The Only 'Playoff' That Works

(Guru's note: This proposal has been slightly amended after great feedback and additional considerations. I believe this is now the most plausible proposal to modify the framework of the BCS.)

The BCS annual meeting is set to take place next Monday in Pasadena, where the commissioners are expected to hobnob and mostly wring their hands before declaring the BCS a "success."

There will be a couple of issues. The pesky Mountain West has a proposal and it wants to be heard. It will be, but just like the last words from a death-row inmate, it's not going to make any difference. And there's the congressional pressure, but with re-election coming up in 18 months, that may be played off by a pledge for "more studying."

But sooner or later, the BCS will have to deal with this. As it nears the conclusion of its third four-year contract, the public is fed up with a system that provides very little satisfaction in crowing a true champion. The concept of a "national champion" in Division I-A is as mythical as ever, as none of the past three BCS champions may lay an undisputed claim to the title.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The Guru has devised a "playoff" scheme that creates minimal conflict with the current regime and may be implemented immediately. The concept is tested against the 11 past BCS seasons, which proved that it would have stifled any controversy in the course of determining a true champion. The beauty of this proposal is in its simplicity.

So here it is:

1. Add two games to the current format - national semifinal games played on campus sites the week after the last regular-season games are played and BCS standings are released.

2. The semifinalists will be the four teams meeting the following criteria -

• a) The four highest-ranked conference champions, provided that they're in the top six of the final BCS standings.*

• b) Any team that finished in the top two but failed to win its conference.

• c) In case of a conflict between a) and b), b) takes precedence over the lowest-ranked conference champion.

* Conference champion may be from any conference, regardless of BCS affiliation. In the case of conferences without a championship game, a co-champion is accepted and no tiebreaker needs to be applied. Notre Dame belongs in this group as well.

3. The higher seeds host the lower seeds on campus sites, with the winner advancing to the national championship game, to be played one week after New Year's Day.

4. All bowl games and their affiliations stay in tact. The losing semifinalists are guaranteed a spot in one of the BCS bowls, in accordance with their conference affiliations. Second-place teams may be invited in place of the semifinal winners, as it is the case now with the top two teams.

That's it. And here's the historical data on how this system would've worked over the past 11 seasons:

2008: No. 6 Utah (MWC champion) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama did not qualify

2007: No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 3 Virginia Tech (ACC) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2006: No. 6 Louisville (Big East) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 LSU did not qualify

2005: No. 6 Notre Dame at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Penn State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Texas (Big 12) ** No. 4 Ohio State and No. 5 Oregon did not qualify

2004: No. 6 Utah (MWC) at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Auburn (SEC) at No. 2 Oklahoma (Big 12) ** No. 4 Texas and No. 5 California did not qualify

2003: No. 4 Michigan (Big Ten) at No. 1 Oklahoma (at-large); No. 3 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2002: No. 4 USC (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3 Georgia (SEC) at No. 2 Ohio State (Big Ten)

2001: No. 4 Oregon (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3. Colorado (Big 12) at No. 2 Nebraska (at-large)

2000: No. 4 Washington (Pac-10) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 3 Miami (Big East) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC)

1999: No. 4 Alabama (SEC) at No. 1 Florida State (ACC); No. 3 Nebraska (Big 12) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (Big East)

1998: No. 5 UCLA (Pac-10) at No. 1 Tennessee (SEC); No. 4 Ohio State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC) ** No. 3 Kansas State did not qualify

A quick review of the data reveals the following:

* Controversies over the past three years, as well as in 2004 (when there were four unbeaten teams), 2003 (three one-loss teams), 2001 and 2000 (when a No. 2 team was beaten by a No. 3 team during the season), would have been quelled as all teams in question would be semifinalists and could settle things on the field.

* Twice, a non-BCS conference champion - Utah in 2004 and 2008 - would've made the playoffs. Notre Dame qualified in 2005.

* Two at-large teams - Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003 - made the field.

* Conference breakdown - Pac-10 (9), Big 12 (9, including 2 at-large bids), SEC (8), Big Ten (6), Big East (5), ACC (4), MWC (2), Notre Dame (1).

* Recent trends - USC would've been in six of the last seven playoffs, missing only 2007; SEC champion would've been in the field also in six of the last seven, missing only in 2005; Oklahoma would've been in four of the last six; and Louisville was the only Big East team to make it after Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC.

For emphasis, here's why this plan should be strongly considered by the commissioners and needs to be put in place as soon as possible:

1. It's logistically sensible: In contrast to most "playoff" proposals, this does not take on unreasonable logistical and travel cost. Only two teams are doing the extra traveling, with games played at home venues that can easily sell out on short notice.

