2019-20 Big Ten Bowl Games

Big Ten Bowl Games can be confusing. Before we get into the conference bowl games, let's take a step back to remind us of the modern bowl/playoff landscape.

The top 6 bowls are called the New Year's Six:
Cotton
Peach
Fiesta
Rose
Sugar
Orange

Every year, two of those six get designated as the Playoff Semifinal.

Which means for Big Ten purposes, there can be four categories of years.

Category #1: Rose is not playoff game, Big Ten has no playoff team

This is the classic. The Rose Bowl is the top bowl for the Big Ten. This just happened in 2018-2019 with Ohio State representing the Big Ten.

Category #2: Rose is not playoff game, Big Ten has playoff team

This is the case when the Rose Bowl is the #2 bowl for the Big Ten. This happened in 2016-2017. Ohio State made the playoffs and went to the Fiesta Bowl, so Penn State got the Rose Bowl.

Category #3: Rose is playoff game, Big Ten has no playoff team

In this scenario, the Big Ten misses the playoffs and the Rose Bowl. This happened in 2017-2018. 3 Big Ten teams still made the New Year's Six: Ohio State in Cotton, Penn State in Fiesta, Wisconsin in Orange.

Category #4: Rose is playoff game, Big Ten has playoff team

In this case, the Big Ten has a playoff team but the Rose Bowl is off-limits for the rest of the conference. This happened in 2014-2015. Conference ties to bowl games mean nothing in this situation as Ohio State played in the Sugar Bowl playoff game and the Rose Bowl was a playoff game between Oregon and Florida State.

- - -

For a team like Illinois, it's better when the Rose is not a playoff game. And it's better when the Big Ten has a playoff team as everyone moves up a slot. (In fact, that's exactly how Illinois got to the 2008 Rose Bowl as a 9-3 team.)

As luck would have it, Category #2 is what's projected to happen this year as the Rose is not a playoff game and Ohio State is projected to make the playoffs. So I suppose Illinois should want Ohio State to win out, clearing the way for every team to move up a notch.

- - -

This year's Big Ten affiliated bowls:

(playoffs)
Rose - Pasadena
Citrus - Orlando
Outback - Tampa
Holiday - San Diego
Gator - Jacksonville
Pinstripe - New York
Redbox - Santa Clara
Quick Lane - Detroit
Armed Forces - Fort Worth

Real talk, Detroit is a cruel joke. At least Fort Worth is warm. New York is cool, but if I was a player, I'd want anything in Florida or California. I've seen Illinois projected in at least 5 different bowls and they're still two games to play so a lot will depend on their finish. Iowa and Illinois are currently 7th & 8th in overall Big Ten standings.

Here's another way of looking at it. 14 teams in the Big Ten. Illinois is one of 8 teams that has clinched a bowl. 3 cannot become eligible. 3 teams are still in the running. Purdue has to beat Wisconsin, so I feel comfortable crossing them off. Nebraska would have to beat Iowa or Wisconsin. Michigan State sitting on 4 wins just needs to win 2 of 3 vs Michigan, Rutgers and Maryland.

But it's very likely that Illinois will finish 7th or 8th in the conference. If the Big Ten gets a playoff team, then 7th/8th would be roughly New York or Santa Clara. It would stink if Redbox Bowl picked Michigan State over Illinois and bumped the Illini to the Quick Lane. But really, the motto for me is just to avoid Detroit.

8-team playoff?

So here we are. On December 3, 2017, Dan Wetzel publishes a plan for an 8-team college football playoff. He's eliminating conference championship games and putting the first round of the playoffs on campuses, hosted by the higher seed.

At the core of it, the Power Five conferences get an automatic entry. He also makes a caveat for a non-Power Five team that goes unbeaten gets in automatically.

It's all pretty good.

So I went back to look to see how it compared to the 8-team formula that I came up with. And would you believe that I was pushing this back in 2006? Wow.

I initially included the conference champions (back then there were 6 power conferences) and two years later removed them because we were excluding good teams in favor of champions from weak conferences.

Basically, I've been in favor of the 8-team for 11 years and we still don't have it. If I were in charge today, I'd roll with Dan's plan. Good stuff.

A look at the College Football Playoffs

This ESPN graphic is super helpful. Let's start there. 

So here are the top 6 bowls in the land.

