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…

#8 Ohio State @ #1 Florida/Alabama
Assuming Florida and Alabama both enter the SEC Championship undefeated, the winner will likely be the #1 seed while the loser is likely to fall to #3. (I don’t see TCU or Cincinnati passing up the SEC runner-up in the BCS, but I may be wrong.) The Buckeyes’ win over Iowa on Saturday gives Ohio State a bid.

#5 Cincinnati @ #4 TCU
The Horned Frogs were impressive this weekend and they don’t show any signs of giving up their ranking to Cincy or Boise State, so they will host the Bearcats in the first round. Cincy still has a Dec. 5 date with #9 Pittsburgh looming, which will effectively become a play-in game for both teams.

#7 Georgia Tech @ #2 Texas
The Yellow Jackets need to beat Georgia at home and then win the ACC Championship (vs. Clemson?) to keep their bid. If they were to lose in the ACC Championship, the conference would likely give up its playoff bid. Texas looks like a shoe in to finish the season undefeated.

#6 Boise State @ #3 Florida/Alabama
The Broncos get Oregon’s bid due to a head-to-head win and a higher BCS ranking. I drink your milkshake! The SEC loser might drop to #4, but more likely they’ll finish in the #3 spot and host a first round game. Can you imagine Boise State heading to Tuscaloosa for a playoff? That would be fun.

Who gets screwed?
No one, really. #11 Oregon loses its spot due to a head-to-head loss to Boise State, so the Ducks only have themselves to blame. #8 LSU lost to Alabama and Florida, so the Tigers need to look in the mirror. #9 Pittsburgh still has a shot to make the the playoffs with a win over #5 Cincinnati on Dec. 5. #12 Oklahoma State lost to Texas and #13 Iowa lost to Ohio State. (See, Kirk Herbstreit, the regular season still matters.)

Some have said that they support taking the rankings #1 through #8 and awarding the bids that way, but I don’t think that’s a realistic option given our current situation. In order to transition to a playoff, we have to have buy in from the BCS conferences, so they need to get some preferential treatment to convince them to get away from the status quo. It seems relatively fair to give each conference a bid, assuming their champion is in the top 15 and isn’t ranked behind a non-BCS school that beat them head-to-head. This may result in fewer games between the BCS schools and the top non-BCS programs, but those are the breaks.

Here’s a question I’d like to pose — what if Oregon hadn’t lost to Stanford? They’d likely be ranked #7 or #8, still behind the Broncos because of the head-to-head loss. If I implement the “I Drink Your Milkshake” Rule, is it fair that the Ducks give up their bid but Ohio State — a lesser ranked team — still gets in?

I think it’s more fair than eliminating the Buckeyes due to a Boise State win over Oregon — Ohio State wasn’t even involved in that game.

Please discuss.

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?

#8 Oregon @ #1 Florida/Alabama
I’m assuming everyone wins out, so since the Gators and Tide are ranked 1/2 in the BCS, the winner would be the #1 seed. Oregon is currently ranked #13, but still face two ranked teams (#17 Arizona and #23 Oregon State), so they would definitely finish in the top 15 if they win out.

#5 TCU @ #4 Cincinnati
The Horned Frogs have been destroying teams of late and another win next week against #16 Utah would help convince the voters that TCU belongs. If Cincy wins out (including wins over Virginia Tech and Pitt), then they’ll likely leapfrog the Frogs and get a home game in the first round.

#6 Georgia Tech @ #3 Florida/Alabama
Tech has to beat Duke next week before their regular season closer with in-state rival Georgia. They will likely face Clemson in the ACC championship game, which will mean that if they win out, they’ll have three wins over ranked opponents. They’d likely travel to the SEC runner-up for the first round of this playoff.

#7 Iowa @ #2 Texas
Texas is a good bet to win out and would move up to #2 since Florida and Alabama will still have to play each other in the SEC championship. Iowa is currently ranked #10, but a win next week against Ohio State would put them in position to clinch the Big Ten title. If the Buckeyes win out, they’d likely get this playoff spot.

