Welcome Stumblers! I hope you enjoy this entry – if you like it please give it a thumbs up, hang around a little bit, and check out my other content. We have a very easy RSS subscription to keep you in the loop. Thanks for dropping by and I hope you enjoy your visit.
It has been a crazy season thus far, and it is likely only going to get crazier in the next few weeks leading up to bowl season. So as a thought exercise, how would you redesign college football if you had a blank page? That’s all this is, a thought exercise as the chances are slim to none (focus on none) that such an exercise will come to pass. But it does make you think.
The first thing that I thought about is, what absolutely would you not want to lose from the current situation? Here’s what I thought:
- Integrity of the regular season. Say what you will about the broken BCS and Bowl system, but it does make each regular season game take on more importance than say, in college basketball or professional football.
- Pagentry and tradition of bowls. With the implementation of the BCS and the introduction of so many minor bowl games, this aspect has kind of been lost and it’s a shame.
- Revenue opportunities of the 12 game season. While schools have gone overboard scheduling 67 IAA games this year to help round out the season, it’s still good to have a consistent 12 game schedule.
- Rivalries. The best rivalries in sports, bar none, exist in college football.
- Ending the season on January 1st. This has been lost, but needs to be recovered.
All this being said, there are some things that are definitely broken badly and do need to be fixed to ensure that competition is even and that championships are decided on the field, not via the opinion of fickle pollsters and crippled computer rankings. Here’s what needs to be fixed:
- Polls, they’re no longer meaningful or relevant. If they were at all accurate, the Top 10 teams wouldn’t have a loss two-thirds of the way through the season.
- Inconsistency of leagues, different numbers of teams, some have championship games, some don’t, etc.
- If you don’t win your league championship, you shouldn’t ever be considered for participation in meaningful post-season activities
- Individual awards should be determined after the season is completed. They’re distracting and often wrong after post-season play is completed.
- Television coverage needs to be about the game. Not some off-the-field distraction or the broadcast crew’s opinions. ESPN and ABC are the worst. But CBS, NBC, and Fox are close on their tails. For all the bad press, the best game coverage I’ve seen this year is on the Big Ten Network. Seriously.
There are some other attributes of other sports that should be implemented as well: scheduling should happen only the year before, the bottom x teams each year should be demoted to the next league down, and the top x teams from the lower league should be promoted. Currently, there are over 900 teams participating in college football in Divisions I-A (I know the new name, it’s stupid and I refuse to use it,) DI-AA, DII, DIII, and NAIA. The teams I’m most interested in are the 120 DI-A participants. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t be challenging to sub-divide those teams into a 64 team “upper tier” and a 64 team “lower tier.” In fact, such an attempt might look something like this for the “Upper Tier”:
As you might expect, there would be some rules associated with the new alignment:
- Each team will play 3 non-group games. At least one of those games must be intersectional with another team from the 64 team upper tier. Every other year, the intersectional game will be a home game. The other two games must be played against the DI lower tier teams and may both be home games. No more DI-AA patsies.
- Each team will play a rotating home/away schedule with teams in its group to determine a group champion by the end of the season. No exceptions, no whining.
- Each team will play one protected rivalry game per season rotating home/away. If the team’s primary rival is not in its group, this may be the intersectional game on the team’s schedule for the year and may be played later in the season if the schedule allows for it.
- Each directional division (North, South, East, and West) will have a championship game where the two top teams from its groups play for the right to advance to post-season play. These could be “bowl” games played the first week in December.
- The second week in December there are two Directional Championship games rotating division match-ups every year i.e. North/South and East/West one year, North/East and South/West the next year, and so on. These could also be “bowl” games.
- On New Year’s Day the winners of the Directional Division games meet to determine the DI-A upper division champion in a bowl. This could rotate among the big four bowls as it does today.
- Runner’s up in group play, who have amassed an overall winning record are eligible to play in bowls with no bearing on post-season standing. Play in these bowls are limited to one game i.e., no mini-touranments and play must be completed by January 1 and may not conflict with Directional Division, Championship play-in, or Championship games.
- The bottom performer in each group is relegated to the DI-A lower tier for the next season. The top 8 performers in the lower tier are promoted for the following season into the most appropriate group in the DI-A upper tier.
I’ve heard alot of these ideas before, but I thought it was interesting to bring them together into a cohesive approach. All this being said, it’ll never happen. But wouldn’t that be cool if it did? The regular season would still matter. Rivalries would still rock. Schools and networks would still make money. And a champion would be decided on the field without all the whining and campaigning to determine that this team deserves it more than that team. It’s a meritocracy. And, it’s a dream. But it’s good to dream, no? How would you redesign major college football? Feel free to leave a comment.
If you liked this entry, why not give it a thumbs up?
what a great idea
Thanks Todd, I like it too. But I doubt that it gets any traction. If a change occurs, it’s likely to be a lame +1 format.
I’m an NFL only fan, simply because the BCS System makes no sense to me. There is no clear cut champion, and this one fact takes all of the interest completely out of college football for me (not to mention that I did not get the opportunity to go to college.)
Most of these things, if implemented, might turn me to the College side of sports.
This is too complicated and doesn’t take into account the concerns out there. I suggest the following:
1) Conference champion of each of the 11 D-1 conferences must be decided by last Sat of Nov.
2) Let teams/Conferences decide to play 10-12 game regular season.
3) Conference champion of each of the 11 conferences invited. Top 5 ranked teams taking into account strength of schedule, regardless of conference and with no limit to number of teams per conference, added to make 16 teams. Seed teams 1-16 based on final season rankings (allows higher seeds easier games first round, while including all conferences and giving “cinderalla” appeal).
4) First round played at home field (or close-by NFL stadium) of highest seed first weekend of Dec. Losers eligible for non-playoff bowl games.
5) Second round played at home field (NFL stadium) of winner of 1st round (#16 seed could have home field if beats #1 seed in first round). This game played the 3rd weekend of Dec, or a few days before Christmas to take into account final exams.
6) Take 4 BCS bowls, add next 2 best (such as Cotton and Peach). Alternate seasons, as indicated below.
6) Semi-final game played on 1/1 at 2 bowls.
7) Championship game played 1 week later at other bowl. The 3 bowls that did not participate in playoffs could still have a bowl based on conference affiiliation or the top 6 ranked teams from round 1 and non-playoff teams. Alternatively, they only participate every other year.
Odds overwhelmingly will dictate that semi-final teams will come from top 8 seeded teams. Thus, semi losers will only travel once and championship teams will only travel twice. If you are a team seeded 9-16 and win your first game, you get home field the 2nd round, and even if you make the semi or championship game (highly unlikely) you will travel 2-3 times.
This formula involves all conferences, does not limit conference participation, will definitively decide an undisputed champion, and will generate a heck of a lot more interest and money (for every conference and team) than the current system. It also keeps the bowl system in tact, and takes into account final exams and travel.
The current BCS system is a mess (perhaps 2 or 3 non-controversial champions over last 10 years). Also, the current BCS encourages scheduling weak OOC games to up your win total. Furthermore, BCS leaves nearly 1/2 of college football teams out in the cold.
The “plus 1” system is flawed too. For those 2-3 times the undisputed #1 played the #2, the winner would then have to play the undisputed #3 or #4 team. What if the #1 then lost? This could create a mess too.
[…] College Football Rethink […]