An Analysis of AQ OOC Scheduling 1998-2009: More FCS Please!

Editor's Note:  This is the long, detailed analysis of Out of Conference Scheduling for teams from AQ conferences since the inception of the BCS in 1998.  A much shorter summary with the highlights appeared on Playoff PAC here.

Editor's Note Part 2:  The Big Ten 2009 FBS non-AQ & FCS %'s were originally reported incorrectly.  Those numbers have been corrected as have the corresponding averages based which include that year of data.

Editor's Note Part 3:  Some Pac-10 %'s were originally reported incorrectly.  Those numbers have been corrected as have the corresponding averages (8/7/11).

A common college football myth holds that the superiority and excitement of the regular season exists because of the absence of a multiple-team playoff.¹  But consider Week #12 from the 2009 season.  Remarkably, only one top-25 team played a game against another top-25 team. Meanwhile, top-ranked Florida played an out-of-conference (OOC) game against a Sun Belt School with 3 wins (FIU) while 2nd-ranked Alabama sweated it out with an FCS team (Chattanooga).  Is this what college football fans expect from the “most exciting regular season in sports”?

Of course, picking one week at random is by no means an appropriate measure of the overall excitement for the regular season.  However, these particularly weak OOC matchups for the top 2 teams made us start thinking about OOC games in general. 

The specific target for the empirical analysis is how OOC scheduling by the teams in the six AQ conferences has changed since the start of the BCS era in 1998.  Additionally, the trends over the last four years were examined as 2006 marked both the start of a standard 12 game regular season in addition to the creation of a 5th BCS game—thus resulting in an increase in the number of at-large BCS slots by 50% from two to four.  Specifically, I wanted to see what has happened to the number of OOC games played versus fellow AQ teams, versus FBS non-AQ teams and versus FCS teams.  After all, when “every week is a playoff,” one crucial loss may keep a team out of the Title Game or out of a BCS Bowl.  In line with our hypothesis, the results of our empirical analysis show a marked shift in OOC scheduling since 1998.  Apparently, to cope with a sport where one loss eliminates the possibility of a title, teams respond by scheduling Chattanooga and other patsies.

I classified every OOC game from 1998-2009 for every team that was in one of the six AQ conferences at any time during that period into one of three categories: AQ, non-AQ FBS, and FCS based on the opponents’ status.  Notre Dame was grouped into the “AQ” category given its separate BCS eligibility rules and its automatic BCS payout regardless of its BCS bowl qualification status.
 

Percentage of OOC games vs. AQ schools

CONF	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	AVG
ACC	64	50	46	47	48	58	44	44	33	46	48	42	47.5
BIG EAST	44	48	31	39	44	40	43	38	44	38	39	40	40.7
BIG 10	38	43	44	45	38	52	45	42	32	30	30	32	39.3
BIG 12	29	34	29	22	35	31	22	19	23	23	31	23	26.8
PAC 10	47	33	39	40	43	45	42	32	42	35	45	50	41.1
SEC	25	22	19	25	35	35	22	28	35	29	31	30	28

The table above shows that four of the six conferences were fairly consistent in the % of games played versus fellow AQ schools while both the ACC and Big 10 showed fairly significant downward trends.  However, the ACC still had the 2nd highest % of games against fellow AQ schools in 2009 and the highest overall average OOC AQ % over the period at 47.5%.  Interestingly the three conferences with the lowest average %’s, the Big 12 (26.8%), SEC (28%), and Big Ten (39.3%), also received the largest number of BCS at-large bids.  Those conferences have received a whopping 21 of the 23 BCS at-large bids awarded to AQ schools (note: Notre Dame is not included in this calculation).  Consequently, the Big 12 and SEC have averaged close to 3/4 of their OOC games against FBS non-AQ schools and FCS schools over the past 12 seasons and in several years reached nearly 80%.

Percentage of OOC games vs. FBS non-AQ schools

CONF	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	AVG
ACC	21	39	43	40	45	31	41	47	48	40	23	29	37.3
BIG EAST	44	42	63	58	44	55	43	34	40	48	44	35	45.8
BIG 10	59	51	56	52	55	43	52	52	50	52	50	48	51.7
BIG 12	63	58	63	59	52	54	67	58	54	60	48	58	57.8
PAC 10	53	64	58	53	45	50	55	48	42	58	48	37	50.9
SEC	67	69	72	64	55	54	64	53	48	52	50	49	58.1

Percentage of OOC games vs. FCS schools

CONF	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	AVG
ACC	14	11	11	13	8	11	15	8	19	15	29	29	15.3
BIG EAST	13	9	6	3	12	5	15	19	15	15	17	25	12.8
BIG 10	3	6	0	3	6	5	3	6	18	18	20	20	9.0
BIG 12	8	8	8	19	13	15	11	22	23	17	21	19	15.3
PAC 10	0	3	3	7	13	5	3	19	16	6	6	13	7.8
SEC	8	8	8	11	10	10	14	19	17	19	19	21	13.7

For the non-AQ and FCS games, a clear trend emerged: in recent years, teams have scheduled more and more games against FCS schools.  Games against FCS schools were almost non-existent in the late 90’s and early 2000’s; however, over time, this “patsy scheduling” trend expanded to the currently high levels of about 20% of OOC games among all the conferences.   For some conferences (Big 12, Big 10) these games have come at the expense of AQ games, while others (ACC, Big East, SEC) have traded FBS non-AQ opponents for FCS ones.  Four of the six conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, SEC) saw a record % of OOC games against FCS teams occur in 2009. 

