A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff For College Football

During a particular bowl game last year, a number of players were asked the same question regarding a playoff system for college football and almost all of the participants within the poll voiced a similar conclusion. “Yes, we want a playoff system very badly…No, we do not wish to play any more games than the current 12-13 game schedule.

This is the dilemma for college football governors and administrators. It would be unwise to extend the college football season past 13 games. It would also be unwise to eliminate the bowl structure as it truly defines college football and distinguishes itself from other sports. The current BCS method and the Plus One concept would really not solve much of the current BCS controversies.

Most people would agree that college football is missing the boat due to the lack of a true playoff structure for Division I-A college football. However, ninety-nine point nine percent of the people who are passionately concerned about the direction of this sport commonly think of an NFL styled “loser out” model when considering a playoff option.

An NFL styled “loser out” model would never work for college football. The presidents, chancellors and conference administrators are not interested in extending the season upwards of three-to-five weeks to determine a national champion. There are several reasons for this.

One, a playoff structure would require the final eight teams to play an additional 3-5 games which would render the mission of the student-athlete obsolete. It would interfere with final exams, and cause possibly a two-to-three fold increase in injuries to its participants.

Secondly, and equally important, it would harm the tradition of the bowl system, which in my mind - truly defines college football and distinguishes itself from all other sporting events, including its close relative, the National Football League (NFL).

Finally, although I completely disagree with the “Sacred Cow” notion that every game in college football is significant and a playoff in itself, an NFL styled “loser out” model would render the regular season less significant.

If we look at what is actually occurring in college football today, we can come up with a model which does not extend the season in length or number of games, and we can also establish a system that not only upholds the traditions of the bowl system, but the BCS Busters Model would in fact enhance the bowl system by truly making every game in college football a playoff.

Although this is hyped in modern day, every game is only important for an elite group of 15-20 schools who largely transformed the game nearly 25 years ago with the creation of the College Football Association (CFA).

Twenty-five years ago, this movement was created by a group of elite power schools who felt the NCAA was too controlling in harnessing television revenue, athletic scholarships, and the number of coaches who could be hired and employed by a university striving to create a big time college football program.

This southern fried fraternity of schools was created by many key players today who ultimately control the entire landscape of college football through the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) Monopoly. Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Georgia were the founding fathers of this movement, but many other SEC, Southwest and ACC schools jumped on the band wagon in their attempt to overthrow Walter Byers and his NCAA legion of generals.

These schools included Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Nebraska, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, UCLA and Clemson.

Due to the fact that the majority vote of the Big-10 and PAC-10 Conferences supported Walter Byers and the NCAA, instead of Chuck Neinas and the CFA, Michigan, Ohio State, USC and UCLA were not original members of the CFA movement.

However, the schools were the only two schools in each conference who voted to reorganize with the CFA when it came to conference voting and the four members were equally outspoken about the socialistic welfare system which provided equal shares to conference representatives.

USC and UCLA, who were often on the airwaves during the Byer’s regime did not care that the schools in Eugene, Corvallis and Pullman got equal shares of the revenue and forced the PAC-10 to establish a new set of bylaws related to this subject back in the early 1980’s when the CFA civil war broke out.

Michigan and Ohio State were equally displeased with sharing revenue with conference doormats, such as Indiana, Wisconsin and Northwestern during this time period. So in reality, the core of the CFA schools listed above have banded with the four dominant teams in terms of history and tradition within the Big-10 and PAC-10 Conferences.

Twenty-five years later, when the lights officially went out for the CFA organization on June 30, 1997, Chuck Neinas (the executive director of the CFA who once worked together with Walter Byers in the NCAA office) responded in an interview with Mike Huguenin of the Sporting News that same month; “The CFA started because the NCAA refused to restructure - I can say the restructuring that has occurred over the last 20 years (1977 - 1997) has been in large measure the result of the CFA.”

Cheif among the goals achieved by the CFA was increased TV exposure, which is the the CFA’s biggest contribution to the fans. The other main objective of the CFA was to give big-time football powers a unified voice when it came to NCAA and Conference legislative matters. The NCAA restructuring that was passed in January (1997), will do that. Division I-A conferences will have a majority vote on the Division I Executive Committee, which means the dog ( and not the tail) will dictate matters that affect large football playing leagues.

Hidden to all at the time (1997) was the alliance that the CFA created in dictating the Bowl Championship Series model now currently running college football.

In the BCS Busters world of college football, we would simply start with the conference slate first in weeks 1-8 of the regular season as every conference would be a 12 team two tiered conference much like the current structure of the Big-12, SEC and ACC Conferences. As we enter weeks 9-12 of the regular season all teams would qualify for one of four brackets as we would enter what would be termed “Bracket Play.”

The Four brackets would be named The BCS Bracket, The Holiday Bracket, The NIT Bracket and the Eddie Robinson Sportsman’s Bracket.

