“Unfathomable” and “superficial” best describe sports commentators’ opinions and the mass mentality regarding the Bowl Championship Series. BCS facilitators are just as bad. No one discusses that the BCS creators actually devised a system which thirty years of football experience taught them would produce the would-be national champion in the vast majority of seasons through a single, exciting championship game while leaving intact a bowl structure familiar to the college football fan base. BCS commentators explain simplistically that the system creates a No. 1 versus No. 2 championship game using an unpredictable and complicated polling system. Their view is “unfathomable” and “superficial” when the same commentators instinctively report football game scores and follow them with measurable, on-the-field statistics that help them describe each team’s production or failure to produce. Yet when pressed to explain the BCS’s creation, they invariably delve into off-the-field motivations of money and power and allege that the all-powerful BCS conferences inflict football injustice upon “have-nots” leaving playoffs as the only remedy. In the end commentators go to great lengths to describe perceived inequities in how the BCS works and why it should be scrapped in favor of a playoff, but they have rarely raised a finger to explain why the BCS National Championship Game was the final result. If they did, they would have face masks and mouthpieces full of dirt for advocating a playoff system for so long.
The correct analysis does not depend upon any particular approach to the issue so the commentators’ positions will be used as the starting point. What is the basis for even considering teams ranked 3 through 8 or 16 in the NCAA Football National Championship mix? Are there really 16 teams or even 8 teams who persevere each year who are worthy to be the National Champion? Bring facts here, not guesses.
The reality is simply that unless some altruistic purpose exists for the expansive inclusion of football teams, the goal of any bracket maker ought to be to make a playoff only large enough to include those worthy of contention for the national championship.
“Who is worthy?” was the same question facing the BCS creators. They found few options when considering the previous thirty years of the rank progressions for the ultimate No. 1 teams in the coaches’ and sports writers’ polls. To devise a fair BCS system, the question they needed to answer was where the eventual No. 1s stood after the regular season and before the teams played in bowl games. The answer told them, and tells us, all the possible poll positions that would reasonably include the eventual No. 1 and would tell us the number of teams needed for a playoff or the BCS system. Somehow the instinct to explain the BCS or support a particular bracket with these stats disappears when current commentators pitch their proposals.
From the Associated Press sports writers’ polls beginning in1968, the first year the final poll came after the bowl games:
Sixteen No. 1 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
Seven No. 2 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
Five No. 3 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
No No. 4 team at the end of the regular season was No. 1 after bowl games.
Two No. 5 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
The historical end-of-season polls as published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and the Arkansas Gazette in the respective weeks are the source of the information.
| Coaches' Polls | Final No. 1 | Prev. Rank | Final No. 2 | Prev. Rank | |
| 2009 | Alabama | 1 | Texas | 2 | |
| 2008 | Florida | 2 | USC | 4 | |
| 2007 | LSU | 2 | USC | 6 | |
| 2006 | Florida | 2 | Ohio St. | 1 | |
| 2005 | Texas | 2 | USC | 1 | |
| 2004 | USC | 1 | Auburn | 3 | |
| 2003 | LSU | 2 | USC | 1 | |
| 2002 | Ohio St. | 2 | Miami | 1 | |
| 2001 | Miami | 1 | Oregon | 3 | |
| 2000 | Oklahoma | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1999 | Florida St. | 1 | Nebraska | 3 | |
| 1998 | Tennessee | 1 | Ohio St. | 3 | |
| BCS Begins | |||||
| 1997 | Nebraska | 2 | Michigan | 1 | |
| 1996 | Florida | 3 | Ohio St. | 4 | |
| 1995 | Nebraska | 1 | Tennessee | 4 | |
| 1994 | Nebraska | 1 | Penn St. | 2 | |
| 1993 | Florida St. | 3 | Notre Dame | 4 | |
| 1992 | Alabama | 2 | Florida St. | 4 | |
| 1991 | Washington | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1990 | Georgia Tech | 2 | Colorado | 1 | |
| 1989 | Miami | 2 | Florida St. | 5 | |
| 1988 | Notre Dame | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1987 | Miami | 2 | Florida St. | 3 | |
| 1986 | Penn St. | 2 | Miami | 1 | |
| 1985 | Oklahoma | 2 | Michigan | 5 | |
| 1984 | BYU | 1 | Washington | 3 | |
| 1983 | Miami | 4 | Nebraska | 1 | |
| 1982 | Penn St. | 2 | SMU | 4 | |
| 1981 | Clemson | 1 | Pittsburgh | 8 | |
| 1980 | Georgia | 1 | Pittsburgh | 4 | |
| 1979 | Alabama | 1 | USC | 2 | |
| 1978 | USC | 3 | Alabama | 2 | |
| 1977 | Notre Dame | 5 | Alabama | 3 | |
| 1976 | Pittsburgh | 1 | USC | 3 |
The Coaches’ Poll began taking its final poll after the college bowl games in 1974; however, end-of-regular-season polls are provided only as far back as 1976. Certainly, the 1974 and 1975 polls exist but finding them proved elusive in a few different publications.
