Golden Football Rankings: Biased Football Opinions

My preference for a college football playoff is not unique. It involves selecting the top four teams in the final BCS rankings (after the games of the first Saturday of December). Or you could have a committee make the selection, as the NCAA does in basketball and baseball. Two of the BCS bowls would be designated as semifinal games. For example, the #1 ranked team would play the #4 team in the Fiesta Bowl and #2 would face #3 in the Sugar Bowl. The two winners would then play 7-10 days later in the championship game. The BCS setup for the next four years is ready made for this arrangement. In case you aren't aware of it, the BCS Championship Game this season is not a bowl game! It will be played January 8 at the same site as the Fiesta Bowl, but the actual Fiesta Bowl will take place January 1. Mike Slive, SEC commissioner and current chair of the BCS, admits that the system is already in place to have a four-team playoff when the current four-year rotation of championship sites ends in 2010.

November 6 , 2006: Commentators Should Do Their Homework

I am tired of college football game and studio commentators stating "I don't understand the BCS system" and, especially, "I don't understand these computer rankings." IT IS PART OF YOUR JOB TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM! A color commentator for a game (almost always a former player) wouldn't dare announce, "I don't understand the 4-3 defense" or "I have no idea what the West Coast Offense is trying to do."

November 10 , 2006: Annual Pete Finney Article

Pete Finney, the long-time sports writer for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, has written his annual article ridiculing a college football playoff (without indicating what he means by a "playoff" – 4 teams? 8? 16?). First of all, his reference to a playoff as "for the birds" introduces the topic gratuitously into an article about the Louisville-Rutgers game last Thursday night. (His article was written before the game.) He seems happy that an undefeated Louisville will get a chance to play in the BCS championship game over one-loss teams like Florida or Texas, thus somehow confounding those who call for a playoff. However, he doesn't consider the possibility that an undefeated Rutgers will not get a chance to play in the championship game because the human pollsters won't give them a high enough ranking.

November 14 , 2006: Goodbye, Jeff Bowden

Jeff Bowden did the right thing by resigning as Offensive Coordinator at Florida State. The only mistake he made is not making it effective immediately. His father obviously has a blind spot for him and would not pull the trigger himself. I wonder how much influence his brothers had on Jeff's decision? Could they have called him and said, "Look, dad's not going to fire you. But you need to fall on your sword so that he can keep his job."

November 19 , 2006: No Big Ten Incest!

Although Michigan is #2 in my rankings, I DO NOT FAVOR A REMATCH OF OHIO STATE-MICHIGAN in the Championship Game in Glendale. What happened to my Seminoles in 1996 colors my opinion. (This is called my "Biased Opinion.") In the last game of the 1996 regular season, #2 Florida State defeated #1 Florida in Tallahassee. Under the BCS system, FSU would have played undefeated Arizona State for the national championship. However, the Rose Bowl was not part of the "Bowl Alliance" at that time. So the Sun Devils played Ohio State in the Rose Bowl (and lost) while FSU had to play Florida again in the Sugar Bowl. Beating an excellent team twice is extremely difficult. The Gators won easily and their victory trumped our victory. I'm not an Ohio State fan but the Buckeyes could legitimately ask, "Why do we have to play Michigan again? We already beat them." They should have to beat a team from another conference to win the national championship. And a rematch would reveal the lie in the oft-repeated argument for the current system: "Every game is a playoff game." Saturday's game in Columbus was called a "semifinal" game for the national championship. What competition allows the semifinal loser to play for the championship?

November 26 , 2006: "Sure Would Be Fun to Have a Playoff"

Much speculation filled the airways before and after this weekend's games concerning Florida: should the Gators make the championship game if they defeat the Razorbacks? Urban Meyer in his press conference after the 21-14 victory over FSU commented on his team's lack of "style points." Wouldn't it be so much better if we had a Final Four in college football and could instead talk about USC and Florida cementing spots in the semifinals with victories next Saturday? Or talk about whether Boise State should be in the semifinals if the Trojans or Gators stumble? Assuming USC and Florida win their last games, we could have these pairings.

Sugar Bowl: Ohio State vs. Florida
Rose Bowl: Michigan vs. USC
One week later: championship game in Glendale AZ between the semifinal winners

If only one team from a conference was allowed in the semifinals, Boise State or Louisville would replace Michigan and play Ohio State. (My proposal would have a committee choose the teams and set the pairings and sites so as to avoid a rematch in the semifinals.)

I was pleased to hear ESPN's Chris Fowler say "It sure would be fun to have a playoff" Saturday night while analyzing the BCS impact of the day's games. After posting this Sunday morning, I heard Kirk Herbstreit of ESPN on Sunday night call for exactly the same system I have listed above with the same pairings.

December 3, 2006: Golden Championship Series

As Commissioner of the GCS (Golden Championship Series), I will now set the pairings for the GCS Final Four. The GCS Final Four rules state that #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3 (as ranked in the Golden Football Rankings). However, the rules also state that only conference champions may participate (or an independent if it is ranked higher than one of the top four conference champions). So a committee composed of one delegate from each of the 11 Division IA conferences sets the GCS games as follows.
Sugar Bowl: #1 Florida vs. #5 USC (which just nosed out Louisville)
Rose Bowl: #3 Ohio State vs. #4 Boise State
The winners play a week later in Glendale AZ for the championship. Should be fun!

As Commissioner of the YCS (Your Championship Series), you may prefer to take the top four teams whether they are conference champions or not. You may also want a rule that says that rematches will be avoided in the semifinals. So a committee composed of one delegate from each of the 11 Division IA conferences sets the YCS games as follows.
Sugar Bowl: #1 Florida vs. #3 Ohio State
Rose Bowl: #2 Michigan vs. #4 Boise State
As a follow-up to my comments at the top of this page, if Ohio State and Michigan both won these semifinal games, then more power to them. Let them play again on a neutral field for the championship.

Of course, this is a mythical championship series (but, really, so is the BCS). In the real world, human voters would be involved in addition to (I hope) computers. In that case, Boise State would undoubtedly be replaced by Louisville in both scenarios, which is fine with me (although I like giving Boise a chance just to put to rest any arguments about whether they stack up against the "big boys"). My point is simply that, whichever way you do it, a Final Four (often called the "Plus One System") is better than the current only-two-teams-have-a-chance system.