The BCS Bracket would determine match-ups for the BCS Bowls, including the national championship, and the remaining upper tier bowl games. The entrants in this bracket would include the top four teams from each of the BCS Super Conferences (PAC-10, ACC, SEC, Big-10, Big-12 and Big-East) and the top two teams from each of the non-BCS Conferences (Mountain West, MAC, C-USA, WAC), excluding the Sun Belt Conference which would not qualify for either the BCS or Holiday Bracket.

The Sun Belt members would qualify for the newly created NIT Bracket, which would feature five bowl games over a two day period in Hawaii to kick off the Holiday Bowl Season on Christmas eve day and Christmas day.

In the BCS Bracket, Weeks nine and ten would create match-ups to determine the conference championships for all the conferences. For example, in week #9 we would have the Big-12 South #1 seed hosting the Big-12 North #2 seed and also the Big-12 North #1 hosting the Big-12 South #2 seed. In week #10 the winners would meet to determine the conference championship and the losers would also meet to determine who their opponent would be in week #11 and #12.

The restructuring that has taken place in nearly all conferences (SEC, ACC, Big-10 (11), Mountain West, WAC, Big-12 and Conference USA has precipitated much of my work as the BCS Busters Model has all conferences aligned in either a two division 12-team Conference, or a two-division 14 team conference.

In a six team division, such as the Big-12, all teams in that division would play each other and three cross over games with their sister division before entering “Bracket Play.” This regular season, “Bracketed Model” is not the often thought of NFL “Loser Out” model. In each of the four brackets, all teams will be guaranteed four games. Teams that continue to win each week will face another who has done the same. Teams who lose the previous week will face another who has felt similar misfortune.

There is a winner’s bracket and a loser’s bracket within each of the four brackets, but you are not finished with your season if you lose like you would be in the NFL Model. All teams would play 12 regular season games, but the major difference would be that all conferences would crown a true conference champion and the best teams in the country are aligned in the final two weeks of the season.

Most people assume a loser out type of playoff for college football is the answer. I tend to view it as a NCAA Basketball pre-season type of tournament like the Maui Invitational or Great Alaska Shootout. All teams are guaranteed 3-4 games in a winners bracket and losers bracket format.

The BCS Bracket, as well as the Holiday, NIT and Sportsman’s Bracket, works in much the same manner. Thus we would have all conferences involved in conference championship match-ups and the losers each week advancing to meet another school who lost the previous week as well.

Most importantly, the two teams finishing the BCS Bracket undefeated would EARN the right to play in the national championship match-up. The remaining 8 schools who finished 3-1 in BCS Bracket play would also EARN the right to play in the remaining four BCS Bowl games and the teams finishing 2-2 and 1-3 in BCS Bracket play would qualify for the remaining upper tier bowl games. The two teams who finished the bracket winless (0-4) would be disqualified from bowl participation.

This system has many advantages. One, it would truly make every game a playoff in college football. Although the networks and conference administrators lay claim every year that college football is a “Sacred Cow” as every game is a playoff, we all know that it is only a playoff for the chosen few; the chosen few are the major members of an alliance which was formed over 25 years ago called the College Football Association, and those original members are listed in an above paragraph.

Two, this system provides an avenue where all of the best teams year in and year out would have an opportunity to play it off an the field as part of the regular season. The only thing you would have to change is the ridiculous non-conference match-ups occurring in early September. Why play these games as the realistically take up the precious time needed in the regular season to create a bracketed match-up involving the best teams? I believe whole-heartedly that the system that I have developed will solve all of the hindering circumstances which prevent college football from moving forward with a Division I-A playoff model.

The crux of this model is the striking fact that a team must EARN their way there, and their schedule in the process. A team earns their placement in one of the four brackets as determined by how a particular team finishes within their division in their conference. Thus, the conference championship race is the pivotal factor in determining which bracket you will enter during the final four weeks of the regular season. Therefore, we would begin the season with the conference games and this would eliminate the bogus pre-conference match-ups, such as, Oregon State - Portland State, LSU - Appalachian State, Florida State - The Citadel, Texas Tech - Texas State, and many others which dominate the landscape in the month of September.

This is the pivotal factor in preventing the best teams in the country from head-to-head competition in the vital month of November. In the current system, the only way to match-up these teams is the NFL “Loser Out” Model, which has never and will never be supported in college football as it extends the season and ends the relationships with bowls, which is actually the third advantage of the BCS Busters Model.

The BCS Busters Model upholds the significance and traditions of the bowl season which truly defines college football. The brackets determine the bowl games without any conference affiliations with certain bowl games. Every team not only earns their opportunity to play in the best bowl games possible, but they earn the opportunity to play the best schedule possible in the process, with out any hindering barriers and scheduling conflicts which occur today. The current scheduling nightmare is a ridiculous format as schedules are made many times up to six and eight years in advance and many teams refuse to schedule up and coming programs like Fresno State, Utah or Louisville (before the joined the Big-East).

Equally important, in creating an avenue where the best teams can square off from year-to-year, the BCS Busters Model exposes another fallacy of college football…the fact that the conference championship game within the Big-12, ACC, and SEC involve the two best teams from each conference. This is ridiculous in itself as the conference championships rarely even match-up the top two teams from a given conference.