Compared to the 2013-2014 BCS Bowls, the new additions are Cotton and Peach. As a refresher here was their schedule last year, with BCS in bold:

2013-2014

Peach: Dec 31
Rose: Jan 1
Fiesta: Jan 1
Sugar: Jan 2
Cotton: Jan 3
Orange: Jan 3

And this is the graphic above, but for an easy comparison, here's what's coming up, with this year's playoffs in bold:

2014-2015

Peach: Dec 31
Fiesta: Dec 31
Orange: Dec 31
Rose: Jan 1
Sugar: Jan 1
Cotton: Jan 1

That alone is an improvement, reclaiming New Year's as a college football holiday. (Sort of a shame for the NHL who has established New Year's Day as their holiday, but I suppose there's room for both.)

- - -

Just for fun I thought I would look at what bowl games were like a generation ago. For starters, in 1990-91 there were 19 bowls. Last year there were 35. Which means that when I was growing up, making a bowl really meant something. This was the schedule of the last two days of the season:

Sun: Dec 31
Copper: Dec 31
Sugar: Jan 1
Rose: Jan 1
Orange: Jan 1
Hall of Fame: Jan 1
Gator: Jan 1
Fiesta: Jan 1
Cotton: Jan 1
Citrus: Jan 1

Holy Hanna in a handbasket, look at that. And that's it. That's how the season ends, with 8 games on the same day. For what it's worth, the Peach Bowl did exist, it was just on Dec 29th. I think back to back days with tripleheaders is a nice solution.

- - -

The notable bowls that didn't get invited to the playoff series are Outback Bowl, Capital One Bowl, Gator Bowl. As an aside, I understand having sponsors, but you really need to have a name beyond the sponsor. The Capital One Bowl used to be the Citrus Bowl, but you wouldn't know it today.

- - -

Speaking of sponsors, here are the official current names for the top 6 bowls:

Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
Discover Orange Bowl
Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual*
Allstate Sugar Bowl
AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic

*This is a goddamn mouthful. I'm okay with the others.

- - -

Here is the rotation schedule:

The next two years provide 6 games in 2 days, but in 2016-2017, New Year's Day is on a Sunday. The result is the Rose, Sugar and Cotton bowls get bumped to Monday. The Rose Bowl Parade is never on a Sunday, and I'm guessing the main reason is avoiding conflicts with the NFL.

- - -

I'm sort of fascinated with the idea of neutral site games that aren't actually neutral. Both Illinois BCS games (and I went to both) were essentially road games. LSU in New Orleans, USC in Pasadena. Here are the locations and teams that could benefit from a home atmosphere.

Rose: Pasadena, CA (USC, UCLA, Stanford?)
Sugar: New Orleans, LA (LSU)
Orange: Miami, FL (Miami, Florida, FSU)
Cotton: Arlington, TX (Texas, A&M, Baylor)
Peach: Atlanta, GA (Georgia)
Fiesta: Glendale, AZ (Arizona State)

For what it's worth, ESPN just did a profile of the 16 teams they expect to contend for the playoffs this year. 7 of their 16 are listed above with potential home atmosphere. The schools that could come into play this year are UCLA, Stanford and LSU. Another way to look at it: 7 of the 12 schools that I listed above are being projected as top teams.

Here's a quote from ESPN's Mark Schlabach: "The committee doesn't want to put a higher seeded team in an unfair venue. For instance, if USC is No. 1 and LSU is No. 4, they won't put the game in the Sugar Bowl. Or vice versa, if LSU is No. 1 and USC is No. 4, the game wouldn't be played in the Rose Bowl. They'll try to reward the two highest seeded teams and put them closer to home. It might be more difficult protecting the No. 2 seed, depending on who the No. 1 seed is and where the games are being played."

If they are going to recognize some sort of home atmosphere advantage, it does seems like the Big Ten has a disadvantage in that area. But I can't blame anyone for not having a bowl game on January 1st in Chicago.

BCS 2012-2013: 2-team, 4-team, 8 team playoffs

Actual 2012-2013 BCS Schedule
Rose: Wisconsin (Big Ten) vs Stanford (Pac-12)
Orange: Northern Illinois (non-AQ) vs Florida State (ACC)
Sugar: Louisville (Big East) vs Florida (At-Large)
Fiesta: K-State (Big 12) vs Oregon (At-Large)
Championship: #1 Notre Dame (indy) vs #2 Alabama (SEC)

4-Team Playoff
The new system won't be based on computer rankings but rather an independent committee. So I can't presume to know what they would pick. However, I found this interesting article from SI that mocked the process. And although they went against the rankings in not having K-State in their top 8 under consideration, their final four went exactly as the BCS has them:

Semifinal #1: Notre Dame (1) vs Oregon (4)
Semifinal #2: Alabama (2) vs Florida (3)
Championship: tbd

8-Team Playoff 

This is my Fymbo Formula 1.1a, based on BCS rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12.

