USA Today’s Jack Carey wrote an interesting piece on Thursday about how the Department of Justice has sent a letter to NCAA President Mark Emmert asking why the association does not have a major-college football playoff.

Christine A. Varney, assistant attorney general in the Justice Departmen’s Antitrust Division, pointed out in the letter sent Tuesday that “serious questions” continue to arise as to whether the BCS system is consistent with federal antitrust laws.

Utah attorney general Mark Shurtleff recently said he plans an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS, and Varney wrote that 21 professors have requested the Justice Department conduct an investigation of the system.

“Your views would be relevant in helping us to deternine the best course of action with regard to the BCS,” Varney wrote.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams, in a statement Wednesday, said that the association will respond when it receives the letter.

“It should be noted that President Emmert consistently has said … that the NCAA is willing to help create a playoff format for Football Bowl Subdivision football if the FBS membership makes that decision,” he said.

To date, the FBS schools have opted to stick with the bowl system.

When I was reading the article, I was waiting for someone to mention how the Department of Justice should have bigger things to worry about than whether or not the NCAA has a playoff system. And then it came…

Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, has long expressed confidence that the BCS complies with the law. “With all that’s going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money to have the government looking into how college football games are played,” he said.

Matthew Sanderson, a founder of PlayoffPAC.com fired back with a good response:

“I’m surprised the BCS still trots out that tired argument. This issue may not be of international importance, but this is a billion-dollar enterprise involving tax-exempt entities and institutions of higher learning.”

Whether the Justice Department has bigger fish to fry is irrelevant now: The issue is on the their radar whether the NCAA disagrees or not. And if the NCAA is violating anti-trust laws, then maybe we’ll finally see a college football playoff some day.

Or nothing will come of this and the crooked BCS will continue to rip everyone off.

Bill Hancock seems like a nice enough guy but he’s delusional if he thinks that this past bowl season was a rousing success and that it proved that there’s no need for a playoff.

First and foremost, that title game was terrible. It may have had an exciting finish but a great game it was not.

Two of the most explosive offenses in the nation were on display Monday night and yet, you couldn’t have asked for worse field conditions. This should have been the most entertaining game of the season but from the opening kickoff, players resembled hockey players sliding on a sheet of ice. Neither team could catch their footing, which is probably why the combined score totaled only 41 points (or 31 fewer points than what Vegas installed for the over/under). How does this happen in an indoor stadium when the grass can easily be maintained?

Granted, it’s not the BCS’ fault that the game was rather lousy on a whole. Even if there were a playoff, there would be no guarantee that all the games would be exciting. But at the very least, the teams would be playing for something every week.

The matchup between Auburn and Oregon was dead on, but the BCS largely struck out with its other games. They made Stanford fly cross-country just to crush an overmatched Virginia Tech team and there’s no reason to relive the Oklahoma-UConn debacle.

The Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl were both highly entertaining – I’ll give the BCS that. But why must there be a long delay between the BCS bowl games and the championship? And for the love of college football, why were the Go Daddy.com Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, the BBVA Compass Bowl and the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl shown as a lead up to the national title game? I felt bad for the kids who played in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl because nobody cared by that point. They made those poor kids play on Sunday night following four NFL playoff games – only action junkies tuned into that one.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rick Reilly wrote a piece about how TCU’s win over Wisconsin proves, yet again, that college football needs a playoff. I agree with just about everything he says, but then he writes this:

What a lie this BCS era is. They say a playoff would take too much time away from school, yet Oregon’s players will have had 37 days off when they play again.

They say with this system, “every game counts.” Except of course, TCU’s epic win over Wisconsin to stay undefeated Saturday. Counts exactly as much as a rainbow to Stevie Wonder.

Here’s what was going through my mind as I read that section…

What a lie this BCS era is. Yep. They say a playoff would take too much time away from school, yet Oregon’s players will have had 37 days off when they play again. Yep. They say with this system, “every game counts.” Except of course, TCU’s epic win over Wisconsin to stay undefeated Saturday. Not epic, but yep. Counts exactly as much as a rainbow to Stevie Wonder. Wait, whaa? Leave Stevie out of it!

Seriously, dude is blind. He’s had enough to deal with in his life without a sportswriter (who has won National Sportswriter of the Year 11 times — sigh) invoking his handicap to make a lame joke so that his column will seem like it’s funny.

This is why I don’t generally read Rick Reilly. I read this piece because I’m in favor of a college football playoff and I wanted to see if he had anything new and/or interesting to add.

Nope.

Here are three quick-hit observations from Stanford’s 40-12 rout of Virginia Tech in the 2011 Orange Bowl.

