After two failed bids to buy a baseball team, Mavs owner Mark Cuban has now set his sights on fixing the college football postseason.

“The more I think about it, the more sense it makes as opposed to buying a baseball team,” said Cuban, who tried to buy the Chicago Cubs and Texas Rangers within the last few years. “You can do something the whole country wants done.”

Cuban said he envisions either a 12- or 16-team playoff field with the higher seeds getting homefield advantage. The homefield advantage, Cuban said, would ensure the college football regular-season games would not lose any importance.

The bowl games could still exist under Cuban’s plan, but he said he would make it more profitable for programs to make the playoffs than a bowl.

“Put $500 million in the bank and go to all the schools and pay them money as an option,” Cuban said. “Say, ‘Look, I’m going to give you X amount every five years. In exchange, you say if you’re picked for the playoff system, you’ll go.’ “

I think 12 or 16 teams is too aggressive too early. In my proposed eight-team playoff, all of the teams that would miss the playoffs (Michigan State, LSU, Arkansas) had an opportunity to seal a bid earlier in the year, but failed to do so. This ensures the regular season keeps its importance, which is something that BCS apologists bring up every time they attempt to defend their flawed system.

Other than that, I’m glad to see Cuban focusing his efforts on this, because a college football playoff seems to be going nowhere fast. Maybe throwing money at the problem will convince schools to go to the playoff instead of the BCS, but it’s going to take a lot of convincing.

Last week, I outlined what my proposed eight-team playoff bracket would look like prior to Championship Weekend. Boise State got the 8th and final bid because they beat the Hokies straight up early in the season and were ranked ahead of VT in the BCS standings. Let’s see if anything has changed in seven days…

Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS. I’d rather do a straight #1-#8 seeding based on the rankings, but in order for a playoff to get implemented the big conferences would need some preferential treatment. That’s just the way it is and we all know it.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. If a conference champ is ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. This is the “I Drink Your Milkshake!” rule.

4. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

5. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

So here is how an eight-team playoff would look at this point…

Read the rest of this entry »

Last year, I ran a series of posts examining how a college football playoff system might look. I’m getting a late start this year, but it might be for the best since the rankings are more settled.

Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS. I’d rather do a straight #1-#8 seeding based on the rankings, but in order for a playoff to get implemented the big conferences would need some preferential treatment. That’s just the way it is and we all know it.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. If a conference champ is ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. This is the “I Drink Your Milkshake!” rule.

4. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

5. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

So here is how an eight-team playoff would look at this point…

Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Hancock officially began his tenure as BCS executive director this week and spoke with reporters on Thursday about the current state of college football.

Let’s go point by point…

“College football has never been better and I believe the BCS is part of that.”

This is actually a true statement, but it isn’t saying much. If something is better than asinine, does it make it good? No, it doesn’t. It makes it better than asinine. Yes, the BCS Championship Game is better than the pre-BCS system, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be drastically improved.

Hancock said the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn’t mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision. The second-tier of Division I football, the Championship Subdivision, has a 16-team playoff with all but the final played at home sites.

“It works at that level, I can’t deny it, but if you look attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance,” he said. “Many teams didn’t draw as well as they did in the regular season.”

All right, so because Hancock has some anecdotal data about lower level teams not drawing as well in the playoffs, we’re supposed to believe that home playoff games at the D1 level wouldn’t work either? Really? Like the Gators aren’t going to sell out the Swamp in the first round of an eight-team playoff? Give me a break.

This excerpt from ESPN (via the AP), Hancock throws out several debatable “facts” and says the case is closed.

Bill Hancock said a playoff at college football’s highest level would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.

More injuries? The current BCS system has five games. My proposed eight-team playoff would include seven games. Does Hancock really believe that the additional injury risk of two games is a valid argument against a playoff?

Kill the bowl system? The current system features a lot of lower-level bowls that feature teams that aren’t playing for a national championship. Players, coaches and fans attend these games as a celebration of a good season. How would holding a playoff affect this system in any way?

Diminish the importance of the regular season? If anything, it would increase the importance of the regular season. Under the current system, if a team loses a game it shouldn’t, it’s championship aspirations are effectively killed. With a playoff, that team would still have a fighting chance to make the postseason and compete for a title. And think about those fringe teams fighting for a playoff spot over the last couple of weeks. Every contest would become an elimination game. Under the current system, none of these teams would have an opportunity to play for a title.

Conflict with final exams? In an eight-team playoff, there are only four D1 teams in the entire country that would play more than one postseason game, and we’re worried about final exams?

Sigh.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Near the end of the Texas/Nebraska game, when it looked like the Cornhuskers might pull the upset, Brent Musbuger said repeatedly that a Texas loss would result in “BCS chaos.” But don’t we already have chaos? We have five undefeated teams — Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU and Boise State — and only two get to play for a national title. Of course, BCS apologists think that the system got it right. They dismiss TCU and Boise State because they aren’t from power conferences, and they’re hoping that Cincy loses to Florida in the Sugar Bowl so that they can dismiss the Big East champs as well.