2. It doesn't upset the BCS apple cart: The BCS standings can use a tweaking, but the pressure on the existing system should be relieved considerably - with four teams in the mix instead of just two. It also should minimize voter meddling in creating the "championship matchup." Look at the historical data, just about every team worthy of a shot at the championship that season would've been in the "playoff."

3. It keeps the bowl structure in tact: The current bowl infrastructure stays completely in tact with just one exception: All non-BCS bowl matchups are announced at the same time as they do now, but BCS bowl lineups will be revealed after the semifinals, creating an extra week of excitement and suspense.

4. It preserves the meaning of regular season: It rewards conference champions, but also gives non-champions a chance, with a bar set high at the top two slots. As you can see with the historical precedents, it's possible for a non-champion to still qualify, but champions of all conferences have a fair chance of reaching the "playoff," whether they're in a BCS conference or not. It behooves teams to schedule tough and win their conference.

5. It creates attractive matchups: In two of the last three seasons, you would've seen USC playing Florida in the semifinals - in the current scenario, the Trojans have never faced an SEC team in a BCS bowl. The title game would have even more meaning and legitimacy because whoever emerges as the winner would be crowned as the true champion.

The Mountain West Proposal

On Wednesday, the Mountain West Conference presented the BCS commissioners with a new proposal to tweak the BCS system. And it wants the proposal fast-tracked - to take place as soon as the 2010 season, when the new TV deal with ESPN kicks in.

Flush with success from the 2008 season - culminating with Utah's undefeated run and No. 2 ranking in the final AP poll - the Mountain West also managed to get the backing of a few congressmen. Its proposal seeks to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, with a few add-ons.

You can read the entire proposal, but here's the highlight:

• Amending the automatic qualifier standard (so the MWC could be let in, of course)

• Adding a fifth bowl to the rotation

• Creating national semifinals, to be played a week after the New Years Day bowls

• Pitting the semifinal winners in the national championship game, played a week later

• Using a committee to select the 10 BCS teams (and ditching the BCS standings, putting the Guru out of business)

The MWC wants the proposal discussed at the BCS meeting next month. And ACC commissioner John Swofford, no doubt under some political pressure, said the proposal will get a "full airing."

So what's going to happen?

Nothing. Or not much, other than that there will be "continued discussions" about a new format. There are simply too many things at work here against this proposal, or any other proposal.

First, the BCS conference schools and Notre Dame, the big power brokers, like the way things are right now. And so do the smaller conferences that probably will never get a shot at a BCS bowl in the system proposed by the MWC, especially the WAC, the forefather of the MWC that has benefited enormously from the current BCS arrangement.

Second, there is no real political will behind this. The nation is in crisis, college football is not going to be a priority in an environment where unemployment is about to hit 10% and the Dow Jones is heading toward 6,500. Any politician talking too much about this risks being viewed as out of touch with reality. That's why you're not going to see much of a reaction out of any senators, let along President Obama.

Finally, that the proposal comes from the Mountain West actually de-legitimizes it. This sounds too much like a grievance filing immediately after one has been wronged. The MWC conveniently picked and chose whatever data suited its argument. As you can see from this table compiled by our friend Ben Prather, the MWC really is the seventh-best conference over the past four years, when objective and more robust data were used.

But putting aside all the machinations of the BCS, does the MWC proposal have merit?

Not much. Certainly not enough to warrant its adoption.

Beyond the arbitrary automatic qualification process, adding a fifth bowl is wasteful and unnecessary. But the biggest problem is having an eight-team playoff. It's simply impractical from a logistical standpoint. It's even more impractical when you try to jam it in at the end of the bowl season.

Keep in mind the number of people that need to be moved around for these bowl games. Going to one bowl game is a huge expense, even in a healthy economy. Going to the equivalent of three bowl games in three consecutive weeks will bankrupt most people, those who are stupid enough to try it. Given the current economic climate, that's a deal breaker right there.

The most ludicrous part of the proposal, however, is the concept of a 12-man committee. This idea is considerably worse than the BCS standings. To have 12 people, each with a vested interest, to vote on the teams that would divvy up nearly $100 million is insane. Even the coaches poll, fraught with conflict of interest, is far superior to this model - and that is merely one-third of the BCS standings. Just imagine the horse-trading that'd go on in that committee room.

At the end, the BCS commissioners will kick this proposal around, spew out a few platitudes, and feed it down the shredder when everybody else leaves the room.

Unfortunately, that's where it belongs.