January 1st
Fiesta: #1 Notre Dame (indy) vs #8 Florida State (ACC)
Sugar: #2 Alabama (SEC) vs #7 Oklahoma (At-Large)
Orange: #3 Florida (At-Large) vs #6 Stanford (At-Large)
Rose: #4 Oregon (Pac-12) vs #5 Kansas State (Big 12)

January 12th

Semifinal #1: Notre Dame vs Oregon/K-State
Semifinal #2: Alabama vs Florida/Stanford

Championship: tbd


- - -

Is the 4-team an improvement from the current schedule? I say yes. Perhaps a small one, but I think it's better. It's certainly not a downgrade. I think there are enough doubters about ND, that forcing them to play Oregon is a good thing. And Alabama and Florida both had one loss. So why not let them duke it out?

What about the 8-team? It's pretty similar to the 4-team. Though because the BCS rankings are so SEC-heavy, I had to dig down deep to find Oklahoma and Florida State--they probably don't deserve a shot at the title. But if we assume they lose, now it's a 6 team field with a chance for Stanford and K-State to prove they belong. Not a bad thing in my book.

In the end I'm happy that the 4-team playoff will be coming our way and I'm not too sad about the 8-team being too impractical for now.

Embracing the 4-Team Playoff

I looked at this last year, but I think that I was too hung up on not getting an 8-team playoff that I wasn't as excited as I should have been about getting a 4-team playoff.

Of the previous 8 years, only once was it a downgrade from the current system (2005). And overall it was a big help, usually adding that third team that was left out.

And when you factor in the reality that conferences aren't about to cut games (money makers) and an 8-team playoff would ask a SEC team to possibly play 16 games, this 4-team playoff might in fact be the perfect situation. At least for now.

Now then, let's a take a look at this year's schedule and what could or should have been... (to be continued)

yet another BCS mess: part two

All these years I've been pushing for a 8-team playoff. Even though it's the best solution, it's asking a few teams to play too many games.

So what would recent history look like if we had a four-team playoff (aka plus-one)?

2011
#1 LSU 13-0 vs #4 Stanford 11-1
#2 Alabama 11-1 vs #3 Oklahoma State 11-1


Improvement over #1 vs #2?
A big yes. We can't agree on who should play LSU. Let them fight it out.

Any problems?
Not really fair that Stanford gets into the mix. Though impossible, best solution would be a Alabama-OkSt semifinal and give LSU a bye to the title game.


2010
#1 Auburn 13-0 vs #4 Stanford 11-1
#2 Oregon 12-0 vs #3 TCU 12-0

Improvement over #1 vs #2?
Yes. TCU was undefeated and beat #5 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. They deserved a shot at the title.

Any problems?
No.

2009
#1 Alabama 13-0 vs #4 TCU 12-0
#2 Texas 13-0 vs #3 Cincinnati 12-0

Improvement over #1 vs #2?
A substantial yes. Four undefeated teams have a shot at the title instead of just two.

Any problems?
Still excludes an undefeated Boise State. Would need an 8-team playoff to fix that. 

2008
#1 Oklahoma 12-1 vs #4 Alabama 12-1
#2 Florida 12-1 vs #3 Texas 11-1

Improvement over #1 vs #2?
No. Even though Florida beat Bama by 19 in the SEC title game, Alabama has just as good of a chance to win it all.

Any problems?
And this excludes a 12-0 Utah. They would go on to beat Alabama and deserved a title shot. Need an 8-team playoff.

2007
#1 Ohio State 11-1 vs #4 Oklahoma 11-2
#2 LSU 11-2 vs #3 Virginia Tech 11-2

Improvement over #1 vs #2?
Not really. If you just look at the records, I suppose Oklahoma and Virginia Tech have just as much claim to the title game as LSU--though LSU's losses were both in triple overtime and Oklahoma and VaTech both lost their bowl games.

Any problems?
Just that there are ton of teams with 2 losses. An 8-team playoff would eliminate a lot of complaining.

- - -

Time to speed things up.