Another area to examine was what has happened in the last four years (2006-2009) compared to the first eight years (1998-2005) of the BCS era, since the NCAA expanded to a standard 12 game regular season at the FBS level in beginning in 2006 (2).  It should be noted that many teams played regular seasons of 12 or more games prior to 2006 due to a variety of factors. First, in 2002 and 2003, most FBS teams played a standard 12 game regular season due to existing NCAA rule 17.9.5.1.  This bylaw allowed for twelve regular season games in any year “in which there are 14 Saturdays from the first permissible playing date through the last playing date in November.”².   Second, the NCAA previously exempted games played as a preseason “kickoff classic” game from the regular season playing limit restrictions.  Third, road games played against institutions based in Hawaii or Alaska are also granted exceptions to the regular season playing limit according to NCAA rule 17.5.9.2 section (k). 

AVERAGE % of OOC Games Against AQ schools Before/After 12 Gm Regular Season

CONF	1998-2009	1998-2005	2006-09	Difference
ACC	47.5	50.1	42.3	-7.9
BIG EAST	40.7	40.9	40.3	-0.6
BIG 10	39.3	43.4	31.0	-12.4
BIG 12	26.8	27.6	25.0	-2.6
PAC 10	41.1	40.1	43.0	2.9
SEC	28.0	26.4	31.3	4.9

AVERAGE % of OOC Games Against FBS non-AQ schools Before/After 12 Gm Regular Season

CONF	1998-2009	1998-2005	2006-09	Difference
ACC	37.3	38.4	35.0	-3.4
BIG EAST	45.8	47.9	41.8	-6.1
BIG 10	51.7	52.5	50.0	-2.5
BIG 12	57.8	59.3	55.0	-4.3
PAC 10	50.9	53.3	46.3	-7.0
SEC	58.1	62.3	49.8	-12.5

On the AQ side, when comparing the % of OOC games versus AQ opponents from these two categories, the results were mixed.  The Big East was virtually unchanged (-.6%), while the ACC (-9.8%), Big Ten (12.4%), and Big 12 (-2.6%) all saw decreases.  However, the Pac-10 and SEC increased their % of OOC games against AQ schools by 2.9% and 4.9% respectively.  Every single conference saw a drop in the average % of OOC games played against FBS non-AQ schools with particularly large drops from the SEC (-12.5%) and Pac-10 (-7.0%).  But the most telling data was that from the OOC games played against the FCS schools (as seen below) in recent years. 

AVERAGE % of OOC Games Against FCS schools Before/After 12 Gm Regular Season

CONF	1998-2009	1998-2005	2006-09	Difference
ACC	15.3	11.4	23.0	11.6
BIG EAST	12.8	10.3	18.0	7.8
BIG 10	9.0	4.0	19.0	15.0
BIG 12	15.3	13.0	20.0	7.0
PAC 10	7.8	6.6	10.3	3.7
SEC	13.7	11.0	19.0	8.0

From 2006-2009, every conference except the PAC-10 has averaged nearly 1 out of 5 OOC games against FCS opponents.  Every conference increased the average % of games compared to the first eight years of the BCS era with the Big Ten (+15%) and ACC (+11.6%) leading the way.  The Big Ten example is particularly telling because from 1998-2005, they averaged playing an FCS team in 1 out of every 25 OCC games (lowest average % among all the conferences) while from 2006-2009 this average was 1 out of every 5.3 games.  This increase in scheduling FCS teams is also a byproduct of two additional factors.  First, the NCAA rule 18.7.2.2.1 which allows one win against FCS schools (which meet certain scholarship criteria) to count towards the 6 victories needed for bowl eligibility every year.²  Second, the increased competitiveness of FBS non-AQ schools against AQ schools during both regular season and post-season games.  Therefore, I frankly don’t blame the AQ teams.  Under the current format where teams repeatedly hear that “every week is a playoff”, what incentive is there for a team to increase its chance of losing (and thus being “eliminated”) by scheduling harder opponents (AQ and FBS non-AQ schools).  Especially when you consider that many FCS teams will gladly travel to play a road game without any requirement of a future home game, common among AQ school agreements, due to the large amounts of cash they receive to take a beating (Note: don’t tell this to Boise State who has had trouble scheduling AQ teams for this type of agreement in 2011).

As mentioned above, in 2002 and 2003 and 2006-2009 almost all teams played at least 12 games in the regular season so it might be more relevant to compare what happened to OOC scheduling in those years versus 1998-2001 and 2004-2005 (when teams were permitted to schedule a maximum of 11 regular season games not including Hawaii and pre-season kickoff exceptions).  The averages for each of the three groups, as seen in the tables below, were much smaller than those found by comparing the first eight years of the BCS to the past four.

AVERAGE % of OOC Games vs. AQ schools in 11 Game vs. 12 Game Regular Seasons

CONF	11 GM RS	12 GM RS	Difference
ACC	49.2	45.8	-3.3
BIG EAST	40.5	40.8	0.3
BIG 10	42.8	35.7	-7.2
BIG 12	25.8	27.7	1.8
PAC 10	38.8	43.3	4.5
SEC	23.5	32.5	9.0

AVERAGE % of OOC Games vs. FBS non-AQ schools in 11 Game vs. 12 Game Regular Seasons

CONF	11 GM RS	12 GM RS	Difference
ACC	38.5	36.0	-2.5
BIG EAST	47.3	44.3	-3.0
BIG 10	53.7	49.7	-4.0
BIG 12	61.3	54.3	-7.0
PAC 10	55.2	46.7	-8.5
SEC	64.8	51.3	-13.5

AVERAGE % of OOC Games vs. FCS schools in 11 Game vs. 12 Game Regular Seasons

CONF	11 GM RS	12 GM RS	Difference
ACC	12.0	18.5	6.5
BIG EAST	10.8	14.8	4.0
BIG 10	3.5	14.5	11.0
BIG 12	12.7	18.0	5.3
PAC 10	5.8	9.8	4.0
SEC	11.3	16.0	4.7

The averages for the % of OOC games against AQ schools trended the same direction as the pre/post-2006 averages for every conference except the Big 12 and Big East.  The Big 12 and Big East both went from decreasing average %’s to increasing average %’s while the Big Ten only had a decrease of 7.2% of AQ OOC games compared to its 12.4% decrease when comparing pre-2006 versus post-2006.  Additionally the SEC showed an increase in the % of OOC games played versus AQ schools of 9%.  Similarly every conference showed a decrease in the % of OOC games played versus FBS non-AQ schools, but 4 of the 6 six conferences decreased by a larger amount than the pre-2006 and post-2006 averages.

