Sixteen Team playoff: The solution to the FBS puzzle - K0ZZ's Blog

K0ZZ's Blog

Sixteen Team playoff: The solution to the FBS puzzle

Posted on December 12, 2011 at 04:45 AM.

(0)

A sixteen team playoff is something that may sound absurd with many FBS purists tugging at the strings of every possible fallacy that they can in hopes of maintaining a system that is clearly and without a doubt flawed.

First and foremost, the voting and selection process is an absolute joke. Each FBS coach is allowed to send in a vote for their Top 25. Yet what does this mean? A lot of votes not being sent in. If your at Kent State, why would you even send the ballot in? In a few articles against the BCS it was also brought up that with all of the duties that coaches have, they tend to delegate the assignment to members of the Athletic Department and guess what that means? They are voting in favor of their own program and conference. Revenue is king and this is an open flaw. Selection by committee which could even be an anonymous group of selectors would be a huge step forward. It's also been stated that voters feel no obligation to move a team down the ratings without a loss, especially at the top of the table. This was proven even more true as Alabama remained a hair above Oklahoma State.

The selection process outside of the national championship is a complete joke. Two talented teams, Boise State and Kansas State are both playing in two meaningless bowls after a top 10 finish, where as 'cash cows' Michigan and Virginia Tech will be playing in the 'How the hell did we get here' Sugar Bowl. Boise State is shafted once again and Kansas State's outstanding season is for nothing. No offense but winning the Cotton Bowl (which actually might mean something this season with the outstanding matchup) or the Las Vegas Bowl. If I was at Boise State I would beyond annoyed. One loss and not only are you completely removed from the BCS equation, your given a matchup against a program that with one more loss wouldn't even be in a bowl game, even though you beat the 'greatest conference in all of historys runner up' (written with sarcasm).

Money is the fuel that powers the world, but at a college level attempting to hold the innocence of a kid playing a sport he loves, than why are talented athletes being shafted by the allmighty dollar? They aren't getting paid, they are playing for their education and love of the sport and a select few for a future career. Yet talent takes a backseat to the revenue. Now millions wouldn't flock to Kansas State / Boise State, but in terms of a level playing field and a good game that would be near the top. The system is just one complete fallacy. It reminds me of a common question on some job interviews. 'Is it okay for an employee to steal if they see a manager steal'.

The analogy is apt for the situation in college sports. With all the money mongering going on, how can you complain about the athletes trying to get a little section of the money. If universities started acting selfless, working not for a massive surplus in cash flow and instead sought to give their athletes the best possible education and experience on the field than money wouldn't be such an issue with recruiting and benefits. 'Monkey see, monkey do'.

A large amount of opposition to this is slated around two things, competitiveness and finals. The collegiate football season falls in that flaky period where most colleges fall semester is coming to a close and dreaded finals are around the corner and a common excuse against the playoff system is that finals and as a whole grades would suffer.

If an athlete is managing up to this point, they could continue to do so. In this day and age there are ways for athletes to take finals electronically, with a separate section (class) or given a slight reprieve (alternate test days). Secondly, the other sub-division, the FCS operates with a playoff system, how can you use this argument at the FBS level? Honestly? Are all FCS athletes just that much more intelligent to be able to balance the dual tasks presented? It's a joke of an arguement designed to appeal to the College Presidents not willing to look at the underlying facts. It wouldn't be that terrible. Finals and grades would not suffer, March Madness easily has more impact than a 16 team playoff once a saturday at a nearby neutral field would be. Instead of a month of waiting, December could be dedicated to playoff time, so the College season is wrapped up by the time the NFL playoffs roll around, give players a chance to be with their families and friends prior to the next semester and some valuable R&R.

The other is that allowing every conference champion would make some mismatches (mainly looking at the Sunbelt here). That was something I threw in my thought process for the tournament itself.

This brings about the tournament it's self. Sixteen teams allow each conference to field a team if and only if the following condition was met. Aside from winning the conference they will have to be .500 against FBS non-conference opponents or ranked FCS opponents (ranked at time of playing), for an at large bid it must be .750 . What does this alleviate? A Florida Atlantic (7-5) squad that rolls through the Sunbelt and gets beat up by every out of conference team. This levels the playing field, opening up an at large bid and forcing teams to really look at their schedule.

The above rule only has the exception of schools only playing three out of conference games, it would require conference champions to only win one out of conference game against a FBS opponent, or an at large to win two.

Kent State wouldn't schedule Alabama for the revenue. A guaranteed loss wouldn't look good, they would schedule similar talent in case their team made a run through the season and were seeking a playoff bid, a ripple effect bringing about a better season that isn't about the three conference games that matter and the rest against the middle tier and the cupcake squads that are scheduled. It would also stop the upper levels from bringing in the little guy to pad their numbers in the eyes of the BCS.

The bracket would be broken up as best as possible by region, North, South, East and West and bowl games could exist as consolation prizes much like the NIT or other post season tournaments to give other teams the chance for a post season game. The BCS Bowl Games would host the semi finals and national championship games keeping these venues alive and well.

Applying this to the current season how would it work?

Conference Champions
ACC - Clemson (+)
B12 - Oklahoma State (+)
B10 - Wisconsin (+)
BE - WVU (+)
CUSA - Southern Miss (+)
MAC - NIU (DNQ)
MWC - TCU (+)
PAC12 - Oregon (+)
SEC - LSU (+)
SB - Ark State (DNQ)
WAC - Louisiana Tech (DNQ)

With the rules as they were, NIU, Arkansas State and LTU would all be eliminated which albeit difficult to swallow would be necessary to keep the playing field level.

With 8 of the 16 selections given to the conference champions it would than goto the ranking system and effectively go down the list so to speak and allow or strike out those who meet or fail to meet the criteria.

At Large:
#2 Alabama
#4 Stanford
#6 Arkansas
#7 Boise State
#9 South Carolina
#11 Virginia Tech
#12 Baylor
#13 Michigan

No team would be skipped over through the rankings. Seeds would be dished out on a regional basis with the highest conference champion getting precedent over the at larges.

Matchups will be either

CC vs At large

or if there are 3 or more Conference champions in one pool it would be the highest versus the lowest with the two middle seeds in the lower bracket. Overall rankings determine who is 'home' the higher seed being 'home'.

How this would play out this year?

N:
(1)Boise State vs (4)Michigan
(2)Wisconsin vs (3)West Virginia

E:
(1)Clemson vs (4)Virginia Tech
(2)Alabama vs(3)South Carolina

S:
(1)LSU vs (4)Baylor
(2)Southern Miss vs (3)Arkansas

W:
(1)Oklahoma State vs (3)Texas Christian
(2)Oregon vs (4)Stanford

North Champ versus East Champ
South Champ versus West Champ

than the two teams meet for the title.

The solution isn't simple for a system so flawed but we need to get to fixing this system, not just living with it.