Based on the various polls that are out there, 90% of the public want to see some sort of a playoff in college football. Over the last few weeks, I have been outlining my proposed eight-team playoff. Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS. I’d rather do a straight #1-#8 seeding based on the rankings, but in order for a playoff to get implemented the big conferences would need some preferential treatment. That’s just the way it is and we all know it.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. If a conference champ is ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. This is the “I Drink Your Milkshake!” rule.

4. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

5. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

Now that the regular season and conference championship games are over, how would a playoff shake out this year?

Read the rest of this entry »

For the last two weeks, I’ve constructed an eight-team bracket for a “what if” college football playoff.

Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

5. If a conference champion is ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. This is the “I Drink Your Milkshake!” rule.

Georgia Tech lost to Georgia this week. How does that affect our bracket?

Read the rest of this entry »

Every Monday through the end of the college football season, I update my “what if” eight-team college football playoff. (Want to see how this bad boy has developed? Here are links for Version 1.0 and Version 2.0.)

Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. If they are ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. (I debuted this rule last week to account for Boise State’s head-to-head win over Oregon. I call it the “I Drink Your Milkshake” Rule.)

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, I debuted this season’s “what if” college football playoff bracket, and there was one serious flaw — Boise State was left out of the playoff despite being ranked ahead of Oregon and having a head-to-head win against the Ducks. This week, I’ll remedy that.

Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

I’m adding a fifth assumption, the “I Drink Your Milkshake” Rule. Last week, Boise State was left out of this playoff despite having a head-to-head win against Oregon and being ranked ahead of the Ducks. So, there is one more caveat for the conference champions: If they are ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. I drink your milkshake!

How does this affect our bracket? Let’s take a look…

Read the rest of this entry »

Last year, I proposed an eight-team playoff system for college football that would take the place of the BCS. Here are my assumptions:

1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.

So, at this point in the season, what would a playoff look like?

Read the rest of this entry »

(Be sure to check out last week’s version of the bracket as a comparison.)

What’s done is done. That’s the…..um……great thing about the BCS system. Oklahoma jumped Texas last week in the rankings and now the Sooners are slated to face the Gators in the title game. As in years past, fans are supposed to just swallow this bitter pill and move on. Some lazy, narrow-minded sportswriters are happy to have the “debate” because their next few columns will essentially write themselves.

The truth is that the current system is not only a slap in the face to the Longhorns and their supporters, but to all college football fans across the country. The vast majority of us (85%-90% if you believe the polls) would like to see some sort of college football playoff. So the last few weeks I’ve been summarizing a proposed playoff system.

Here are my assumptions…

1. There would be an eight-team playoff. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

So how does last weekend’s action affect our playoff field?

8-seed Cincinnati @ 1-seed Oklahoma
Both teams did what they needed to do. The Bearcats sneaked by Hawaii and Oklahoma was convincing in its win over Missouri.

5-seed USC @ 4-seed Alabama
In this case, it looks like the BCS rankings work. Both teams have one loss, but Alabama lost to a better team. Who wouldn’t want to see the Trojans visit Tuscaloosa? The winner would face the winner of the 1/8 game.

6-seed Utah @ 3-seed Texas
This format works for the little guy, or at least it works for Utah. (Sorry Boise State!) In order to advance, the Utes would have to win in Austin.

7-seed Penn State @ 2-seed Florida
With the Hawkeyes’ recent play, suddenly the Nittany Lions’ loss to Iowa doesn’t look so bad. They would face a tough test trying to win in Gainesville against the surging Gators.

This format would set up pair of semifinals that would pit Oklahoma versus Alabama and Texas versus Florida.

ACC champion Virginia Tech gives up its bid because the Hokies are not ranked in the top 15. With four losses, few would argue that VT should be included. With a win over #17 Oregon and an undefeated record, Boise State has the biggest gripe. We would have to move to a 12-team format (or require the conference champs to be ranked in the top 10, eliminating Cincy) to include the Broncos.

The other teams that are on the outside looking in — Texas Tech, Ohio State, TCU, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Georgia — either have three losses or have lost to teams that made the playoff, so the regular season clearly still holds its importance. (If Texas Tech had beat Oklahoma, if Ohio State had beat Penn State, if TCU had beaten Oklahoma and Utah, etc.)

The exclusion of Boise State is regrettable, but like March Madness, does anyone really think that the Broncos would be able to win three straight games against the elite teams in the country en route to a national championship? Unfortunately, in an eight-team playoff, we wouldn’t know for sure. It would be nice to have an option for a play-in game when there is an undefeated team from a non-power conference. In this case, Boise State could play Cincinnati for the right to play Oklahoma. However, if Ball State hadn’t lost to Buffalo, we’d be looking at two undefeated teams that would have been excluded. Then things get a little more dicey.

Another option would be a 12-team playoff that includes all the BCS conference champions and six at-large bids. That way, in addition to Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn State, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech getting bids, at-large teams Texas, Alabama, Utah, Texas Tech, Boise State and Ohio State would also get bids. I’m warming up to the idea of a 12-team playoff because it would account for cases like Boise State. Critics say that it would add too many games, but the only teams that would potentially play four games would be teams ranked #5 through #12 that made it to the title game (which is an unlikely scenario). Otherwise, everyone would play three or fewer additional games.