On the FCS side, the results were nearly uniform.  All six conferences played a greater % of their games against FCS opponents in seasons where they played more regular season games, while every conference except the Big Ten (+.1%) saw the difference between the average %’s decreased compared to differences between the pre-2006 and post-2006 numbers.  Thus when comparing apples to apples or years with 12 game regular seasons to those with 11 game regular seasons, the numbers are not quite as bleak but still show an overall trend towards scheduling easier opponents.  Finally, I should mention that I am by no means denigrating the effort and ability FCS schools put up against the big boys.  In recent years, these teams have put up heroic efforts to both nearly defeat AQ Schools (Iowa-Northern Iowa 2009) and grab stunning upsets over AQ schools with five such upsets having already taken place this season.  However, the fact of the matter is that a large majority of FBS versus FCS games are blowouts that usually result in nothing more than a tune-up for the first-string players of the FBS team while at the same time the largest amount of playing time many second and third-string players will see.

Before I conclude, there are a number of things which I should mention regarding the data.  First, the ACC and Big East each experienced membership changes during the past 10 years and these changes should be considered when looking at the %’s for each category.  For example, Miami and Florida State are rivals who have played every year from 1998-2009. Before Miami joined the ACC, this game would have counted as an OOC game for both schools; however, starting in 2004 when Miami & Virginia Tech joined the ACC from the Big East, this game no longer qualified as such since it is now a conference game.  The same is true for the annual Virginia Tech-Virginia rivalry game.  Another thing to consider is ongoing, usually in-state, rivalries which exist between AQ schools.  For example, Georgia & Georgia Tech play every year as do Iowa and Iowa State.  Therefore, these schools generally start each year with at least one OOC game on their schedule against an AQ team and as a result, the numbers mentioned above should be not be viewed in a vacuum without some context.  When considering these rivalry games, the % of OOC games versus AQ opponents for the SEC looks even worse as it usually has at least 3 of these matchups (Georgia-Georgia Tech, UF-FSU, South Carolina-Clemson) every year.  Also, several schools changed status between FBS AQ, FBS non-AQ, and FCS classification.  Again this makes the SEC look even worse with Louisville and Kentucky as an example. They have played every year since 1998 with Louisville counting a non-AQ school for the first seven meetings and as an AQ school for the last five.

Although I’ve examined a large amount of data and broken the numbers down a variety of ways, they all lead to some very simple conclusions regarding how FBS teams from the six AQ conferences construct the three to five OOC games they play each year.  First, since the BCS went into effect in 1998, AQ teams, as a whole, have decreased their % of OOC games played against fellow AQ schools.  Second, teams have played an increasing % of OOC games against FCS schools with three of the six conferences setting records in 2009 at 21%, 25% and 29%.  Third, from 2006-2009, after the NCAA switched to a 12 game regular season and the BCS added a 5th BCS bowl game, teams from all conferences increased the average % of OOC games played versus FCS schools, some by as much as 15%.   Fourth, the Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC have earned 91% of the BCS at-large berths awarded to AQ schools and not coincidentally, have the lowest average % of games versus fellow AQ schools over all three of the time periods I examined.  Last and most importantly, when given the option or mandate of playing an additional regular season game, some conferences increased the average % of OOC games versus fellow AQ schools while some decreased their %, but ALL conferences increased the average % of games played against FCS schools.  Therefore I can’t help but conclude that the current BCS system encourages teams to schedule weaker opponents and reduces the potential for exciting regular season matchups between top quality teams.  Furthermore, an 8 or 12-team playoff would still require near-perfect records for admission while at the same time encouraging AQ schools to schedule tougher OOC games for several reasons.  First, they would help prepare teams for the high level of competition they would face in a postseason playoff.  More importantly they eliminate the level of perfection required for national championship consideration under the current system which has resulted in weaker OOC schedules.   

¹ Bill Hancock, BCS Executive Director, recently said of the FBS regular season, “..we have the best, most compelling regular season of any sport.” http://detnews.com/article/20100731/SPORTS0203/7310341/BCS-chief--Forget-about-playoff-system

² 2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual - http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf

An Analysis of Pre-Season Rankings & BCS Bowl Game Participation

Editors Note:  A version of this post appeared at Playoff Pac here

The BCS likes to say that “at the beginning of the season, every bowl subdivision team starts out with an equal chance to become national champion.”¹ When college football fans hear this claim, they probably experience a several-stage reaction: first laughter, then a pinch to ensure it’s not a dream; finally, they might double-check the quote to verify it was not being used in a sarcastic or humorous manner.

Tragically, though, this statement from Harvey Perlman, chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, was all-too-serious when written in an Op-ed during the 2009 season.  Bill Hancock was also serious when he stated the following at the MAC Conference Media Day: “Everybody has the same chance to finish number one or number two.”²Of course, Playoff Pac believes that these claims are untrue for several reasons.    However, always willing to give ol’ Bill and Harvey the benefit of the doubt, I've decided to examine some numbers to see if the claim might have even a smidge of empirical validity.

