The Great Debate: We Are The Champions…Right?

The old saying goes: “To be the best, you must beat the best.” College football’s current system represents the antithesis of that philosophy. The epicenter of controversy, college football’s current post-season system fails to challenge its superior teams and often leaves others out of the fold. With the amount of contending teams, college football decided to turn to the Bowl Championship Series, a formula, to determine its best teams. While the Bowl Championship Series formula initially produced successful results, its recent controversial projections suggest that the institution of a playoff system is essential. I propose the addition of a sixteen-team playoff system that will add legitimacy to college football by producing a true champion and create a money making frenzy founded upon a heightened level of excitement, while still maintaining a schedule feasible by players, teams, and fans.
Like a rite of passage, every time college football season rolls around, a heap of literature gets published discussing the NCAA’s controversial post-season system. Of the published work, there is an equal balance between the amounts of studies versus journal articles. A majority of the work, however, comes in the form of blogging. Just like most controversial issues, the published literature attacks the controversy in many different angles and represents a variety of different opinions. There are more articles and studies that call for the implementation of a playoff system, however, there is still a great deal of work calling for a status quo, as the debate remains highly competitive. Those in favor of holding off on change cite the excitement of each game as a major incentive, while also attacking the feasibility of a change. On the contrary, many refuse to believe the current system accomplishes any sport’s goal: crowning a true champion. Regardless of whether the literature calls for a playoff system or not, one thing most everyone agrees on is that a change, in some form, needs to be made.
Leagues with imbalanced schedules—those in which teams do not play each other an equal amount of times—use the regular season not to create a champion, but to identify post-season participants. With over 100 teams, it is impossible for college football to implement a balanced schedule. This makes determining the “best team in the land,” a nearly impossible task without a post-season tournament. Division 1-A, NCAA’s highest level of football, is unique in that it does not have a post-season tournament. For most of the sport’s history, the champion has been crowned based on the votes produced by two human polls: the Associated Press (AP) poll of reporters and the ESPN/USA Today (E/U) poll of coaches. The polls began in 1936 with the establishment of the AP poll. By 1950 the United Press International poll was created, known today as the ESPN/USA Today poll (Stern, 180). Many refer to college football’s final top-ranked team as a “mythical” national champion because it is determined by polls rather than on the gridiron. For instance, in 1997, both Michigan and Nebraska finished the season with undefeated records. Michigan finished the season ranked first in the E/U poll, while Nebraska finished the year atop the AP poll. The “split” National Championship created huge controversy as the system in place had no way of pairing these two teams up to determine who stood atop the mountain. The controversy led to the creation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system.
After years of working with the BCS and making minor improvements, impactful holes still exist, most notably its “slotting” system. Major bowls slot pre-determined participants. For instance, the Rose Bowl pairs the champions of the Pac-10 and Big Ten Conferences. If the number one team in the country was in the Pac-10, but the number-two ranked team was in the Big 12, the system in place prevented them from playing each other. Though the BCS rankings were more precise than a system that included only human polls, it still did not allow for a true championship game. A minor makeover took place to alleviate the problem. The NCAA added a “National Championship” game that pins the two highest BCS ranked teams together and allows the participants’ conferences to send its second best team to its contracted bowl game, removing the conference champion from its obligation. The site of the additional game rotates between each major bowl every year, even though the hosting major bowl still has its original game.
The renovations to the system improved the BCS, but did not perfect it as it relies on two teams to separate themselves each year. In 2003, the system’s added vulnerability was exposed. The regular season produced three once-beaten teams from major conferences: Louisiana State University (LSU), Oklahoma University (OU), and the University of Southern California (USC). Rankings had varying combinations of those three teams. Ultimately, it was decided that LSU and OU would participate in the “National Championship,” leaving an equally deserving USC out of the equation. USC won their “BCS Bowl Game” in a dominant fashion, while LSU beat OU. The BCS crowned LSU its national champion, while the writers, not bound by the BCS, nor official, crowned USC its national champion, fueling the controversy. Unlike in the past, the NCAA has no way to prevent this problem from occurring in the future other than by instituting a playoff system.
While many journalists and even political leaders like President Barrack Obama and Senator Orrin Hatch agree on the necessity to institute a playoff system, there is a lot of debate about the structure of such a system. For instance, Hal Stern includes a discussion at the end of his article that includes proposal from six credible authors, all of which are different in structure. My proposal creates a system that crowns a true champion, provides a great opportunity to generate more money, and maintains the traditions and integrity of the long-standing bowl system.