Nine No. 1 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
Eight No. 2 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
Three No. 3 teams at the end of the regular season were No. 1 after bowl games.
One No. 4 team at the end of the regular season was No. 1 after bowl games.
One No. 5 team at the end of the regular season was No. 1 after bowl games.
| Coaches' Polls | Final No. 1 | Prev. Rank | Final No. 2 | Prev. Rank | |
| 2009 | Alabama | 1 | Texas | 2 | |
| 2008 | Florida | 2 | USC | 4 | |
| 2007 | LSU | 2 | USC | 6 | |
| 2006 | Florida | 2 | Ohio St. | 1 | |
| 2005 | Texas | 2 | USC | 1 | |
| 2004 | USC | 1 | Auburn | 3 | |
| 2003 | LSU | 2 | USC | 1 | |
| 2002 | Ohio St. | 2 | Miami | 1 | |
| 2001 | Miami | 1 | Oregon | 3 | |
| 2000 | Oklahoma | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1999 | Florida St. | 1 | Nebraska | 3 | |
| 1998 | Tennessee | 1 | Ohio St. | 3 | |
| BCS Begins | |||||
| 1997 | Nebraska | 2 | Michigan | 1 | |
| 1996 | Florida | 3 | Ohio St. | 4 | |
| 1995 | Nebraska | 1 | Tennessee | 4 | |
| 1994 | Nebraska | 1 | Penn St. | 2 | |
| 1993 | Florida St. | 3 | Notre Dame | 4 | |
| 1992 | Alabama | 2 | Florida St. | 4 | |
| 1991 | Washington | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1990 | Georgia Tech | 2 | Colorado | 1 | |
| 1989 | Miami | 2 | Florida St. | 5 | |
| 1988 | Notre Dame | 1 | Miami | 2 | |
| 1987 | Miami | 2 | Florida St. | 3 | |
| 1986 | Penn St. | 2 | Miami | 1 | |
| 1985 | Oklahoma | 2 | Michigan | 5 | |
| 1984 | BYU | 1 | Washington | 3 | |
| 1983 | Miami | 4 | Nebraska | 1 | |
| 1982 | Penn St. | 2 | SMU | 4 | |
| 1981 | Clemson | 1 | Pittsburgh | 8 | |
| 1980 | Georgia | 1 | Pittsburgh | 4 | |
| 1979 | Alabama | 1 | USC | 2 | |
| 1978 | USC | 3 | Alabama | 2 | |
| 1977 | Notre Dame | 5 | Alabama | 3 | |
| 1976 | Pittsburgh | 1 | USC | 3 |
The reality is that regardless of the claimed faults of the BCS regarding conference affiliation, school size, “media bias,” “coaches’ bias,” or money, before the BCS, only two teams ranked higher than consensus No. 3 at the end of the regular season have ever been declared national champions in either the Associated Press or the Coaches’ Polls.
Ranked No. 4 by the U.P.I. and No. 5 by the A.P. at the end of the regular season, the 1983 Miami Hurricanes vaulted to No. 1 by defeating then No. 1 Nebraska 31-30 as No. 2 Texas lost to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl, No. 3 Auburn won 9-7 over No. 8 Michigan, and No. 4 Illinois lost 45-9 to UCLA. ( For 1983 A.P. regular season poll and Others referred to hereand Wikipedia for general Bowl Referenceand December 6, 1983, Arkansas Gazette.)
In 1977 the No. 5 Irish and Joe Montana walloped No. 1 Texas 38-10 and from the opening kickoff the No. 6 Arkansas Razorbacks smashed No. 2 Oklahoma 31-6. No. 3 Alabama’s effort in beating No. 8 Ohio State 35-6 was not enough while No. 4 Michigan lost in the Rose Bowl to No. 13 Washington 27-20. ( Wikipedia 1977 College Football Season)
Jacob London of Hog Database previewed some of this post and wondered, “What is the lowest end-of-regular-season rank for a team finishing No. 2 at the end of the year?” The same information regarding the No. 2 teams is on the charts above.
For No. 2s, from 2009 back to 1968, inclusive, from the A.P. Poll:
2008 – Utah-- 7
1975 -- AZ St. --7 (in WAC)
1981 – Texas -- 6
1970 -- Notre Dame --6
1985 – Michigan -- 5
1974 –USC – 5
All other No. 2s back to 1968 were 1, 2, 3 or 4.
For No. 2s, from 2009 back to 1976, inclusive, from the Coaches’ Poll:
1981 – Pittsburgh -- 8
2007 – USC -- 6
1989 -- Florida St. -- 5
1985 – Michigan -- 5
In 1974 the Coaches’ Poll began to refuse to rank any team on probation and later modified the practice. In 1981 SMU and Miami were on probation which is part of the reason for Pittsburgh’s jump to No. 2 from No. 8 in addition to three teams above Pitt losing.