I focused on the initial rankings in both major human polls, the Associated Press (AP) and Coaches’ Poll, for teams that have played in the BCS Title Game and the other BCS Games since their inception in 1998.  Specifically, I wanted to see where the teams who were selected to play for the BCS Title ranked in the preseason AP and Coaches’ Polls.  I did the same for the other BCS games with a particular focus on the initial rankings of teams who garnered at-large bids to BCS games.  Our goal was to track any correlation between initial poll rankings and which teams ultimately obtained BCS spots.  A more specific focus was on how likely it is an unranked team could earn a BCS at-large bid through on-field performance compared to schools which start with lofty preseason expectations.

First, I examined the 12 BCS Title Games.  The table below contains data for the initial season rankings from both human polls for the two teams that played for the BCS Title.
 

	MEAN	Lowest Rank	MEDIAN
AP	4.92	19	2
Coaches’	4.88	20	2

The mean values of 4.92 (AP) and 4.88 (Coaches’) indicate that a team that will play for the BCS Title starts out ranked in the top 5.  The other two numbers are even more revealing.  Amazingly, the lowest preseason rankings for any title game team were 19 (AP) and 20 (Coaches’) for Oklahoma in 2000.  In other words, if a team starts off the year outside of the top 20 in either poll, that team can pretty much forget the idea of being the national champions.  Also, the median value of 2 for both polls is telling, as it shows that half of the teams who played for the BCS title started the year ranked #1 or #2.  In addition, the only team in the last 6 seasons who played in a BCS title game after not starting in the top 5 was Florida in 2006 (#7-AP, #8-Coaches’). 

The 2000 Oklahoma team is an outlier in the sense that it was able to shoot up in the rankings because of 3 consecutive wins against in-conference top-11 opponents (Texas #11 10/7/00, Kansas State #2 10/14/00, Nebraska #1 10/28/00).  Thus, absent a scheduling quirk as shown above, if a team starts the year outside the top-15, its chances of becoming the national champion are seemingly nil.

What about the other BCS games though?  Surely with the recent success of teams from non-AQ conferences playing in and winning BCS games, the access should be much more open to lower-ranked or even unranked teams. However, the data indicates this may not be the case.

I compiled calculations to examine this issue by assigning any unranked team a ranking of “26” for mean and median calculation purposes.  Also, we only considered teams that earned at-large bids to BCS bowl games; I did not include teams who earned bids from winning one of the six Automatic Qualifying (AQ) conferences (because winning a conference is usually³ based solely on on-field performance). The results are shown below.

	MEAN	Lowest Rank	MEDIAN
AP	12.31	UR	9.5
Coaches'	12.50	UR	9.5

The mean values of 12.31 (AP) and 12.50 (Coaches’) indicate that teams that end up in BCS games, on average, start the year ranked fairly high.  This point is especially underscored by the median values: these values show, in both polls, that more than half of the teams who have earned BCS bids started the year in the top 9.⁴

   
While these overall numbers indicate that a high preseason ranking is essential, a few outliers buck the trend.  Seven teams, or 22% of the total 32 spots, have earned BCS bids after starting the season unranked (UR) in one or both human polls.  Two of these teams were from non-AQ conferences (Boise State 2006, Utah 2008).  Also, when looking at the last 4 years (2006-2009), when there were four at-large bids due to the creation of the fifth BCS game, at least half the teams who earned at-large bids started the season ranked 15 or lower in at least one of the polls.  Additionally, this streak actually extends back to 2004.⁵

After a full review of the numbers, the recent BCS success by teams such as Boise State (2006, 2009) and Utah (2008) has shown that a preseason ranking may not be prevent your favorite team from making a BCS Bowl.  However, the fact remains that every team does not start out with an equal chance to become national champion or to even play in a BCS bowl game.  Rather, a team’s preseason ranking still has a much larger correlation in determining which teams get selected to play in BCS games, especially the BCS Title game.  Half of the teams who have played for a BCS Championship started the year ranked either #1 or #2 in both human polls.  These numbers show that at least as to the hundreds of teams not named Texas or Florida, the BCS is fixed before the first snap.  These numbers refute the fallacy that “every bowl subdivision team starts out with an equal chance to become national champion.”  

Editor’s Note: The 1999 Coaches Poll rankings from week 1 were used as the Pre-Season Rankings were unavailable and not listed in the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia

Footnotes:

1.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/22/perlman-deciding-ncaa-football-championship/?page=2
2.  http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/08/02/sports/srv0000008988157.txt
3. *Texas in 2008 finished tied with Oklahoma & Texas Tech in the Big 12 South division but Oklahoma got selected for the Big 12 Championship game due to its higher BCS ranking). 
4.  Note: Oklahoma (2001) and Nebraska (2003) are included in both this set of calculations and the previous one since they each played in a BCS title game despite not having won their conference and thus, had not earned an automatic bid.  If they are removed from the calculation the Means do not change significantly, 12.97 and 13.17, but the Median values drop to 12.5 for each poll. 
5.  A couple of points need to be made regarding our categorization of at-large bids.  First, Notre Dame, which has special BCS privileges, is responsible for 3 of the 32 at-large bids, including 2 of the 7 UR bids. This is important because Notre Dame has a special set of rules built into the BCS.  The current rules, effective starting in 2006, mandate that Notre Dame earn an automatic berth if it is ranked in the top-8 of the final BCS standings.  Thus, while I considered it an at-large bid for the purposes of this study, it does not need face the same level of difficulty starting the season ranked outside the top-20 or even unranked that any other team does.

Second, the BCS adopted a rule beginning in 2006, which stated that any conference champion from a non-AQ conference would earn an automatic BCS game bid if the team finished in the top-12 of the BCS standings or in the top-16 while being ranked ahead of at least one of the AQ conference champions.  However, only one such bid is reserved for teams which meet this criterion as shown when Boise State was forced to sweat out an at-large bid in 2009.  Thus, while I considered Utah (2008) and TCU (2009) as at-large bids for purposes of this study, they each technically earned automatic bids to BCS games.