Who gets screwed?
Boise State. They haven’t lost a game this season and have a head-to-head win over Oregon, who is in position to make the playoffs. At this point, the Broncos have to hope that the voters recognize this and rank them ahead of TCU. But then TCU would be screwed. A couple of things could be done to prevent this: 1) expand the playoff to 12 teams, or 2) if a non-BCS school has a head-to-head win over a BCS team and is ahead of that team in the rankings, then they get the bid. In this case, Boise State would replace Oregon, because the Broncos are ranked ahead of the Ducks and have a head-to-head win this season.

Please discuss.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

At the 1:05 mark, Will Forte debuts his “BCS Song”…

That pretty much sums up how we all feel about the BCS, doesn’t it?

Poll Answers

So when a quantitative analyst like Bill James stands up and says that all quantitative analysts should boycott the BCS, I take notice.

The entire article is a good read — and don’t worry, James doesn’t delve too deeply into the numbers. He outlines the problem with the BCS this way:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;

2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches’ and sportswriters’ vote;

3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and

4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.

James then goes into each topic with more detail, but this section stands out:

In the 1990s there was a strong movement, within the NCAA, to organize a national postseason football tournament. The problem was, had the NCAA in fact organized such a championship, two other events would almost certainly have followed:

1. The smaller schools, which outnumber the big football powerhouses about 5-to-1, would have voted to send a lot of the money to the smaller schools that in fact had not participated in the national championship contest in any meaningful way.

2. The big football schools would have bolted and revolted. They’d have walked out of the NCAA and formed their own organization. The two-tiered system of NCAA and NAIA schools would have been replaced by a three-tiered system with the NCAA occupying the middle tier.

The creation of the BCS system was simply a less dramatic revolt. And, as I said, the BCS schools were right: There is no reason why schools that don’t fund programs to participate in the battle for the national championship should share in the proceeds of the contest.

There are two ways to get around this problem. First, the NCAA could pass a unanimous or nearly unanimous resolution, promising not to try to steal the proceeds of a national title contest and give the money to small schools, deserving nephews, or the church poor box. The BCS could then dissolve and be replaced by an NCAA Football Tournament involving eight to 16 teams, and the big football schools would wind up with just as much money or a little more.

Or, if that doesn’t work, we can pass a law creating a new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative and requiring all schools receiving federal funding to join and participate. And if we have to do that, we’ll decide how to split the money.

I didn’t realize that fear over the small schools milking too much money from a playoff system was the reason that we don’t have a playoff system. If that’s the case, and as James outlines, it’s not a difficult fix.

I can only hope that we can make some progress towards a legitimate playoff in the next four years, even though the ESPN VP of Programming is completely happy with the current format.

If Texas works over Ohio State, you can add another team to that list. And the more, the better.

While it’s great for fans to see an exciting BCS title game, the perfect storm would be completed if Florida narrowly beats Oklahoma in a boring game. The idea is for neither team to look particularly good, which would only strengthen the position of USC, Utah and, potentially, Texas.

We could look back on the 2008-09 season as the year that the BCS shot itself in the proverbial head.

- SPORTS BY BROOKS has the story of Ko Simpson, the first NFL player to get arrested in 2009, who tried to gain favor with the police by saying, “I am worth millions!” over and over. [SPORTSBYBROOKS]

- DR. SATURDAY contradicts his tagline and says that USC’s big win in the Rose Bowl is “an air-tight argument against the absurdity of a two-team playoff.” [DR. SATURDAY]

- PRO FOOTBALL TALK reports that Jared Allen would like Vikings fans to buy up the tickets. Apparently, Minnesota faces a local blackout if they can’t sell the game out. To think, there are some that still say we’re not in a recession. [PRO FOOTBALL TALK]

- DEADSPIN sheds some more light on why Charles Barkley was pulled over and cited for a DUI. Given the details, how can you blame him? [DEADSPIN]