For Certain Reasons

I know the tagline of my blog is "Politics and Pop Culture," but in light of recent events, I'm going to shoehorn "and Sports" in momentarily.  My two favorite sports teams are Notre Dame in college football and Chelsea F.C. in England's top soccer division, the Barclay's Premier League.  For the past couple of years I've been playing around with a theory that borrows the organizational elements of English "football" to solve a longstanding problem in American college football:  crowning an undisputed champion.

Win-loss records presently matter in NCAA football, to be sure, but the methods used to basically settle ties when multiple teams are undefeated or have the same record are ultimately subjective.  Statisticians have composed detailed formulas for rankings and strength of schedule, but no matter how precise and scientific they seem, they will always leave something to be desired.  The best place to determine a champion is on the field of play, and I think I have come up with a system that will do exactly that.

The Barclay's Premier League is the top tier of the Football Association, which organizes clubs using a system of promotion and relegation.  Each year, the bottom 3 clubs in the Premier League are relegated to the next tier, the Coca-Cola Championship. The top two clubs in the Coca-Cola Championship are automatically promoted to the Premier League, and a 3rd promoted team is decided by a post-season 4-team playoff.  There are two more tiers to the "official" league that promote and relegate in this way, followed by leagues and conferences that combine to feed into the system.  (It really is staggering to see the sheer number of levels of English football, let alone clubs.) Theoretically, every club in the English system has the potential to move up to the highest level.  Since the Premier League was founded in the 1992-1993 season, 43 different clubs have competed in the 20-team league, with the 44th team to be decided by this weekend's playoff final between Blackpool and Cardiff City.

So here's my proposal:  There are currently 120 teams in the NCAA's top division, the FBS.  This is perfect.  At the end of the season prior to my proposal taking effect, the teams will be ranked using present methods from 1-120.  I know I just railed against the ranking system, but any injustice in this case will be very temporary - like 1 season.  The top 20 teams will comprise the "premier" division.  The next 20 teams will comprise a "championship" division.  The remaining 80 teams will be split into 4 each 20-team divisions organized as regionally as possible.

Now for scheduling:  Each team will play a total of twelve games each season.  The ten games comprising the "regular" season will be determined by ranking, as the spoils of the championship will be a slightly more favorable schedule.  The first game of the season will be the only game scheduled by the teams themselves - a rivalry game, in which a school can play its rival regardless of divisional difference.  This game will not count toward the regular season win-loss record, but will be used to settle ties.  The final game of the season will be a one-game playoff to determine the championship, finish placing, promotion, and relegation.

Promotion and relegation:  Each year, four teams will be relegated from the premier division to the championship, which will in turn promote 4 teams.  Additionally, each year 8 teams will be relegated to the regional divisions, and the top two teams in each region will be promoted to the championship.  Each season the regional divisions will be re-aligned, with priority given to the highest ranked teams.

Ultimately, after the initial ranked placements, every spot in every season will be determined on the field, and I believe this is a vast improvement over the current system.  I'm still working on the structure of the one-game playoff system, but I find the basic architecture to be very appealing.  However, I know there will be substantial criticism, so I'd like to address some of the arguments I've anticipated:

1.    This means the death of the conference system.  Very true. However, what precipitated this post was the recent report that the Big Ten would extend invitations to Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, and Notre Dame.  The conferences have a tradition as old and rich as college football.  However, I believe we're about to see a ramping-up of the major conferences' efforts to cannibalize one another.  It will be sad to see them go, but it's already happened - Big 8, anyone?  South Western Conference?  I think the need to let the student-athletes determine their own success on the field is more important than tradition for tradition's sake.  In the process, I think this will eliminate bureaucracy and save the NCAA some serious cash.  The biggest resistance here will be from those who will lose power.  I should also address the fact that I'm a fan of the most prominent independent team in college football, and that this could make me biased against conferences.  I really have no good defense for that.  I guess you'll just have to take me at my word that I'm not biased, and I came up with this scheme rationally.

2.    What about long-standing rivalries?  This issue is partially settled by the first game scheduling system.  It should also be noted that many rivalries in English association football have endured the creation of the Premier League.  Finally, proximity is a major component of rivalry.  In this system, 2/3 of FBS teams will be playing schedules organized regionally, which should preserve this type of rivalry.

3.    What if the best team in college football starts in the #21 spot?  It definitely could happen, but I believe teams coming from outside of the top 20 to win the championship are the exception, not the rule.  This will be even more true when hype and human error are removed, and placing is determined on the field. 

4.    The top 20 teams have an unfair recruiting advantage and are likely to stay there - the rich will get richer, the poor poorer.  Right off the bat, at least 4 of the top 20 will change every season.  In the next division, the yearly turnover will be 12 teams.  That's an awful lot of mobility.  As far as recruiting goes, the current system basically requires at least a 3-year commitment out of each recruit.  In my system, no team is ever more than 2 years from playing for the biggest prize, which would substantially level the playing field.  Even for seniors playing in the regional divisions, earning your school a promotion is a substantial incentive - more so than the Xboxes and other swag they would get from playing in a December bowl game.  Finally, if you think my system makes the rich richer, what do you have to say about the present system?

5.    What about the bowls?  I think you could incorporate the present bowls into the one-game playoff system, retaining all naming rights and so forth.  However, it should be clear by now that my system favors progress over tradition, so that's where I would decide should the bowl setup come into conflict.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been kicking this idea around for a while now, but the recent Big Ten news has prompted me to put it out in the world, you know, before somebody steals it.  Like any idea, it's not perfect, and I don't know if it's possible in my lifetime, but I think a promotion and relegation system would be a great solution to what I believe is the most substantial problem with college football.