Recently, President-elect Barack Obama stated that he favors a playoff to determine the champion in college football. Given the future President’s likely preoccupation with saving the country from a financial ruin, environmental catastrophe and terrorist attack, having the time to spend unraveling the BCS mess in college football will not be his first priority. Even if, as it seemed in the interview, Obama’s comments were light remarks made off the cuff rather than serious policy proposals, a presidential mention of a playoff gives us all the excuse we need to discuss it.

Image Credit: Jamie L. Williams

One things that is certain is that there has been progress in the last decade. In 1994, Penn State and Nebraska both finished undefeated and won their bowl games. Nebraska won the National Championship, Penn State did not. In 1997, a similar situation occurred, and Michigan and Nebraska split the title. These controversies caused the creation of the Bowl Championship Series, which is an agreement between the four major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange) to rotate a game between the #1 and #2 ranked team to decide a champion.

The system is an improvement. The classic game between USC and Texas in 2005 would not have occurred without the BCS.

Still, there is controversy. If there are three undefeated teams, one of them is left out (Auburn 2004). If several teams finish with one loss, then there is no objective way to determine who should play for the title (USC, LSU, and Oklahoma 2003). This year, there is a chance of several teams (Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, USC, Penn State) all finishing with one loss, and that doesn’t even include the teams from smaller conferences.

A playoff system has the advantage of deciding a winner on the field. No more complaining about polls, or complicated formulas about who-beat-who. Just football, with the winner getting the title.

There are a variety of possible playoff configurations, each with advantages and flaws.

The 8 Team Playoff

In this proposal, which President-elect Obama supported in his interview with 60 Minutes, the top 8 teams play a 3-round tournament to decide a champion. There are two possible methods to determine which teams get in the tournament. One proposal is to take the 6 conference champions from the current BCS conferences (PAC 10, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big East) and have two wild cards.

The advantage of having only 8 teams is that you only need three rounds, or seven games total, to determine a winner. This prevents the season from dragging on any longer, since some of the playoff games could be played in December, with the championship in January.

The disadvantage of using the conference champions is that legitimate title contenders could be left out, while some mediocre teams will get in. For example, in 2007, there would have been only two wild card slots for 10-2 Georgia, 10-2 Missouri (whom it is always acceptable to exclude), 11-1 Kansas, and 12-0 Hawaii.

This year could be even worse. The current ACC leaders are 7-3 Miami and Maryland. The Big East leader is 8-2 Cincinnati. 7-3 Oregon State has the lead by tiebreaker in the PAC 10. Under this proposal, Maryland/Miami, Cincinnati, and Oregon State would all get into the playoffs. This would leave only 2 wildcards among several powerful teams. If Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and Florida beats Alabama, there would be USC, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas, Alabama, all with one loss, and Utah and Boise State, with no losses, competing for 2 playoff spots and the right to demolish the ACC and Big East Champions.

This has led some to suggest that the BCS standings be used to place the top 8 teams, regardless of conference. This does a better job of selecting quality teams, but it weakens the role of the conference. The importance of a conference title derives much of its prestige from an automatic berth in a lucrative BCS bowl. If there are no conference tie-ins, then conference games would no longer have the suspense and impact that they do now. Plus, it would be hard to convince weaker conferences to join a playoff if conference champions don’t get an automatic berth.

It seems that 8 teams just aren’t enough.

The 16 Team Playoff

A sixteen team playoff does a better job of letting in all the qualified teams. One could have automatic berths for the 6 BCS conference champs, and then 10 at-large teams. Or, the Mountain West and WAC champion could get an automatic entry, and there could be 8 wild cards.

There are several disadvantage of this configuration as well. It adds only one more round but 8 more games to the tournament. The champion could play 12 regular season games, 1 conference championship, and then 4 playoff games for a total of 17, which is one more than the NFL regular season. Of course, this could be solved by shortening the regular season, and the extra games would certainly bring in more revenue.

In 2007, this system would have allowed 9-3 Florida, Illinois, Clemson, 10-3 Boston College and 10-4 Tennessee into the tournament, going by the BCS rankings of the remaining teams. This year, 9-2 Ohio State, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, and maybe even TCU could get in, based on current standings. All of these teams have been beaten badly by the teams above them, and I don’t know anyone who would claim that any of them should be legitimate national title contenders.

Given all this, it seems that 16 teams are probably too many.

The 12 Team Playoff — The Best Option

To make up for the weaknesses of the 8 and 16 team playoffs, there needs to be a system that rewards teams for winning their conference, and keeps the tradition and rivalry of conference play alive by automatically including the conference champ.

On the other hand, we need to allow every team with a legitimate claim to the national title a chance to prove it on the field.

By having a playoff with the 6 conference champions and 6 at-large slots, both of these goals can be accomplished. Furthermore, the top 4 conference champions would be further rewarded with a bye in the tournament.

In 2007, this would have meant that Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma all got first round byes, due to their conference titles and high rankings. Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Hawaii, Arizona State and Illinois would all have gotten in based on their rankings.

This year, depending on how the season plays out, it could be any of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Utah, Boise St, USC, Alabama and Florida included as wild cards.

Twelve seems to be the right number to me. It lets the good teams in while keeping out some of the dross (unless you win the ACC or Big East- but that can’t be helped). The conference season would still be important since the champions have automatic bids and potential byes.
If Oklahoma beats Texas Tech on Saturday, there will be three teams in the Big 12 with one loss. Those three teams (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Texas) are among the best 6 or 7 teams in the entire country. Any playoff that excludes one of these teams is incomplete, inadequate, and unfair.

The only way to ensure that everyone with a claim gets to play is to take 12 teams.

There are other considerations for a tournament. For example, where would they be played?

Most tournaments mention a system of rotating games among the big bowls. This is probably fine for the later rounds, but I would love to see the first round games played on the college campuses. The environments around the country for a playoff game on campus would be incredible, and early December would mean we would get to watch games in the snow whenever teams like Ohio State or Penn State hosted.

There is also money. If the first, and maybe second, rounds are on campus, the stadiums will be sold out. If there was a game between, say, Utah and Florida scheduled for the first round at the Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, it would be hard for those fans to make the trip, knowing they might well have to travel to two or three more games on following weekends. By playing at home, it’s guaranteed the seats will be filled.

The playoff system might cause some loss of interest in some of the lower tier bowls, but is anyone really watching the 3rd place MAC team play the 8th place team in the Big 12? There would still be a draw for fans to travel to bowl games to watch their teams play, even if it would be overshadowed nationally by the playoffs. The bowls would continue to exist, and the majority of people who are not fans of the playing teams or incorrigible gamblers would continue to not watch them.

Obstacles to a Playoff

There are a variety of factors blocking a potential playoff in college football. The bowls all make millions of dollars in the current system, and accordingly, they worry about losing market share. The commissioners of the PAC 10 and Big 10 love the tradition of a Rose Bowl pitting the two conference champions against each other. These were the conferences that held out longest against the BCS format in the late 90s, and they’re not rushing to join a playoff system either.

The television networks also make gazillions of dollars on the current system, but of course they would also cash in on a playoff, so that might not be a big hurdle. However, there are athletic directors, conference commissioners, university presidents, bowl games, small conferences and large conferences, all of whom have a say (and the fans, who don’t). As Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated noted about establishing a playoff:

By the time you’re done reading this chapter, you will likely come to the conclusion that solving the current financial crisis or revamping health care will be a walk in the park compared to bringing a playoff to college football.

So to whoever next decides to wade into the morass of conflicting opinions and interests that surround a potential college football playoff: good luck. You’ll need it.