I propose that the NCAA institutes a playoff consisting of sixteen teams. These teams include the champions of each conference—major and minor—as well as five at-large teams. Each conference determines the way they select their champion, either with a conference championship game, or simply by regular season conference record. The five at-large teams will be the five teams highest in the BCS rankings without a bid to the tournament. A particular bowl will sponsor each game in the bracket-style single elimination tournament (example displayed at bottom). The BCS bowls will claim the two quarterfinal games that involve the two top-ranked teams and both semifinal games. The National Championship game will be independent, but played at the site of a BCS bowl on a rotating schedule. Bowls not a part of the tournament can still hold games, extending bids to teams not a part of the tournament with an eligible record. Each team will play at home during its first two rounds, even those a part of a BCS Bowl in an effort to reduce the travel for both the teams and the fans, while the semi-finals and finals will take place at the site of the particular BCS bowl game.
Scheduling is one of the main obstacles in moving to the playoff. I propose a more efficient way of scheduling that does not alter the season’s window. In 2009, the season began during the first week of September. There are fifteen weeks of regular season football that ends during the second week of December. By moving the schedule up one week and removing one bye for each team, the regular season could end during the last week of November, with conference championship games taking place during the first week of December. The very next week, the first round of playoff games will start. One week later—the third week of December—the second round games will occur as will the bowls for teams that do not qualify for the playoffs. By the fourth week of December, the semifinals will occur, and the remaining bowls will be played. Following a bye week, the championship will take place and then the season will end. This schedule allows the season to finish at the same time and avoids games during the peak of exams week for many schools.
NCAA football fails to determine a true champion on a consistent basis because they rely on computers to select participants for a sport whose victors are determined on the field, and not in a hard drive. Pollsters and computers have to predict and project more than they let team’s determine rankings on the field. After a three year study, David H. Annis and Samuel Wu presented various examples of the system’s ineptitude, ultimately concluding, “It is clear that the NCAA’s constant ‘tweaking’ of the BCS system has not been able to determine a champion reliably or equitably” (Annis & Wu, 1). Last year, the University of Utah finished its regular season 12-0. However, the BCS rankings placed two one-loss teams into the championship game. Instead of going to the National Championship game, Utah played Alabama, a championship contender throughout the season and beats them handily, 31-17, calling many experts to say their performance was the most impressive in the country. Utah finishes a season 13-0 yet they do not even get an opportunity to become a champion. A playoff system gives them the opportunity and puts the onus on their shoulders to prove their worth. Additionally, too often teams are at the mercy of their opponents after they have already played them. Kenneth Massey’s study identifies the 2003 season in illustrating this point: “Two of USC’s opponents…lost during the last week of the season. The effect was enough to propel LSU into the title game instead of USC” (Massey 186). USC lost out because of their opponents’ ineptitude.
Even when comparing teams who do play each other, it is nearly impossible to determine a fair ranking system that properly. Last season Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech were involved in a Bermuda triangle of sorts. Each team finished the regular season with one overall loss, each of which coming in conference. The losses were woven amongst the three teams: Texas beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Texas. Somehow, the BCS determined Oklahoma was ranked higher than both, particularly Texas, which beat them head-to-head, and gave them an opportunity to play in the National Championship and not the other teams. This example is so much more telling because Texas and Oklahoma did sort it out on the field and Texas won, yet they still got snubbed! A similar situation occurred in an example presented earlier between LSU, OU, and USC in 2003. The consistently controversial endings to the season even upset President Obama: “I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this, that and the other. Get [a group of teams]—the top teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion” (Lazo, CNN). Utah Senator Orrin Hatch has been trying to pass a bill to change the format since 2002 and he joins Obama, players, coaches, and fans who resent the absence of a playoff: “The system is fundamentally unfair” (Schroeder, Sports Illustrated). Most people agree that a playoff system is the fairest way to determine a champion and the movement puts pressure on the NCAA. The NCAA claims the bowl system brings in too much revenue to alter the system, yet studies show that a playoff system would generate even more revenue than the current system.
Sponsors are the driving force behind college football. Each bowl game is attached with various sponsors. The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, the Nokia Sugar Bowl, the Meinecke Car Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl…the list goes on and on. It is from these sponsors and additional advertisements that the NCAA and each program makes tons and tons of money. Money is also generated through television advertisements. Costs of these advertisements are based solely on viewership. A higher rated program demands more money than a lower rated program. For the NCAA to claim they would be losing money a switch to a playoff system is a very untrue and flawed rationale. For one, the bowls would remain—whether they were attached to a playoff game or stood alone—as would their accompanying sponsors that give out the money. The variable is the television ratings. For a separate project conducted over the summer for my job, I was asked to poll 300 people who described their college football post-season viewing habits as moderate or higher. Of these people, 87% (261 people) said they would watch more of the college football post-season if a playoff system was in place. Additionally, of 100 people who said they never watch the post-season, 61% said they would watch if a playoff system was in place. These smaller samples represent what would become a growing trend: a playoff system would increase ratings. The more viewers, the more money generated from advertisements. Keep the sponsors, add the higher ratings, and it is plain to see that college football would generate more money from a playoff system. According to a USA Today investigation, “The most recent playoff plan…would have grossed nearly $376 million a year, more than double current bowl payouts” (USA Today, 1). University of Texas Athletic Director, DeLoss Dodds also sees the opportunity for growth when he commented in that article about how football’s revenue growth is much slower than NCAA’s basketball growth, which is growing at a rate fives times as much (USA Today, 2). Instituting a playoff system, while keeping the current bowl structure, is a financial upgrade over the current format. The television ratings of games a part of the playoff system will create so much revenue for the NCAA and its programs that turning against the system is almost an injustice to, not only the fans, but each school, as well. Critics suggest school, and each athlete’s studies, create another obstacle against having a playoff.