- - -

2006
Improvement: No.
Problems: Still excludes undefeated Boise.

2005
Improvement: Actually a downgrade. This is the one year we only had two worthy teams.

2004
Improvement: HUGE yes. 13-0 Auburn gets into the mix.
Problems: Still excludes undefeated Boise.

- - -

There you go. The plus-one helps 4 out of the last 8 years.

The 8-team playoff is the perfect system...except for the amount of games. Sigh.

yet another BCS mess: part one

Every year, the number of college football teams that have a right to play for the championship is different. In 2009 it was five. In 2004, it was four or five. This year, it really seems like there's only one. Or three.

- - -

This problem doesn't happen in the NFL. There's 12 teams in the playoffs every year. Most years, there are good teams that get barely shut out, but that's life--if you wanted to make the playoffs you have to be not just good, but in the top 6 out of 15 teams in your conference. Some years, a not-so-good team makes it in. But if the Seahawks had won the Super Bowl, I don't think anyone would have said that the Saints or Packers really deserved to win.

My point is that every year the NFL has a set number of teams in the playoffs, and there's hardly any complaints about who is selected to the postseason.

- - -

Two years ago, I made the point that it's possible for the two best teams in the country to be in the same conference.

- - -

The reason we have computer rankings in the BCS is because after the AP poll in 1997 elevated Nebraska to National Champion, (conveniently in the year that Tom Osborne retired) the computers were seen as more trustworthy than human polls. This year, the computers favor Oklahoma State. The humans favor Alabama.

- - -

Here's the final case for teams to play LSU:

Alabama
Pro: only loss was overtime loss to best team in the country
Con: not conference champion, already lost to LSU at HOME

Oklahoma State
Pro: conference champion, only loss was a fluke double overtime loss after a tragedy
Con: loss to a bad team

Oregon
Moot because they have two losses

Stanford
Moot because they lost to Oregon and not conference champions

Boise State
Moot because they lost their only real challenge, not conference champions

- - -

In the end, we have a two-team playoff. Regardless of whether Alabama or Ok St got picked, there would be a team left out.

- - -

I don't think it's fair to LSU, that they beat Alabama at Alabama, went to the SEC championship and won that, and now are on equal footing with Alabama. If Bama wins the title, they will still have a worse record than LSU (overall with a split head-to-head).

- - -

This is what we get:

#1 LSU vs #2 Alabama



This is what a 8-team playoff would look like:

This iteration is based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12.

January 1st, Sunday
Sugar: #1 LSU (SEC) vs #8 Wisconsin (Big Ten)
Orange: #2 Alabama (SEC #2) vs #7 Kansas State (Big-12 #2)
Fiesta: #3 Oklahoma State (Big 12) vs #6 Boise State (non-BCS)
Rose: #4 Stanford (Pac-12) vs #5 Oregon (Pac-12 #2)

This includes EVERY team with a viable claim. It rewards LSU and Alabama with easier first round games.

January 9th and 10th:
Semifinal #1: Sugar winner vs Rose winner (likely LSU vs Standford/Oregon)
Semifinal #2: Fiesta winner vs Orange winner (likely Alabama vs OkSt/BoiseSt)

If we assume that LSU rolls to the title, here's where we have the teams settle it on the field who deserves it.

January 17th, Tuesday: BCS Championship


Here's my only problem with this playoff. LSU has already played 13 games, including a conference championship. This would project them to play 16 games this season. The SEC isn't about to get rid of their conf. championship, so the best we could do would be to get SEC teams to play 11 games in the regular season. Even that is a stretch.


Here's what a plus-one would look like:

LSU vs Stanford
Alabama vs Oklahoma State

That pretty much says it all.

- - -

to be continued in a part two

2011 Edition - Fymbo Formula™: A College Football Playoff That Works

You're not going to hear too much complaining about the BCS this year. There seems to be two clear cut top teams and they get to play each other for the Championship. About the only complaining could be from 12-0 TCU, but we all know that a non-BCS school can't compete with a team from a power conference, especially in a bowl game.

Actual BCS Schedule
Rose: Wisconsin (Big Ten) vs TCU (At-Large)
Orange: Stanford (At-Large) vs Virginia Tech (ACC)
Sugar: Ohio State (At-Large) vs Arkansas (At-Large)
Fiesta: Connecticut (Big East) vs Oklahoma (Big 12)
Championship: #1 Auburn (SEC) vs #2 Oregon (Pac-10)

- - -

Fymbo Formula 1.1a BCS Playoffs

This iteration is based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12.