Third, while it appears that Notre Dame’s criteria may be more difficult (top-8) than non-AQ teams (top-12), one should remember that it does not have to win a conference and also has natural advantages which make it much more desirable to BCS officials than your average mid-major school. 

Game Results Compiled from
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809942

Poll Data compiled from the following sourcesESPN College Football Encyclopedia (1998, 1999 Coaches Poll)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0774952.html (1998 AP Poll)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/news/1999/08/14/ap_poll_ap/   (1999 AP Poll)
http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/polls/AP_Poll.htm (2000)
http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/polls/Coaches_poll.htm (2000)
http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/polls/AP_Poll_2001_Preseason.htm (2001)
http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/polls/Coaches_Poll_2001_Preseason.htm (2001)
2002 – 2009 AP and Coaches Polls - http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

The Fundamental Problem with the BCS

Editor's Note:  A version of this post appeared on the PlayoffPAC blog here

There are many problems with the BCS. The unequal distribution of revenues to participating teams. Unfair access, guaranteed to certain conferences and not to others, regardless of recent performance in BCS bowl games. Computer formulas used to determine rankings which are secret and unaudited. Lack of a "winner moves on" buzz associated with each game except for one. Horrible PR decisions. Repeatedly using straw man arguments. But the fundamental problem with the BCS, examined at the simplest level, is the fact that during many years, the #1 and #2 teams in the country are not clear and obvious.

The BCS has stated repeatedly that "the BCS has delivered a matchup between the two top teams every year." This is factually correct. The teams who finished #1 and #2 in the BCS standings have played for the BCS National Championship every year since 1998. However, the basic problem with this line of thinking is that these aren't necessarily the 2 best or most deserving teams. They were simply the 2 teams that had the highest BCS rankings based on human input and complex computer formulas. One needs look no further than a certain Wikipedia page for numerous examples of this flawed thinking.

In 2000, FSU played for the national title as the #2 BCS team ahead of both Miami & Washington, who each also ended the regular season with one loss. However, FSU had lost to Miami during the regular season and was ranked behind them in both human polls, yet the computer formulas determined that they were "better" than Miami and thus, finished ahead of them. Washington had beaten Miami and also had a claim to be chosen ahead of them.

*In 2001, Nebraska lost its final game of the regular season by 26 pts to Colorado (so much for the whole "every week is a playoff during the regular season" argument) and additionally, didn't even win its own conference. Yet, they still managed to find themselves in the BCS title game as the #2 team due in large part to the computer rankings. Also note that they were ranked #4 in the end of regular season ranking in the AP poll behind both Colorado (who trounced them) and an Oregon team who also finished with 1 loss.

*In 2003, the top 3 teams in the final BCS standings (Oklahoma, LSU, USC) all had 1 loss. USC was ranked #1 in both human polls with LSU #2 and Oklahoma #3. Oklahoma was lower primarily due to the fact that it lost the Big-12 championship game to Kansas State by 28 points. So, naturally, they were chosen to play for the BCS title. Apparently, losing in your own conference championship game by more than 20 points appeals to the computer rankings.

*In 2004, 5 teams (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State) ended the regular season undefeated. Of course only 2 could play for the BCS title and USC emerged victorious against Oklahoma. Auburn and Utah each won their bowl games so the year ended with 3 undefeated teams.

*In 2008, Oklahoma played for the BCS national title as the #2 team despite having an identical regular season record to Texas and having lost to Texas during the regular season--by now you should be noticing a pattern. Also, how did Oklahoma get ranked ahead of Texas in the BCS standings? You guessed it, the computer rankings. Additionally, Utah finished the season undefeated after destroying an AQ school (Alabama) in a BCS bowl to improve the record of non-AQ schools in BCS games to 2-1.

*Not a whole lot more needs to be said about 2009 since everyone knows 5 teams (3AQ, 2 non-AQ) finished the regular season undefeated (hmm...does that sounds familiar?). After the bowls, there were 2 undefeated teams left (Alabama & Boise State). It's worth noting that Texas was the #2 team despite not beating a single team that finished in the top-25 during the regular season (they beat Nebraska in the Big-12 championship) whereas Boise State, Cincinnati, and TCU all did have regular season victories over top-25 teams. It's also worth noting that Boise State was the lowest ranked of the 5 undefeated teams despite the fact that they had beaten a team (Oregon) who finished ranked higher than any that Texas, Cincinnati, or TCU had beaten.

By now you're probably noticed a few things. First and most importantly, very rarely are there clear-cut #1 and #2 teams (2002 would be one example when both Miami & Ohio State were the only 2 undefeated teams). Second, the various computer rankings/polls (whose methodology have never been published) have routinely placed certain teams ahead of others despite the fact that these chosen teams lost their last game of the season by substantial margins and/or lost to teams ranked behind them who had an identical # of losses. Third, many of the problems with the BCS that happen each year aren't new or unexpected; the regular season has now ended with 5 undefeated teams 2 times in 6 seasons. Finally, the BCS even admits that its championship game doesn't always feature the 2 best teams according to the AP Poll, on its own website: "..since the conferences agreed to the BCS format 12 years ago,.....according to the AP poll, numbers one and two have met nine times."

The Myth of Final Exams as an anti-Playoff excuse

*Editor's Note:  a version of this post ran on the PlayoffPAC's blog here

One of the arguments frequently cited as a major concern in creating an NCAA College Football FBS playoff system is the idea that it would inevitably conflict with final exams. Thus, the academic success of student-athletes would be compromised and the playoff would place more emphasis on the “athletic” component over the “student” one. Bill Hancock, the BCS Executive Director, has used this argument stating “Conflicts with final exams, it’s a real deal. It would happen.”

