered playoff system.
And even if No. 6 would happen to beat No. 1, they would still need help to get into the top two because after all, there are five teams in front of them. After the major bowls are played, the top two that have accumulated the most points is awarded the national championship game.
Every team that isn’t ranked in the top two heading into the major bowls would all need help.
And if fans have a problem with No. 6 beating No. 1 and not ending up in the top two, think about the chance that No. 6 has in the current system-ZERO.
The point being, at least this system gives teams in the Top Ten one more chance, one more series of games to get into the top two and the championship game. This is what USC needed in 2003.
What the BCS has done has set up a system to allow a lesser-known team to possibly sneak into the top ten based on “sympathy” votes, considering that two-thirds of the BCS poll is opinion-influenced (coaches and writers).
Only the top six are guaranteed a BCS bowl. With the current system (coaches and writers are two-thirds influence), it’s much easier for a non-deserving team (from any conference) to sneak into a guaranteed spot and possibly stir the pot with the backing of the media--or just opinions--and force a hand or two, thereby, creating another controversy.
With the TSR idea, which includes a comprehensive ranking system, it would actually be a little tougher for the so called non-BCS teams to finish in the top ten. But when they did, they will have earned it and be made more legitimate and hence, less questioned and more acceptance of their ranking.
RANKING SYSTEM
Now the idea of mandating the Top Ten to stand for something as automatic qualifiers for a major bowl won’t work without a comprehensive ranking system. The TSR system is an example of that kind of system.
The fact is, if there is not going to be any playoff system then the ranking system must be something that everyone respects and is fair and accurate as possible, not something that is thrown out and changed every few years to satisfy some group that may manipulate the process.
A ranking system doesn’t have to be complicated just because it’s involved, as the 2003 BCS system was. Two things: It started in the middle of the season, excluding fans, and it was complicated.
The TSR system is the TYPE of comprehensive system that needs to be employed because it involves all key elements that determine the strength of a team.
TSR’s system is designed to begin at the start of the season, which includes the fans and the enjoyment and necessity of arguing. Remember, the goal is to design the most accurate and fair system, not to exclude arguing.
TSR’s system also includes an average of six computer polls, the writers and coaches’ polls, a scale system of WIN, OPPONENTS and OPPONENETS’ OPPONENT’S points. Finally, SCORING MARGIN, OFFENSIVE SCORING and DEFENSIVE SCORING are the last three.
The three WIN-point columns act as a strength of schedule and the last three reward a team for what they’ve done on the field while basing it on who they’ve played.
Here's an example of WIN points awarded when a team wins:
1-5...........50/60
6-10.........45/50
11-15.......40/45
16-20.......35/40
21-30.......30/35
31-40.......25/30
41-50.......20/25
51-64.......15/20
65-79.......10/15
80-99.......5/10
100-117...1/5
Beating a top five team earns 50 points, 60 if won on the road, and so on.
The whole idea behind this kind of system, is that the deeper into the season, the more games played, the more points built up, the more accurate the rankings get.
That is why this kind of ranking system can start at the beginning of the season, it doesn’t matter who’s ranked high in August. As the season wears on, the scale points in the WIN and SCORING columns take over with greater influence.
This works like a giant funnel, wide open at the beginning of the season. At the other end of the season is a narrow passageway for just two teams to slip through for the national championship game.
Teams only gets points for beating teams that keep winning. If a team is overrated at the beginning, then whoever beat them will not accumulate points if that defeated opponent stops winning.
THE BENEFITS
MONEY: The proceeds from the national championship game; gate receipts and television money would be enormous.
MORE MONEY: This proposed system would actually create more money for the major conferences because some of these conferences could place as much as three teams in the top ten.
That means more major bowl appearances and more money for those conferences.
This is the tradeoff: When one of those “non-BCS” teams finishes in the top ten, not top six, they must be awarded a major bowl bid-no politics, no choosing, no mandatory finish in the top six.
This is the fairness part of the deal. If the major conferences, or any conference, is going to be allowed to place as many teams in major bowls as they can when finishing in the top ten, then the BCS must allow anyone with that ranking to earn a major bowl as well.
This is the reason for a better comprehensive ranking system. If anyone who finishes in the Top Ten is allowed an automatic major bowl bid, they should have to earn it but not by opinions, but by a good solid ranking system that is fair and judges the teams accordingly.
HOSTING #1: Two different major bowls will host the No. 1 team EVERY YEAR. One bowl will host No. 1 vs No. 6 and another will host No. 1 vs No. 2 for the national championship.
This means that every two and-a-half years a major bowl will host the No. 1 team. The current way has a major bowl hosting the No. 1 team only once every four years.
