UNORTHODOX BCS PROPOSAL


One thing nearly all college football fans can agree upon is that a playoff system to determine the national champion would be better than what we currently have in place.  Well, sometimes they can all agree upon that.  You'll often hear people say things to the effect of "see...this year is the perfect example of why we need an x-team playoff", to which a clearer thinking person will respond "yeah, this year we need that, but the situation is different every year."

Take 2009, a classic example of a year that demanded a four-team playoff.  The top four finishers in the BCS standings were all undefeated.  It's obvious to all what to do in a situation like that, right?  Play it off!  1 vs 4, 2 vs 3...let's go!

However, consider 2005.  USC and Texas were undefeated and head-and-shoulders above all challengers.  A four-team playoff in that situation would not only have felt forced, but also diminished what those teams had accomplished during the regular season.  They'd already earned their title shot, and a 1 vs 2 game was all that was needed that year.

Then there's a year like the current one.  We have one team that has earned entry into the final game without any discussion needed-- the other team, not clear at all.  This would be a perfect year to punch the #1 team's ticket to the big game, but make #2 and #3 battle it out on the field.

Clearly, what we need is a system flexible enough to adapt to whatever is needed in that particular season.  This is that system.

The proposal operates on two basic principles:

1) Any team that goes undefeated while playing a top-tier schedule should be given a shot on the field to earn their way into the title game.

2) Mathematical differences between the #2 and #3 teams that are not statistically significant should be treated as such.  For example, if the #2 team has a BCS rating of .942 and the #3 team is a .933 (as in 2011), that's a completely different situation than ratings of .939 and .870 (2007).  To pretend that those two situations are equal and that in each case, the BCS calculation has undeniably determined the 2nd team deserving of playing in the championship game is disingenuous.  The reality is that if the season has played out in such a way that there simply is no discernible difference between the 2nd and 3rd teams, then let's admit that rather than pretending that the magic system has found a difference that isn't there.


It is important to note that no one is in favor of undefeated teams which played cupcake schedules earning a title shot.  Often, teams go undefeated but finish well down the list.  This proposal is only concerned with rewarding undefeated teams that finish in the top four, because in order to do so, a schools's strength of schedule would have had to have been strong enough to impress both the computers and human voters.

The proposal itself is simple to explain.  If the top four teams in the regular season final BCS standings are undefeated, a four-team playoff is used.  If the top three are undefeated, #1 gets a bye while #2 and #3 play.  If the top two are undefeated, the only game is a championship game.  Finally, if there are zero or one undefeated teams in the top four, the difference in BCS ratings between the #2 and #3 teams comes into play.  In cases where the #2 team has a clear edge (greater than .02), a #1 vs #2 game is all that is needed.  However, in situations where trying to determine #2 and #3 is basically a toss-up, the three team playoff system with #1 getting a bye is used.

		[4 TEAM PLAYOFF]
	--> yes
top 4 undefeated?				[3 TEAM PLAYOFF]
	no -->		--> yes
		top 3 undefeated?				[2 TEAM PLAYOFF]
			no -->		--> yes
				top 2 undefeated?				[3 TEAM PLAYOFF]
					no -->		--> yes
						#2 and #3 within .02 pts?
							no -->
								[2 TEAM PLAYOFF]

In the last eight years, under this proposal, there would have been two years where only a #1 vs #2 game was needed, five years where a three-team playoff was used and one year where a four-team playoff was used.

As for logistics, as many have argued for decades, there's plenty of time in the month of bowls to add a round for playoff purposes.  This proposal leaves intact the bowl structure with little change.  Currently, there's one championship game and the rest of the bowls fill their slots with the teams left after #1 and #2 are taken out.  Under this proposal, instead of one championship game, there could be two or three playoff games depending upon the year (but sometimes just the one), so the overall bowl structure is barely affected.



HOW THE LAST EIGHT YEARS WOULD HAVE PLAYED OUT UNDER THIS PROPOSAL

2011
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	LSU (undefeated)	1
2	Alabama	.942
3	Oklahoma St	.933
4	Stanford	.848
Process: With just one undefeated team in the top four, the only question is whether #2 Alabama and #3 Oklahoma St are close enough to warrant a #2 vs #3 game, which they are. First Round: #1 LSU bye #2 Alabama vs #3 Oklahoma St Championship: #1 LSU vs #2 Alabama/#3 Oklahoma St winner

2010
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	Auburn (undefeated)	.987
2	Oregon (undefeated)	.972
3	TCU (undefeated)	.910
4	Stanford	.837
Process: With three undefeated teams in the top three, all three are in. First Round: #1 Auburn bye #2 Oregon vs #3 TCU Championship: #1 Auburn vs #2 Oregon/#3 TCU winner

2009
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	Alabama (undefeated)	.998
2	Texas (undefeated)	.943
3	Cincinnati (undefeated)	.888
4	TCU (undefeated)	.884
Process: With four undefeated teams in the top four, all four are in. First Round: #1 Alabama vs #4 TCU #2 Texas vs #3 Cincinnati Championship: #1 Alabama/#4 TCU winner vs #2 Texas/#3 Cincinnati winner

2008
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	Oklahoma	.976
2	Florida	.948
3	Texas	.930
4	Alabama	.844
Process: With no undefeated teams in the top four, the only question is whether #2 Florida and #3 Texas are close enough to warrant a #2 vs #3 game, which they are. First Round: #1 Oklahoma bye #2 Florida vs #3 Texas Championship: #1 Oklahoma vs #2 Florida/#3 Texas winner

2007
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	Ohio St	.959
2	LSU	.939
3	Virginia Tech	.870
4	Oklahoma	.857
Process: With no undefeated teams in the top four, the only question is whether #2 LSU and #3 Virginia Tech are close enough to warrant a #2 vs #3 game, which they are not. Championship: #1 Ohio St vs #2 LSU

2006
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	Ohio St (undefeated)	1
2	Florida	.945
3	Michigan	.934
4	LSU	.833
Process: With just one undefeated team in the top four, the only question is whether #2 Florida and #3 Michigan are close enough to warrant a #2 vs #3 game, which they are. First Round: #1 Ohio St bye #2 Florida vs #3 Michigan Championship: #1 Ohio St vs #2 Florida/#3 Michigan winner

2005
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	USC (undefeated)	.987
2	Texas (undefeated)	.973
3	Penn St	.919
4	Ohio St	.856
Process: With just two undefeated teams in the top four, both are in. Championship: #1 USC vs #2 Texas

2004
Rank	School	BCS Rating
1	USC (undefeated)	.977
2	Oklahoma (undefeated)	.968
3	Auburn (undefeated)	.933
4	Texas	.848
Process: With three undefeated teams in the top three, all three are in. First Round: #1 USC bye #2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn Championship: #1 USC vs #2 Oklahoma/#3 Auburn winner