For now, we’re going to ignore the obvious elephant in the room—the fact that FCS, Division 2 and Division 3 NCAA Football all host playoffs during the months of November/December which may or may not conflict with a school’s final exams. Instead, we’re going to examine the current bowl system and “conflicts with final exams”; one might be surprised to learn that under it, there are already a number of schools whose practice schedules in preparation for their bowl game conflict with final exams and vice versa.

During the 2009 bowl season there were six bowl games played before December 25. The Bowl Games are listed below with the date of the game after it. The 2 teams who played in the game are listed below and after each team are the dates of its final exam period for the fall 2009 semester.

New Mexico Bowl - 12/19/09
Fresno State - 12/14-12/17
Wyoming - 12/7-12/11

St. Petersburg Bowl - 12/19/09
Rutgers - 12/16-12/23
UCF - 12/8-12/14

New Orleans Bowl - 12/20/09
Middle Tennesse State - 12/11-12/17
Southern Miss - 12/7-12/10

Las Vegas Bowl - 12/22/09
Oregon State - 12/7-12/11
1) BYU - 12/14-12/18

Pointsettia Bowl - 12/23/09
Utah - 12/14-12/18
1) Cal - 12/12-12/19

Aloha Bowl - 12/24/09
SMU - 12/11-12/17
Nevada - 12/10-12/16

Of the 6 pre-Christmas bowl games, one could make a reasonable argument that 6 teams (Rutgers, Fresno State, Middle Tennessee, BYU, Utah, Cal) had their practice times affected by the final exam period—that is they had 4 days or less from the end of the final exam period until the day of the game. Also notice that Rutgers played a bowl game in the exact middle of its Final Exam period; yet, the school didn’t seem to mind and accommodated the members of the football team, at least according to Mark Jones of ESPN who mentioned this during the broadcast of the game.

Bill Hancock appears to be fine with 4-6 out of 12 teams having their practice schedules and/or final exam study time compromised for the student-athletes. Yet, he has major problems with the exact same scenario (4-6 out of 8 or 12 teams) happening if the games were part of a playoff.

Below are the dates of the first round for a hypothetical 8 team playoff featuring 6 AQ conference champions (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Oregon, Ohio State, Georgia Tech) and 2 at-large teams (Boise State, TCU). Ed Note: BSU & TCU were selected ahead of UF because they were undefeated; if one instead went with the top-8 ranked BCS schools, then UF would replace GT and the seeds would be different. Also, a 12 or 16 team playoff would require 1 additional round and thus, might pose additional conflicts depending on how it is structured and which weekend the first round would take place. Since the final regular season game (Army-Navy) is currently scheduled for the 2nd weekend in December every year, it seems that the first round would still be the 3rd weekend in December as it is under the 8 team scenario listed below Also included are the dates of the final exam period for each school.

First Round Playoff Matchup	Game Date	Location	Final Exam Period
1-Alabama vs 8-Georgia Tech	12/19/2009 - 8PM	Tuscaloosa, AL	ALA-12/11/09 GT-12/11/09
2-Texas vs 7-Ohio State	12/19/2009 - 4:30 PM	Austin, TX	UT-12/15/09 OSU-12/10/09
3-Cincinnati vs 6-Oregon	12/19/2009 - 1:00 PM	Cincinnati, OH	UC-12/12/09 OU-12/11/09
4-TCU vs 5-Boise State	12/20/2009 - 8PM	Fort Worth, TX	TCU-12/18/09 BSU-12/17/09

Notice that only 3 of the 8 teams (BSU, TCU, UT), or 38%, would have had 4 days or less from the end of the final exams period until the day of the playoff game. (Ed Note: UF’s Final Exam period was 12/12-12/18 (14). Thus, it would fit the criteria mentioned above for having practice times affected by final exam dates and if UF had been selected instead of GT, the number of teams would have been 4 of 8.) This number is quite similar in terms of percentage to the 50% of teams in the first 6 bowl games played this year that had their practice times and final exam preparations affect each other. Also, notice that BSU-TCU were the two teams who would have had the greatest impact on their academics/game preparations (Texas was the 3rd team, but they would have had 4 full days including the game day). So would they have chosen to play each other in the current scenario, where they had over 2 full weeks from the end of exams to prepare for what was essentially a glorified exhibition game, or in a playoff scenario where the amount of preparation time was greatly affected, but the winner would have had the right to continue playing for a national championship. I don’t know the answer to this question, but it would at least be nice to give them the option.

Now, it is true that perhaps the sample of teams this year was randomly low and that the number could be significantly higher in another year. However, the same could be just as true for the teams who participate in the early pre-Christmas bowl games. The main issue here is that whenever someone brings up the idea that an NCAA FBS playoff can’t be done because it would conflict with final exams is that there already are FBS teams who are playing games in December which conflict with their schools final exam period. We have not seen or heard of one complaint about the fact that Fresno State only had 1 full day of practice with no final exams in the 5 days leading up to the New Mexico Bowl or that Rutgers played a game in the middle of its final exam period. If the BCS is truly concerned about the detrimental effects of December football games on the academic welfare of student-athletes, then they really should be examining the current bowl system since these “effects” already exist.

The best quotes of Bill Hancock & @insidethebcs

Below is a summary of the some of the best quotes, I have gathered from either Bill Hancock (Executive Director, BCS), Ari Fleischer (former Bush press sec. and PR spin guru hired by the BCS), the BCS's social media outreach sites (http://twitter.com/insidethebcs and http://playoffproblem.com/), and other BCS related entities (president of the Orange Bowl, etc.)