January 1st, Saturday
Sugar: #1 Auburn (SEC) vs #8 Arkansas (At-Large)
Rose: #2 Oregon (Pac-10) vs #7 Oklahoma (Big 12)
Orange: #3 TCU (non-BCS automatic) vs #6 Ohio State (At-Large)
Fiesta: #4 Stanford (At-Large) vs #5 Wisconsin (Big Ten)

This 8-team playoff pits the top 8 teams in the country (as decided by the BCS rankings) against each other. The conference champions left out are Virginia Tech with two losses--who aren't in the discussion for national title--and 8-4 Connecticut who aren't in the BCS top 25. They would still get great bowls like Cotton or Capital One or whatever.

January 8th, Saturday
Semifinal #1: Sugar winner vs Fiesta winner (likely Auburn vs Stanford/Wisconsin)
Semifinal #2: Rose winner vs Orange winner (likely Oregon vs TCU)

January 17th, Monday: BCS Championship

I think Auburn and Oregon have proved that they belong in the championship, so the whole point of this would be to see if TCU belongs. It also weeds out the teams that aren't deserving of a BCS spot.

BCS Playoff Mythbusting

Listening to head of the BCS is infuriating. In this 7-minute clip he evades all the questions about how the current system sucks and while he acknowledges that there might be more money in a playoff, he throws out 2 myths about a college football playoff.

Myth #1 Playoffs mean you have to get rid of the bowl system.

I don't understand this one at all. The current bowl system has 34 bowls, but 5 of those games are special BCS bowls. Fine.

Why couldn't the new system keep all the 34 bowls, keep the 4 BCS bowls as the first round of the playoffs, and then create two new semifinals and a new playoff championship.

Myth #2 Playoffs negatively affect the regular season.

This one seems sounder on its face. But I don't buy it.

Let's look at the games in the regular season where having just a 1 vs 2 "championship" helped: Florida vs Alabama. Yes this game had a lot of buildup, as you know that the winner would be playing for a championship. (The game turned out to be a dud, but that's beside the point.)

What about in September when we had #3 USC playing #8 Ohio State. You could argue that this game was helped by the current system because getting a loss could shut you out from a national title...but wouldn't that game be just as important with a playoff? We're only talking about an 8-team playoff. To finish in the top 8 you've got to either finish with one loss or less, or win your conference. A loss by either team would put them on the brink of missing the playoffs. (OSU did lose that game, but won their conference and finished 8th).

But aren't there also cases where a playoff would increase the excitement in the regular season? Think about the Cinci/Pitt game last week. Not many people outside the region cared because we knew the championship was already decided: SEC vs Texas. But if I knew that Cinci was fighting for a playoff spot...and if they didn't win, that their spot would go to a team like Georgia Tech...now you've got me interested. That's drama.

And what about the TCU, Boise State seasons...each of their games would have increased drama if we knew they, as undefeated teams, were playing for a playoff spot and one loss would lock them out. I think it would only add to the excitement of winning your conference and trying to make sure you get into the top 8.

Think about the NFL. Their regular season captivates the nation week in, week out. The playoff race is probably the best part of the season, and one of the things that fans love, is that for a good chunk of the season, they think their team could go to the playoffs. Which right now is simply not the reality in college football. Even when Illinois won the Big Ten in 2001 with only one loss, we never had a national championship hopes. But every game would have been a hell of a lot more exciting if we thought that we were fighting for one of only 8 playoff spots.

- - -

And to put it another way, right now there is a 2-team playoff in college football. For 120 or whatever teams. Baseball has 8, football as 12, and the NBA has 16. And those leagues all have about 30 teams. College hoops has 64, which corresponds to the number of college teams.

Now I think that NBA has too many, football gets it just right, and there's nothing wrong with being strict in baseball. But baseball the strictest league there is, still puts 26.7% of teams into the playoffs. College football puts in 1.7%. An 8-team playoff would mean 6.7%. Don't tell me that the regular season will be negatively affected by such an increase.

2010 Edition - Fymbo Formula™: A College Football Playoff That Works

Actual BCS Schedule
Rose: Ohio State (Big Ten) vs Oregon (Pac-10)
Orange: Iowa (At-Large) vs Georgia Tech (ACC)
Sugar: Florida (At-Large) vs Cincinatti (Big East)
Fiesta: TCU (Automatic) vs Boise State (At-Large)
Championship: #1 Alabama (SEC) vs #2 Texas (Big 12)

- - -

Fymbo Formula 1.1a BCS Playoffs

This iteration is based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12.