The Best of BCS Videos

Is this really how the BCS championship matchup was decided? Well, truth sometimes is stranger than fiction.


Thanks to our friends at the Global Sports Fraternity.


And if you really miss the BCS ... you're not alone. Will Forte loves the BCS, too.




But Hitler, evidently, does not. (Warning: Der Fuhrer's language is a bit rough)

Black Coaches - Distinct, Nearly Extinct

When DeWayne Walker was named to head the New Mexico State football program on New Year's Eve, he became a member of a very distinct group - so distinct that it's almost extinct.

Walker became just the seventh African-American to head a Division I-A (or Bowl Subdivision) football program, out of 120. And of the seven, only one - Miami's Randy Shannon - coaches in one of the so-called BCS conferences. Do the math - six percent of DI-A coaches are black, and barely one percent (1 out of 67) in the BCS conferences plus Notre Dame.

In a sport where more than 50 percent of the athletes are minorities, this is downright atrocious.

Yet beyond the usual indignation of the hand-wringing variety, it barely raised eyebrows. Rivals.com published its top 10 college football stories of 2008 – this didn't make the list.

While the NFL has made a concerted effort to hire more minority coaches through the "Rooney Rule" - to good effect, college football has all but yawned about this glaring inequity. After the 2008 season, there have been 20 coaching changes, and just four of these head jobs went to black candidates.

It's ironic that universities, perhaps the most liberal and progressive institutions in America, are so behind the times when it comes to hiring for their most glamorous jobs. The head football coach often is the most well-known member of the university community, the de facto face of the university. While colleges aren't afraid to raid each other - or even the business world - for some of the best and brightest minority faculty members, they are reticent to take chances with the head ball coach.

This speaks volumes to just who controls the purse strings at big-time college football programs. The powers-that-be inside the ivory towers ultimately defers to the well-heeled boosters with millions to dispense with. College presidents talk a good game, but at the end, money speaks loudest.

So if you think the BCS gives college football a bad name, you should check with the BCA first.

Why Shouldn't Utah Be No. 1?

After impressively dismantling Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Utah should deserve consideration as the top team in the AP poll. And you know something? Utah SHOULD BE No. 1 in the final AP poll.

The Utes finished the season 13-0, becoming the first team to go undefeated twice in the BCS era. In beating the Tide, 31-17, in what was essentially a home game for their SEC foe, the Utes completed their resume and it stacks up favorably against any team in the country.

Let's take a look:

1. Utah is the only undefeated Division I-A team in 2008. That in itself should mean something.

2. Utah's strength of schedule is more than competitive - it should finish in the top 30. The Mountain West had a banner year both in the regular season and bowl season. Yet, the Utes went unbeaten in that conference. They defeated six bowl teams, including two (Alabama and Texas Christian) that will finish the year ranked in the Top 10.

3. In head-to-head comparisons, Utah has the edge over both USC and Florida. The Utes beat Oregon State, the team that handed the Trojans their only loss. They beat Alabama more decisively than Florida, which played the Tide on a more neutral setting. Oklahoma did win more impressively than Utah as both teams faced TCU at home.

4. The strength of western football has been vindicated by the Pac-10 and Mountain West going a combined 8-2 in the bowl season, with victories over the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and WAC. Utah played within the western environment, which has been unfairly underrated by the pollsters throughout the season. That should be readjusted.

Back in 1984, when BYU became the last non-BCS conference team to finish first in the AP poll, the Cougars had a considerably weaker resume. They defeated only four teams with a winning record, and their non-WAC schedule consisted of Pittsburgh, Baylor, Tulsa and Utah State. BYU defeated a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, 24-17. That was the only Wolverines team in 40 years (1968-2007) not to finish with a winning record.

Utah is better than BYU 1984. It's better than its own 2004 version, which also went undefeated and beat Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. That team, too, benefited from a subpar schedule, with only four opponents finishing with winning records. The Big East champion Panthers were also not respected, getting thrashed by Utah, 35-7, to finish 8-4.

This year's Utah team competed with some of the nation's best teams and won every game. Despite going into New Orleans as a double-digit underdog, the Utes thoroughly dominated an Alabama team that had trailed but 45 minutes in the entire season. Utah scored four minutes into the game and never relinquished the lead; and in the process, racked up 349 yards, shut down the vaunted 'Bama running game and sacked quarterback John Parker Wilson eight times.

That, was championship football.

The AP voters have a choice. They don't need to vote Utah No. 1 as a protest against the BCS. They simply need to discard some of their preconceived notion and bias against Utah. If they do that, then they'll realize there's a pretty case to be made for the Utes.

But will they?