Bill Hancock
1)  Dan Patrick Radio Show - 11/20/09 - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/86581/index.html - There will be multiple quotes from this interview and times in ()'s are where the quotes can be found in the downloaded mp3 file

a)  "College Football wins in 6 overtimes, uh, you know they have to go for 2 after five."  (1:05 - 1:15)
--Bill Hancock does not even know the rules of the sport he oversees the "championship" for.  After 2 overtimes (i.e. beginning with the 3rd overtime possession) teams must attempt the 2 point conversion and are not allowed to kick the extra point.

b)  "We were in Miami for a game, and a Virginia Tech player injured his ankle riding a jetski.  And at the same time we were there an NFL team came into play a playoff game. And they arrived on Saturday night, got there at about 8 o'clock, had their dinner, got up the next morning, had the pregame meal, went to the stadium and then flew home.  Here we've got college students at the beach for a week, riding jetskis in our bowl system; on the other hand, we've got these NFL athletes who are there for 11 hours, playing the game, and then going home.  Our experience for the young people playing college football, is much better." (2:15-2:55)
--Playoffs would eliminate the possibility of jetski injuries, a bowl game tradition. Thus, we can not have playoffs because jetski injuries would cease to exist.

c)  "If you think the BCS is controversial, wait til you get a playoff. It'll be even more contentious." (5:45 - 5:51)
--Playoffs would have even more controversy than the BCS. Hmm...Under the BCS during the last 6 years (2004-09), there have been more undefeated non-champions (5), than champions (3).  Yet that controversy pales in comparison to a system which would end with AT MOST 1 undefeated team.  Perhaps he ought to take at look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_controversies

d)  "I love the dialogue, We love talking about this."  (11:03-11:06)
--Hmm..I would have never guessed that from their dismissive quotes and the fact that they routinely cite articles & journalists in their favor that criticize the BCS system in their own articles.


2)  http://digitalsportsdaily.com/college-football/17892

a)  "The BCS is fair," Hancock said. "People call it criminal, a cartel and unfair, and the fact is, it’s not. It’s fair."
--Over the past 11 years, Baylor (0 bowls) has earned more BCS revenue than TCU (10 bowls).  Fair.
--Oklahoma got selected over Texas to play in the 2009 BCS Title game despite the fact that they have the same # of losses and lost to Texas during the regular season.  Fair.
--Nebraska is selected to play in the 2002 BCS Title game with a ranking of #4 in both human polls (AP and Coaches), after not winning it's own conference, and losing its final game of the regular season by 26 points. Fair.
--Oklahoma gets selected to play in the 2004 BCS Title game with a ranking of #3 in both human polls and  after not winning its own conference and losing its final regular season game by 28 points.  Fair.

b) “A result of the playoff would be more injuries, more Wes Welkers happening in college football,” Hancock said “It would happen. Imagine if a Wes Welker happened to Kellen Moore or Mark Ingram or Colt McCoy. Imagine where we would be. The best team in that case would not win..."
--Since Colt McCoy did in fact get injured in a BCS Game, that should pretty much lay to rest the insane idea that playoffs would make college football worse because of a greater potential for injuries.  Also, he seems to imply that Texas really was the better team since they lost Colt McCoy and lost the game.  Finally, it shows a contradiction in Hancock's thinking regarding playoffs & injuries.  On the one hand, he argues repeatedly that with a playoff system, teams will rest starters and possibly lose late season games which have no effect on their playoff status to lessen the chance of injuries, similar to what the Colts did against the Jets (Note: Ignore for now the fact that this would never happen in NCAA CFB for a variety of reasons).  However, on the other hand, he argues that a playoff system would create more chances for injuries due to the increased games.  So which is it Bill?

c) "Conflicts with final exams, it’s a real deal."
--Has anyone seen BH crused against ending the Div 1-FCS, Div 2 or Div 3 football playoffs becaues they conflict with final exams in a single article, interview, radio appearance or press conference?  Or him arguing to move the starting date of bowl games further back to avoid conflict with final exams? Here are the Final Exam dates for teams that played in pre-Christmas bowl games.

New Mexico Bowl - 12/19/09
Fresno State - 12/14-12/17
Wyoming - 12/7-12/11

St. Petersburg Bowl - 12/19/09
Rutgers - 12/16-12/23
UCF - 12/8-12/14

New Orleans Bowl - 12/20/09
Middle Tennesse State - 12/11-12/17
Southern Miss - 12/7-12/10

Las Vegas Bowl - 12/22/09
Oregon State - 12/7-12/11
BYU - 12/14-12/18

Pointsettia Bowl - 12/23/09
Utah - 12/14-12/18
Cal - 12/12-12/19

Aloha Bowl - 12/24/09
SMU - 12/11-12/17
Nevada - 12/10-12/16

So of the 6 pre-Christmas bowl games, one could make a reasonable argument that 4-6 teams (Rutgers, Fresno State, Middle Tennessee, BYU, Utah, Cal) had practice times affected by Finals---i.e. had 4 days or less from the end of finals until the day of the game.  Bill Hancock appears to be fine with  4-6 out of 12 teams having their practice schedules/Final Exam study time compromised.  Yet, he has major problems with the exact same scenario (4-6 out of 8-12 teams) happening if the games were part of a playoff. 


3)  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122103146.html

a)  "I don't want to be critical, but if the conferences and the universities had created a voice 12 years ago when this started, I think the arrangement would be better received today. Because I think we were silent for so long that the critics scored a lot of points because we were just on the sidelines."
--Ah, now I get it.  The only reason people don't like the BCS system is because there has not been a paid PR mouthpiece to advocate for its propaganda until now.  I actually wish BH had been around back in 2001 or 2003 to hear him explain how Big-12 teams who lose their final games 20+ points deserve to play for the BCS Title Game.

b) Hancock listened patiently as a counterargument was posed. Then he smiled.
--This isn't an actual quote, but I find it funny that after listening to an argument against the BCS, Hancock doesn't actually respond or refute the argument.  He just smiles, as if his warm smile will melt even the coldest hearts of those mean-spirited, uninformed, playoff supporters.