Another hidden gem is that every major bowl is guaranteed to host a top five team, which will play against a top ten team every year. We don’t always have that now.
What this does is not only not hurt the major bowls, it will enhance them all to an unprecedented level of excitement. The system now has one important bowl (No. 1 vs No. 2) while the three other major bowls are worthless in importance and do not create the attention they would in the TSR system.
MORE TV REVENUE: One of the reasons the BCS stated for not wanting to add a fifth major bowl was a fear of lost revenue from television. BUT THAT'S LOOKING AT IT FROM THE CURRENT VIEW.
Looking at the TSR proposal, with the top ten playing each other in a non-tiered playoff system, would make every major bowl a huge game. Something they don’t always have now. The TV money would most certainly be enhanced, not downgraded, since every game would mean something on the national scene.
INTENTIONS OF THE TSR SYSTEM
Many traditionalists do not want to see a playoff system. The NCAA and certainly the bowl committees don’t want this either.
This is a system proposing something that is the fairest, most accurate system while staving off a playoff system. A playoff system would be overkill and there’s a question on how fans would come up with the money to attend all the extra games.
This isn’t the NFL and the NCAA is adamant in that they don’t want games infringing on the new school semester that starts in January, hence, the rejection of a playoff system.
The final point being that with 11 or 12 regular season games, conference championships and the major bowls, there is no need for a playoff system.
These three rounds of games, regular season, conference championship games and major bowls, act as a weeding-out process, and a playoff system within itself.
This is what makes college football so special and unique is the utmost importance in the regular season games. No other sport puts as much emphasis on its regular season as does college football. A playoff system would ruin that. It would be overkill.
A fair and accurate ranking system that is comprehensive to go along with this new top ten setup, would do a lot more justice than the current opinion-heavy system that is always shrouded in politics.
SOLUTIONS TO SOME PROBLEMS
THE COACHES POLL: The coaches do not rank teams that are ineligible for bowl games because of probation. Since the TSR system requires all teams to be ranked, the offering to the coaches would be to rank every team but when the probation team’s season is over, they would be dropped from the rankings and every team behind them moves up one spot.
This means no bragging rights to recruits if the probation-team would have finished high. The consequence is that they get no recognition at the end of the season.
CHAMPIONSHIP GAME MONEY: Since the teams are already profiting off the major bowls, the two teams that reach the championship game after the major bowls should only have expenses paid.
The only incentive should be to win once the two teams reach the championship game. The championship game money (TV and gate) would be split among the rest of D-1.
The NCAA, the BCS and all of college football cannot lose with this system, everyone gets what they want: More excitement, fairness and legitimizing the Top Ten, and more money for the schools.
Also, more attention for the corporate sponsors of the bowls, and the conferences that the two teams are representing in the championship game.
THE FINAL POLL: There needs to be one final poll released after the major bowls are played. All fans would like to see where their team finishes. Plus, this would put a stamp on the No. 1 team, as opposed to leaving everyone hanging at the end of the year, arguing over all the separate polls.
Another aspect to think about is that many of the minor bowls--with SOS involved in the new system--would affect schools playing in the major bowls for the final rankings--and rightly so.
RECOGNIZING THE CHAMPION: The NCAA needs to recognize the winner of the championship game as the NCAA Champion. They need to do this to legitimize the BCS it they want it to work. If they don't do this, they leave everyone hanging at the end of the year as the individual polls accumulate too much power.
THE ROSE BOWL: This one is usually the stickler in negotiations concerning major bowl arrangements. But there's a way to appease the guys in Pasadena who want to keep their Pac-10 v. Big Ten matchup.
When each conference has a representative finishing in the Top Ten, then just allow them to play in the Rose Bowl. When there's only one representative, then the Rose would have to follow the arrangement above (#10 v # 5, etc.).
NOTE: This isn’t some idealistic, “play fair” proposal to the BCS/NCAA based out of naivety.
As you can see, this idea could generate more dollars for the major conferences. But, this would also generate more dollars for the lesser-known teams, as they would have a more realistic chance at a major bowl if they only had to finish in the Top Ten.
Granted, a comprehensive ranking system would seem to make it harder to reach the Top Ten for any team that is forced to upgrade their schedule. But at least the Top Ten is more attainable than the top six, as it stands now.
In this system, making the Top Ten would make it more legitimate with a comprehensive ranking system as opposed to finishing in the top six based mostly on opinion polls.
ONE FINAL NOTE: I challenge anyone to poke holes in this proposal and show how it would not work. I’m not talking about how difficult it is to change people’s thinking along these lines, or who would or would not agree. I’m talking about its fairness, profitability and it working.