January 1st, Friday
Sugar: #1 Alabama (SEC) vs #8 Ohio State (Big Ten)
Fiesta: #2 Texas (Big 12) vs #7 Oregon (Pac-10)
Orange: #3 Cincinnati (Big East) vs #6 Boise State (At-Large)
Rose: #4 TCU (non-BCS automatic) vs #5 Florida (At-Large)

This 8-team playoff pits the top 8 teams in the country (as decided by the BCS rankings) against each other. The only conference champion left out is Georgia Tech with two losses--who aren't in the discussion for national title anyways. They would still get the next best bowl, Capital One or Gator or what have you.

January 9th, Saturday
Semifinal #1: Sugar winner vs Rose winner (likely Alabama vs TCU/Florida)
Semifinal #2: Fiesta winner vs Orange winner (likely Texas vs Cincinnati/Boise State)

January 18th, Monday: BCS Championship

The beauty of this system is that all five undefeated teams get their shot to settle it on the field. Boise State already showed they could beat a top BCS team in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. Why shouldn't they get their shot to play for the championship? Cincinatti has an even bigger beef. They went undefeated in a major conference just like Alabama and Texas. So why are they left out? And fans of Alabama and Texas can't complain either. If they both win two more games, then they get their beloved #1 vs #2 matchup. The only difference is that they will have proven they belong.

- - -

I've heard the theory that the BCS controversy is good for college football because it gets people talking about college football. That is bullshit. I have no interest in watching those bowl games, I have had little interest in the regular season and when everyone is talking about stupid AND unfair the structure is, it's bad for the sport.

Plus, who's ever in charge is missing the boat: more and better bowl games equals more money, more interest. What's stopping this?

BCS in an Alternate Universe

"This is presentation of CBS Sports...Welcome to College Football's Selection Sunday, I'm Bryant Gumbel. Let's get right to it. Yesterday, Alabama, Boise State, Cincinnati and Texas all completed their perfect undefeated seasons. And they are anxiously awaiting to see where they get slotted in the BCS Bowl Playoffs! [cut to local campuses, players arm in arm] Thank goodness the BCS wised up a few years--with FIVE undefeated teams, there's no way to have a legitimate national championship without an 8-team playoff, which is exactly what we have to look forward to. Plus, because we kept the tradition of all the other bowls, and in effect have only added three new games, it's brought in even more money and positive attention! Of course, the BCS doens't care about money, it's just about getting to decide who's the best on the field. These four teams have played their hearts out, but only one of them can emerge from the BCS Bowl Playoffs as National Champions!"

- - -

[Further analysis to come after BCS is announced.]

#1 vs #2

Hypothetically, is it possible that the two best teams in the country are in the same conference?

Yes.

In the eleven BCS National Championship Games, there has never been a intra-conference title game. But could there be? And should there be?

- - -

In the case of 2009, the top two ranked teams are Florida and Alabama. They have been ranked this way for most of the season. Are they the two best teams in the country? The people who are in charge of voting for the top teams seem to think so. So why is it impossible for them to play for the National Championship?

- - -

There exists a belief that when one team loses, it must fall in the rankings. But since there must be a victor between Florida and Alabama, does that necessarily mean that both teams are not the two best teams in the country? I say no. Logic dictates that if you pair the two best teams against each other, just because one wins, that doesn't mean that these are not the two best teams.

And yet Texas is licking it's chops at #3 because it is confident that there will not be an all-SEC title game.

My argument is not based on these teams specifically, but rather on the concept that losing in a #1 vs #2 matchup means that you are not worthy of keeping that ranking.

- - -

Of course, that doesn't mean you should automatically keep that ranking either. Obviously, if either Florida or Alabama wins by three touchdowns, it's fair to say the loser cannot hang with the top teams in the country. But I don't think it requires a 7OT game to say that the two teams we thought were the best before are still the best.

I am aware that there are other factors at work when selecting the title game participants. There is the belief that in lieu of an actual playoff, that the schedule is a de facto playoff. While seemingly convenient, this is ridiculous. Some conferences play conference title games, some don't. You're rewarded more for losing early instead of losing late. And a team like Texas gets rewarded because they don't have a team like Alabama to play against in their Big 12 title game. If this is a de facto playoff system, it stinks.