During the 2004 Big-12 Conference race, Texas was the next best team behind Oklahoma, but because they played in the same division they were barred from the championship event. Oklahoma went on to blow out Colorado, even when Texas blew out Colorado that same year 41-3 and finished with a better overall conference record than Colorado who competes in the sister Big-12 North Division.

In 2004, a similar quagmire occurred as Texas blew out Colorado again (70-3) in the championship event, when Texas Tech earned the distinction as the next best team. In my system the top two teams from each division are in, but then we take the next two best teams which can come from the same division. A year later in 2005, both Texas and Colorado would be in, but then Texas Tech and Oklahoma would earn the next two seeds from the conference over the ugly step-sister trifecta between Missouri, Iowa State and Nebraska, who all tied for second place in the Big-12 North, but finished with inferior records compared to Texas Tech and Oklahoma.

Therefore, the match-ups in week nine would look like Texas hosting Oklahoma while Colorado would host Texas Tech. The winners and losers would be matched-up the following week before entering the non-conference portion of the season.

This would ensure the best teams from the conference would have equal and inclusive access to a BCS or upper tier bowl berth. It will make more sense as we analize the SEC Conference in 2005. Once again the championship game for this conference did not even match-up the two best teams as Auburn was left out of the mix, only a couple weeks after defeating Georgia, who did gain entrance into the championship event, ultimately winning the SEC title over LSU. Both LSU and Auburn ended their conference slates at 7-1, but LSU earned the nod as the number one seed based on their narrow victory over the Auburn squad in the middle weeks of the 2005 season. Georgia won their division at 6-2, but lost to Auburn.

In my system, Georgia would host Auburn in week #9, while LSU would host South Carolina the same week. Both the winners and losers of those match-ups would meet again the following week. This would allow a true championship event to be determined on the field, and would also allow time in the regular season, weeks eleven and twelve, for the conference champions and the non-BCS national champions to meet on the field to determine the BCS and Upper-Tier bowl games.

In this manner, and in this manner only, can college football truly be defined as a “sacred cow” where every game is truly a playoff in itself. If you are going to have a conference championship match-up, it only makes sense to have the two best teams in the championship match-up.

In the BCS Busters Model, the two best teams will be determined on the field to create this championship match-up.

Finally, this format allows the season length to remain at 12 weeks plus the bowl game. In an informal poll conducted a couple years ago, the majority of the players who participated in the poll claimed that they wanted some sort of a playoff but did not want to play any more games than absolutely necessary.

An NFL loser out style format which eliminates the bowl games would be catastrophic for college football. Equally important, this system would truly make every game in college football a playoff and make the conference race the most important item off all as you cannot qualify for the BCS and Upper Tier Bowl Games unless you finish as one of the top four teams within your conference.

In conclusion, the three other brackets (Holiday, NIT and Sportsman’s Bracket) are all occurring simultaneously with the BCS Bracket in the final 4 weeks (November) of the regular season. The Holiday Bracket would involve (4 teams) the 3 and 4 seeds from each division of the BCS Super Conferences and two teams ( the third place and fourth place team) from the non-BCS Conferences. The NIT Bracket would involve the next two teams down (the 5th and 6th place teams) from the BCS Conferences (4 teams) and just the 5th and 6th place team from the non-BCS conferences (two teams).

Thus the BCS, Holiday and NIT Brackets would involve 32 teams each in each bracket and teams would qualify according to their placement in their conference race. The final bracket would involve 24 teams as there would actually be three eight team regional brackets within the single Eddie Robinson Sportsman’s Bracket.

The Non-BCS Conferences would have the following parameters to qualify for one of the four end of the regular season brackets to determine the bowl games.

The NCAA Selection Committee would eliminate one Non-BCS Conference from the BCS and Holiday Brackets, and this conference would receive a minimum of 5 representatives which would enter the NIT Bracket. This year, it would most likely be the Sun Belt Conference.The remaining Non-BCS Conferences would receive the number one seeds from each division to enter the BCS Bracket.

Therefore, the Non-BCS teams would have their conference championship games in week #9. In Week Ten, the match-ups would look like the following for the bottom end of the BCS Bracket which would consist only of Non-BCS affiliated teams.

WAC Conference Champion v. Mountain West Conference Champion
Conference USA Champion v. MAC Conference Champion

As we reach the final eight in weeks 11 and 12 of the regular season, this would guarantee that a truly defined champion from each of the eight best conference (as determined by the results on the field) would face off for a berth into the elite bowl games, including the national championship game. Additionally, we would also be branding the best Non-BCS team, as a mythical Non-BCS champion in college football, which would provide addition branding in the eyes of the nation as an elite member of college football.

A regular season bracketed playoff would allow a national champion to be crowned in college football where its merits would be achieved by the results on the field. This would end the accident of birth pre-season poll advantages, secret coaches polls, complicated computer formula’s and network smear campaigns which desire certain match-ups to satisfy ratings.