Champs or Chumps? — A Remedy for the BCS Folderol
Alright. BF is a Bowl-maniac. That’s cool, but not for me. But, he got me thinking about this BCS bullshit. Yeah, they’re going to a 4-team playoff next year, but however they are selected, and I think some humans will be involved in the new method, won’t these top 4 be the usual suspects that still get respect they often don’t deserve? SEC and Big 12 teams, most likely. Pac 12 gets reamed again. Stanfurd this year should have a shot at playing for the championship despite two losses (one stolen one), but instead will be kicking Wisconsin all over the Rose Bowl in a fairly meaningless “Grandaddy of Them All”. I’ve got some college playoff ideas of my own.
First, the playoff system starts with 12 “Division 1” or whatever you want to call the big teams, qualifying. The top 12 are selected by first using a point scale system (see below), with the most points being the most qualified, followed by yes, actual human choice. A selection committee somewhat like (but, better) the NCAA basketball playoffs will be appointed using 24 college football writers from across the country (no east coast or SEC bias). Put them and a keg of beer locked in a room for no more than 8 hours at the “Bud” room of the St. Louis “Courtyard by Marriot”. Potty breaks allowed. If there are ties for the 12 highest point totals (and there will be), the committee selects the top 12 based on the point total AND totally subjective info – like the teams with the best looking cheerleaders. ;)
After selecting the top 12, the committee seeds them. The lower 8 seeds play the first round, with the #5 playing the #12 at the #5’s place, etc. The 4 survivors then play the 4 bye teams the next week, the bye teams all having home field, with highest seed playing the lowest, etc. That round’s winners play round #3 = the Final Four, at the higher seeds’ home stadiums. Then the two survivors of that play the Final Game for all the marbles at a neutral, warm city stadium. Yeah, it takes four rounds. So? The lower divisions of NCAA football have a full playoff without players wilting and missing their classes, so the Division 1 can, too. To argue otherwise is just Toilet Bowl protection talk, and has nothing to do with protecting the education of the “student-athuhletes”.
Here’s the ranking system. Rank the BCS level teams based on objective performance on a point scale. Severely penalize playing patsies and tomato cans, especially at your own house where such games are nothing but a payday for the sacrificial lambs that roll in. No coaches poll – they play favorites and don’t know whatinhell is going on anyway. No computer program that’s been coded by some wanker. The writers use an HP calculator or Excel, along with some beer glass coasters. The main premise is that you get more rewards for road wins than home wins, and more penalized for home losses than road losses, since you’ve blown your supposed home field advantage. League wins and losses count more than non-league results. Here’s the deal.
+6 Road win against league opponent
+4 Road win against non-league, but BCS opponent
+2 Home win against league opponent.
+1 Home win against non-league, but BCS opponent.
0 Home win against non-BCS dogmeat (FCS) opponent.
-1 Road loss against league opponent.
-2 Road loss against non-league, but BCS opponent
-3 Home loss against league opponent
-5 Home loss against non-league, but BCS opponent.
-7 Home loss against non-BCS dogmeat (FCS) opponent.
Neutral site games are deemed road games. Point totals are based on a 12 game season. Extra, league championship game results are to be used only to assess seeding, not getting into the top 12. Using this model, here are some point rankings for this year, through 12 games. Since Notre Dame has no “league”, we’ll have to figure out a special ranking method for their wins and losses. Maybe another keg of Fat Tire required for that.
Kansas State 33
The results very well could be that a good number above 12 teams regularly will get the same top aggregate ranking number or within 2 points of that number. That’s OK. The committee then decides who is worthy of the top 12 after the objective numbers weed out most teams. Obviously, a 35 ranking number for Miami of Ohio might not be as worthy as a 35 for Washington or Texas A & M. The writers will use their own subjective information to make the choices — like their experience seeing the teams, strength of schedule info and cheerleader cheesecake index (“CCI”). I’d rather have 24 writers from all over the country decide who are the worthy top 12 out of 20 or 25, then play it off with seedings, than a computer decide the Final 2 out of 25, or whatever it is now.
Well, that’s my ranking method and playoff process for determining the NCAA football champs. You got betta, and you probably do, go for it…