- - -

What about a couple years ago when Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and #2. If they weren't scheduled to play each other in the regular season, were they not supposed to meet in the Nat'l Championship? Or what if the SEC didn't have a Conference Championship this year?

Furthermore, the Saints could very well lose to the Patriots this upcoming Monday night. Does that mean that the Saints are not the #1 or #2 team in the league? Are they still not deserving of a Super Bowl spot?

- - -

Chances are Alabama will lose to Florida by 17 and this will all be moot. But if we think these are the two best teams now, I don't see why they might not be the two best teams even after the SEC title game.

playing out the BCS playoffs

Well, college football is over. And it's so obvious that Florida is the best team in the country because they only lost once and because of the way they won their last ten games in a row in dominating fashion, including beating Alabama in a major game 31-20.

There's no way that Utah who went undefeated and beat Alabama in a major game 31-17 should be considered the best team in the country.

And there's no way that USC who only lost once and won their last nine games in a row in dominating fashion should be considered the best team in the country.

I'm sure glad we have the BCS to settle things on the field!

/sarcasm

So now that the bowl season is over, I'd like to guess how things would have shaken out in a playoff, based on their bowl performances.

This will be based on the current Fymbo Formula: 1.1a

Fiesta: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs #8 Boise State (non-BCS)

Boise played TCU tight and lost by 1, Oklahoma played Florida tight and lost by 10. It wouldn't shock me if Boise pulled the upset in this rematch, but I think that BS doesn't have the defense of Florida. Oklahoma advances.

Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs #7 Penn State (Big Ten)

Florida crushes Penn State. Duh.

Orange: #3 Texas (Big 12) vs #6 Utah (non-BCS automatic)

Texas needed a miracle to scrape by a Big Ten team, Utah has no trouble with former #1 from the SEC. Utah advances.

Rose: #4 Alabama (SEC) vs #5 USC (Pac-10)

Alabama loses to Utah, USC beats Penn State. USC advances

Semifinal #1: Oklahoma vs USC

Based on OU's performance last night, I have to think that USC has no trouble with Bob Stoops.
USC advances to Championship.

Semifinal #2: Florida vs Utah

This is where our simulation ends. My brain thinks that Florida is probably better than Utah, but how will we know unless they play it out? My brain also would have said a few years ago that Boise State had no shot against Oklahoma. I also thought Utah would lay an egg against Alabama, just like Hawaii did last year.

And this is exactly why we need a playoff. Because there are a bunch of teams that could argue they are the best. And they don't get to settle it on the field.

And one last point, how come the presidents and networks and everyone in the world doesn't see that a BCS Playoffs + Existing Bowl Schedule = More Money. This year we had 34 bowl games, including a 4 regular BCS bowls and 1 National Championship. We could have 36, 4 BCS bowls, 2 semifinals, and a championship game. We'd be adding two must-see games to the schedule. That's more money and I don't need a crazy guy in a suit of question marks to tell me so.

What Could Have Been

Sure, I presented playoffs before, but that was before I updated the formula. If you notice, most BCS games aren't close. I think the playoffs would fix that.

January 2008: Actual BCS
Rose: USC (Pac-10) 49, Illinois (at-large) 17
Sugar: Georgia (at-large) 41, Hawaiʻi (automatic) 10
Fiesta: West Virginia (Big East) 48, Oklahoma (Big 12) 28
Orange: Kansas (at-large) 24, Virginia Tech (ACC) 21
BCS National Championship: LSU (SEC) 38, Ohio State (Big Ten) 24

January 2008: Fymbo Formula 1.1a
Rose: #1 Ohio State vs #8 Hawaii
Sugar: #2 LSU vs #7 USC
Orange: #3 Virginia Tech vs #6 Missouri
Fiesta: #4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

- - -

January 2007: Actual BCS
Rose: USC (Pac-10) 32, Michigan (at-large) 18
Fiesta: Boise State (automatic) 43, Oklahoma (Big 12) 42
Orange: Louisville (Big East) 24, Wake Forest (ACC) 13
Sugar: LSU (at-large) 41, Notre Dame (at-large) 14
BCS National Championship: Florida 41 (SEC), Ohio State (Big Ten) 14

January 2007: Fymbo Formula 1.1a
Rose: #1 Ohio State vs #8 Oklahoma
Sugar: #2 Florida vs #7 Boise State
Orange: #3 Michigan vs #6 Louisville
Fiesta: #4 LSU vs #5 USC

2009 Edition - Fymbo Formula™: A College Football Playoff That Works

Actual BCS Schedule
Rose: Penn State (Big Ten) vs USC (Pac-10)
Orange: Virginia Tech (ACC) vs Cincinnati (Big East)
Sugar: Utah (automatic) vs Alabama (At-Large)
Fiesta: Ohio State (At-Large) vs Texas (At-Large)
Championship: Florida (SEC) vs Oklahoma (SEC)

Fymbo Formula 1.0
This formula includes all 6 BCS champions and the highest ranking non-BCS team (provided in top 12) and an at-large team based on BCS rankings.