Athletes are provided with an endless amount of available assistance, allowing them to balance both their athletics and academics. The addition of a playoff system would not be detrimental to their studies. Division I-AA football has run a playoff system for multiple decades and they have not had problems intervening athletics and academics. Kenneth Peacock, the Chancellor at Appalachian State, one of most successful Division I-AA programs, testifies to this point: “[Academics] has never been an issue.” He cites the school’s athletic-academic services as a major tool in creating a balance (Kilgore, 2). Louis Amato dedicated a study to the issue, analyzing the academic effects of the current bowl system. After analyzing his study’s findings, he concluded that, “the NCAA should consider abandoning the current bowl system in favor of a playoff system for Division I-A football” (Amato, 193). Using statistical analysis comparing graduation rates of schools participating in either form, Amato’s findings suggested that those participating in a playoff system do better, academically (Amato, 189). Providing added tutoring, or having to take exams off-site are minor accommodations that can easily be made, allowing for the playoff system to work effectively.
Despite the popular demand of a playoff system, skeptics continue to suggest problems exist. One of the arguments against a playoff system is that it would be too difficult to determine playoff participants. In my proposed format, it would simply be the eleven conference champions and the next five top-ranked BCS teams. Even if the NCAA elected a more subjective route, I would much rather support a format that creates controversy deciding which team is sixteenth or seventeenth best, than which team is second or third best. With the current system, teams are constantly skating on thin ice. The added importance of every game certainly makes the season incredibly interesting and dramatic. Skeptics propose that a playoff system would create too many meaningless regular season games, stripping fans of the on-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling before every game. With the proposed system, one loss can certainly end up eliminating you from playoff contention, and two would almost certainly knock you out. Even if it did eliminate a bit of regular season flare, the exhilarating post season showdowns would more than make up for any regular season daze. Though the issues present valid concerns, none of them create impenetrable barriers for the creation of a playoff system.
When all is said and done, the best teams are those that find ways to win, regardless of how pretty they make it look or who it is necessarily against. The computers cannot take the concept of ‘finding a way to win,’ into account, among other characteristics of a champion. While the Bowl Championship Series formula initially produced successful results, its recent controversial projections suggest that the institution of a playoff system is essential. The addition of a sixteen-team playoff system will add legitimacy to college football by producing a true champion and create a money making frenzy founded upon a heightened level of excitement, while still maintaining a schedule feasible by players, teams, and fans.

Works Cited
Annis, David H., and Samuel S. Wu. A Comparison of Potential Playoff Systems for NCAA I-A Football. Diss. 2004. Print.
Bradley, Rand. "The Method of Paired Comparisons." Biometrika 39: 324-45. Print.
Fréchette, Guillaume R., and Alvin Roth. "Unraveling yields inefficient matchings: evidence from post-season college football bowls." The Rand Journal of Economics 38.4 (2007): 967-82. Print.
Frederick, Jeff. Career in Crisis: Paul 'Bear' Bryant and the 1971 Season of Change. 1st ed. Vol. 61. University, 2008. Print.
Glickman, Michael E. "A State-Space Model for NFL Scores." The American Statistician 93 (1998): 25-35. Print.
Guenin, Louis M. "The Myth of the Best." Michigan Quarterly Review 31.1 (1998). Print.
Harville, David. "Linear Model Methodology." The American Statistician 72 (1977): 277-89. Print.
Jacob, Matthew. "Coaches Cashing In." Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 10 Jan. 2006, Sports sec. Print.
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Most College Fans Endorse." The Gallup Poll Dec. 2006: 13-14. Print.
Leonard, James M. "The Geography of Visitor Attendance at College Football Games." Journal of Sport Behavior 28.3 (2005): 231-51. Print.
Massey, Kenneth. "The BCS Challenge." The American Statistician 58 (2004). Print.
McCallister, Matthew P. "College Bowl sponsorship." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 15.4 (1998): 357-81. Print.
Mease, David. "A Penalized Maximum Likelihood Approach for the Ranking of College Football Teams Independent of Victory Margins." The American Statistician 57.4 (2003): 241-48. Print.
Sports Illustrated, comp. The College Football Book. New York City: Sports Illustrated, 2008. Print.
Stefani, Ryan. "Least Squares Prediction Method." Cybernetrics 7: 117-21. Print.
Stern, Hal S. "Statistics and the College Football Championship." The American Statistician 58.3 (2004): 179-96. Print.