Teams have made the jump from outside the top 4 to No. 2 in 14.3 % of the A.P. polls from 1968 to 2009. In the Coaches’ Poll from 1976 through 2009 only 11.8% of the teams vaulted from outside the Top 4 to No. 2. A four-team playoff would cover 85.7% of the eventual No. 2 teams historically. But that is as good as the numbers get for a more expansive playoff than four teams.
Taking into account collective opinions of both polls from 2009 back to1968 and 1976 respectively, 304 poll positions existed between Nos. 5 through 8 (42AP Polls * 4, 34UPI Polls * 4). Ten position holders, or 3.3%, ranked No. 5 through No. 8 at the end of the regular season became eventual No. 2 teams. Only 2 schools became eventual No. 1 teams.
Stepping back a bit, the basic idea is to include only the elite in college football. “Regular” games were played in the season. Roughly 120 teams exist in college football although the number varies as programs come and go. The elite in any group might be defined any number of ways, but for the sake of illustration, the twelve best teams would be in the top ten percent of the college football DI-A schools. Half of that would make up the top five percent, but the vast majority of season ending No. 1s or No. 2s come from the top three schools, or the top two-and-a-half percent.
When the issue narrows to a total of one game for the championship or three games in a bracket involving four teams, as the BCS creators recognized, the Bowl system could handle the game load without scrapping tradition, cities’ investments in games, or any number of other concerns such as causing fans to travel too much. The BCS system accounts for the fact that roughly seventy-five percent of all No. 1s come from the end-of-regular season group of No. 1s and No. 2s and that eventual No. 1s coming from a No. 3 rank is infrequent while those from higher ranks is rare. To include the third-ranked team in the BCS means including the likely-undeserving fourth-ranked team, whereas the BCS National Championship game is undiluted.
Until the commentators begin to use the stats they are accustomed to using to describe the BCS, all they are feeding their public are a lot of their own wants mixed with accusations to get the public fired up.
An Olive Branch and a Devious Idea
A good percentage of people will find any BCS game outside a single national championship game or a four-team bracket as “meaningless” especially as many as three additional BCS Bowls might exist beyond a traditional four team bracket. The major bowls all had relevance because circumstances might produce another Notre Dame miracle or an unlikely Miami champion. Somewhere in there the pageantry and anticipation for what could be was lost when a set system tried to correct persistent disputes about who should be No. 1 with polls.
Considering the rankings above and looking at 1983, 1981, and 1977, a devious idea came to mind. Whether it is original or not is not known.
Enter the “Collapsing Bracket.” The Collapsing Bracket would have the potential of keeping people in their seats all day long for four BCS Bowl Games and then the National Championship while keeping the anticipation which existed in days gone by and continuing to decide the Championship on the field.
All BCS Bowl Games would return to January 1 and the National Championship Game played on the second Saturday in January. For this idea, the Cotton would be elevated to BCS Bowl played in Dallas Cowboy Stadium, but the National Championship Game rotates among the BCS Bowls making only eight BCS slots available with four Bowl Games and one reserved for the BCS National Championship Game.
From the end-of-the regular season BCS poll, the top eight ranked teams would play in the following order:
BCS #3 v. BCS #7
BCS #2 v. BCS #6
BCS #1 v. BCS #5
The top two seeds standing at the end of New Years’ Day would advance to the BCS National Championship Game. Nos. 7 and 8 can only be spoilers. Watch the dynamics of the setup and the story unfolding as the games progress.
If No. 4 wins, its fans want help from two of Nos. 7, 6 and 5.
If No. 3 wins, its fans pull for Nos. 6 or 5. A win by either puts No. 3 in the National Championship Game.
Fans from No. 5 and 6 are cheering on Nos. 7 and 8 while fans from 3 and 4 are cheering on Nos. 5 and 6.
Nos. 1 and 2 only need to win, but losses by Nos. 3 and 4 earlier in the day would mean that either No. 5 or No. 6 are playing for a berth in the National Championship Game! Is that incentive enough?
Nos. 1 and 2 fans would be claiming “us against the world.” Because they don’t know who they’ll play, they’ll want to watch Nos. 3 and 4.
No. 2s fans will and cheer for Nos. 3 and 4 so that No. 6 is only playing for pride. No. 1s fans will want the best chance of winning so they want No. 4 to win and Nos. 2 and 3 to lose.
No. 5 needs to win against No. 1 and for two of Nos. 2, 3 or 4 to lose to play for the National Championship.
No. 6 has to have losses by Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 to make it to the BCS National Championship, but it could happen.
The teams would no longer have the easier road based upon rank such as when No. 1 would draw No. 8 or No. 4 for the easier road to the Championship Game, and the drama would continue until the last game is played.
The Collapsing Bracket just seems deviously fun!
[From the information available, only a few people saw an earlier version of this post. If it looks familiar to some, that's why.]
No comments:
Post a Comment