1. Will this be Jim Harbaugh and Andrew Luck’s final hurrah at Stanford?
If it was, they certainly went out with a bang. Luck completed 18-of-23 passes for 287 yards with four touchdowns and one interception in the win, while Harbaugh left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he can coach in big games, small games or sandlot games. If Luck, a redshirt sophomore, were to declare for the NFL draft he would be the No. 1 pick in April. The Panthers aren’t going to pass on taking a quarterback, but Luck said last week that he’s leaning towards staying for his junior year. Harbaugh, on the other hand, is probably moving on. He’s gone as far as he can go at Stanford and if he wants to coach his alma mater, I doubt Michigan would think twice about telling Rich Rodriguez to shove off in order to make room for him. If Harbaugh wants to go to the NFL, the 49ers have already expressed interest and I’m sure the Panthers will/have as well. Harbaugh says he won’t rush any decision, but I’m sure one is forthcoming.

2. What a bad night for the entire Virginia Tech program.
The Hokies kicked a field goal right before halftime to cut Stanford’s lead down to 13-12 and then they forgot to come out for the second half. Their offense couldn’t sustain drives, their defense couldn’t limit the big plays and after the Cardinal went up by two touchdowns late in the third quarter, VA Tech completely checked out mentally (even though there was still a quarter to go). Tyrod Taylor made a couple of great plays with his arm and legs, but struggled keeping drives alive because he was always in third-and-long thanks to his running game (or lack thereof). Give credit to Stanford’s defense – they came to play.

3. You’re right BCS, this is way better than a playoff.
Three BCS bowl games are in the books and two of them were blowouts. The TCU-Wisconsin game had an exciting finish, but the Oklahoma-UConn game was a dud (as expected) and the second half of the Orange Bowl was like watching Stanford scrimmage against its scout team. The BCS obviously can’t control what happens after the opening kickoff, but they hype these five games as if they’re the best five games fans will see all year and so far they’ve been lousy. The title game and the Sugar Bowl can still save the action but the BCS can’t look anyone in the eye and say this is better than a playoff. Maybe VA Tech and UConn would have been blown out in a playoff game too, but at least Stanford and Oklahoma would be moving on to the next round. At least we’d still have more football to enjoy instead of: Stanford 40, Virginia Tech 12 – hey, thanks for coming out!

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 »

I’ve long been a proponent of a college football playoff. I gave a persuasive speech on why we needed one when I was a freshman in college. I got an A. No big deal.

But just to show what exactly we’re missing out on without one, I went ahead and set up a bracket of what this year’s playoff would look like. I went off the “Death to the BCS” formula, which includes the 11 major college football conference champions, and five at-large bids.

The seeds were set up using the BCS standings — I did make a change with Oklahoma and LSU to avoid an all-SEC first-round matchup — and I just went ahead and predicted the conference championship games that are still being played.

Here’s what we would have to look forward to over the next month:

1. Auburn (12-0 SEC)
16. FIU (6-5 Sun Belt)

8. Michigan State (11-1 At-large)
9. LSU (10-2 At-large)

4. Stanford (11-1 At-large)
13. UConn (7-4 Big East)

5. Wisconsin (11-1 Big Ten)
12. Va Tech (10-2 ACC)

3. TCU (12-0 Mountain West)
14. Central Florida (10-3 Conference USA)

6. Ohio State (11-1 At-large)
11. Boise State (11-1 WAC — don’t know the tie-breakers in the WAC)

7. Arkansas (10-2 At-large)
10. Oklahoma (10-2 Big 12)

2. Oregon (11-0 Pac-10)
15. Miami (OH) (9-4 MAC)

The top seeds would play at home through the semifinals, and the title game would be hosted by whichever stadium had the game that year (the book argues the Rose Bowl should host every year. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do like the idea of rotating the site).

Is this system perfect? Probably not. Does it have the 16 best teams in college football? No. But does it have all the teams that could possibly make a claim to be the best in the nation? Yes.

It also keeps the regular-season relevant. Forget for a moment that if you’re a TCU fan, you’re all of the sudden interested in the MAC Championship game, and just look at the at-large bids.

Last week’s game between Arkansas and LSU had pretty big implications for both teams last week, because the winner was likely to get an at-large BCS bid and play in the Sugar Bowl (barring a South Carolina upset in the SEC title game). While that’s a big thing to play for, think of what would have been on the line for them if a playoff was their destination: Arkansas would have been playing for a spot in the field. LSU, meanwhile is playing to perhaps host two playoff games as opposed to having to travel to East Lansing in the first round.

As for the teams not in the playoff, they’d go to the other bowl games and play for nothing but pride, kind of like they do now. Sure, the non-title BCS games would be less attractive, but that’s a small price to pay.
Is there anything negative about this? How do people not see that it’s a much better option?

Earlier this week, I took a look back at all of the BCS championship games and whether or not they really pit the top two teams in the country against each other. But more importantly, whether or not it was a slam dunk that these were the top two teams, and you couldn’t make an argument that someone else possibly deserved a shot.

Now, granted, my memory is fuzzy on the really early ones, as I was still in high school for the first two years of the BCS, but I have a pretty good recollection of the rest of these games/years.

It’s a long post, but click through to see if the BCS has really gotten it right, or if we’ve been missing out all these years. 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