4)  Mayhem in the AM Radio Show - 11/25/09 - http://www.790thezone.com/instantreplay/Episodes.aspx?PID=1345&pn=4

a)  "We absolutely know that there are some people who don't understand it and therefore, don't care much  for it."   (0:20 - 0:26)
--Got that?  The 63% of sports fans who want a playoff are just ignorant morons who don't like the BCS because they don't understand how a team can make the BCS Title game after losing their final game by over 20+ points (Nebraska 01, Oklahoma 03) or how a team doesn't get a chance to play for a National Title after going undefeated and beating 2 conf. champions (Boise 09). 

b)  "The fact is, it is fair."  (0:44-0:47)
--See my argument above, section 2(a)

c)  "We're absolutely taking suggestions. I love to listen, I love to talk about this."  (1:27-1:32)
--I believe statements like this are what acronyms like LOL and ROFLMAO were created for. Also, I will have a separate post coming up on questions that I have asked @insidethebcs which they have not responded to in any way.

d)  "I say which 8 teams this week would you put in the playoff?  when would they play? where would they play? It sounds great on paper, but the fact is that putting it into reality is very difficult" (2:38 - 2:50)

Which 8 teams?	When would they play?	Where would they play?	End date of Final Exams
1-Alabama vs 8-Georgia Tech	12/19/2009 - 8PM	Tuscaloosa, AL	ALA-12/11/09 GT-12/11/09
2-Texas vs 7-Ohio State	12/19/2009 - 4:30 PM	Austin, TX	UT-12/15/09 OSU-12/10/09
3-Cincinnati vs 6-Oregon	12/19/2009 - 1:00 PM	Cincinnati, OH	UC-12/12/09 OU-12/11/09
4-TCU vs 5-Boise State	12/20/2009 - 8PM	Fort Worth, TX	TCU-12/18/09 BSU-12/17/09

Whew.  That was difficult.  Only took me 15 minutes.  Note that only 3 of the 8 teams would have 4 days or less from the end of Final Exams as compared to 4 of the 8 teams in the first 4 bowl games played this year--including Rutgers who played their bowl game in the middle of Final Exams. 

e)  "You know I like the plus one personally, that's a 4-team playoff obviously.  The problem you have with it is the concert that it wouldn't stay at four.  Every bracket has increased; we call it 'Bracket Creep'.  You know, look at the NCAA Basketball tournament, which I used to manage of course, and I loved it.  But the fact is, bracket creep would happen.  It would start at four, then it would go to eight, then sixteen, then who knows what and then, what happens to the regular season. (8:46-9:14)
--So BH admits that he actually favors a playoff system to the current BCS model; he's just scared of it growing in size and thus, has resorted to the slippery slope fallacy.

More updates to come with quotes by Ari Fleischer and others...

An 8 team BCS Playoff Solution

Here is my solution for an 8 team CFB Playoff which would be far superior to the current BCS system.

8 teams - 6 AQ conf champs* & 2 at-large. Any undefeated team gets an automatic bid and if there are more than 2 from any conference they would bump a conference champ out if they are ranked higher than the conference champ who is not undefeated, starting w/ lowest BCS ranking first. For example, this year the 6 teams would be UF/ALA; UT; Cinn/Pitt; OSU; Oregon/OSU; GT/CLEM and TCU, Boise State (as of 12/2/09). However, if there happened to be a third undefeated team from any conference (AQ or not) they would get an automatic berth over the lowest ranked AQ conf champ (i.e. GT/Clemson most likely) IF and ONLY IF they (3rd UND team) were ranked ahead of them in the BCS. If there are no undefeated teams who are not a conference champ, then the 2 at-large bids would go to 2 highest ranked non-conference champ teams regardless of conference affiliation. There would be no limit on the # of teams a particular conference could get.

*The reason I would still give automatic bids to the conference champs of the 6 AQ conferences (SEC, Pac-10, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, ACC) is because I am a realist. I understand that getting those big conferences to go along with a new system where they aren't guaranteed to make 85% of postseason money (link here) will be nearly impossible. If I was starting from scratch, I would probably choose BCS Top-8, but unfortunately we aren't starting from scratch. Also, tying bids to conference championships does add some significance to winning a conference which is a good thing.

The 1st 2 rounds are played at the higher seeds stadium. All games would be played out in both directions (both winners and losers bracket). Thus, 4 games played on 12/12 (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5). 4 games (semi's in winners and losers brackets) played on 12/19. Then the final 4 games which would be 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, 7v8 (not in terms of seeding but in terms of final ranking spots) would be played on 1/1-1/7, as is currently done, and those 4 games would be the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange bowls which would rotate every year. One would be designated as the National Championship Game (1v2) just like USC-Texas played in "Rose Bowl" in 2006. In addition, you would keep 25-30 other bowls to be held throughout December and January for 50-60 other teams to play in, as is currently the case. Thus, the following problems are solved

1) How do you choose teams? - conference champions (6 spots) & BCS rankings (remaining 2 spots)

2) Where do you play the games? - home sites for first 2 rounds, traditional locations (Miami, Pasadena, New Orleans, Glendale) for final round

3) How do you keep the tradition of the bowls alive? - Already done. All-non BCS bowl games still exist. The only bowl game which would technically be eliminated is the "BCS Title Game" which only came into existence 2 years ago as a separate bowl game whereas previously it was the same as the Orange/Fiesta/Sugar/Rose Bowl.

4) How do you keep bowls for smaller programs that have no chance of making a BCS bowl? Already answered in #3. Non-BCS bowls would still exist in current form and be available to non-conference champs.

I will be providing more details and FAQ regarding my proposal on the blog here.