Fiesta: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs Virginia Tech (ACC)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs #7 Cincinnati (Big East)
Orange: #3 Texas (At-Large) vs #6 Penn State (Big Ten)
Rose: #4 USC (Pac-10) vs #5 Utah (non-BCS automatic)

Semifinal #1: Fiesta vs Rose
Semifinal #2: Sugar vs Orange

Championship: Semifinal #1 vs Semifinal #1

Under my original proposal (1.0) Alabama is #4 but snubbed because Texas got the at-large berth ahead of them, and Utah was an automatic selection.

Fymbo Formula 1.1a
This iteration is based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12.

Fiesta: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs #8 Boise State (non-BCS)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs #7 Penn State (Big Ten)
Orange: #3 Texas (Big 12) vs #6 Utah (non-BCS automatic)
Rose: #4 Alabama (SEC) vs #5 USC (Pac-10)

This proposal includes 8 of the top 9 teams in the country--Texas Tech is left out because they finished 3rd in their conference, just as they were left out of 1.0 and the actual BCS. Compared to 1.0, this kicks out Cincinnati and Va. Tech (ranked 12th and 19th in the country, respectively) for the sake of Alabama (ranked 4th) and Boise State (ranked 9th). Of course, the flip side of this is that two conference champions are not included, mediocre as they may be.

Fymbo Formula 1.1b
This iteration is based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 12, and any conference champion that is in the top 16.

Fiesta: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs #8 Cincinnati (Big East)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs #7 Penn State (Big Ten)
Orange: #3 Texas (Big 12) vs #6 Utah (non-BCS automatic)
Rose: #4 Alabama (SEC) vs #5 USC (Pac-10)

By including conference champions ranked in the top 16, Boise State is removed and the Bearcats get added. This is a minor adjustment and comes down to the question of who is most deserving: a team ranked 9th from the WAC, or a team ranked 12th from the Big East?

The temptation is to reward winning the Big East, but Boise State won their conference too. And the reason that Boise State is ranked ahead of Cinci is because they went undefeated and Cinci lost twice. Because of this, I think version 1.1a got it right. If your conference sucks so bad that you can win it and there's that many teams better than you, you don't deserve a shot at the national championship.

What January 2009 Should Look Like
(based upon my best formula to date: 1.1a, and my best guess at how it would shake out)

January 1st, Thursday
Fiesta: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs #8 Boise State (non-BCS)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs #7 Penn State (Big Ten)
Orange: #3 Texas (Big 12) vs #6 Utah (non-BCS automatic)
Rose: #4 Alabama (SEC) vs #5 USC (Pac-10)

January 10th, Saturday
Semifinal #1: Oklahoma vs Alabama/USC
Semifinal #2: Florida vs Texas

January 19th, Monday
BCS Championship: Oklahoma/Alabama/USC vs Florida/Texas

The beauty of this system is that it would shake out everything. Would we get a rematch of the SEC Championship, proving that conference's superiority? Or would the Big 12 roll and get Red River II? Would USC prove they belong in the picture or would a non-BCS school pull a cindarella run? We'll never know.

Premature Look at the Fymbo Formula™: A College Football Playoff That Works

Here's what it would look like using the establish formula:

New Year's Day: Round 1

Rose
#1 Alabama vs #8 West Virginia

Sugar
#2 Texas Tech vs #7 North Carolina

Orange
#3 Penn State vs #6 Utah

Fiesta
#4 Texas vs #5 USC


The problem with how this looks now, is that the Big East and ACC don't have any teams in the top 18. Are they even deserving of a automatic berth?

Instead of giving each conference an automatic berth, I could restructure to go based on rankings, restricting each conference to maximum two teams, and including at least one non-BCS team if they are in the top 16.

That would give us:

New Year's Day: Round 1

Rose
#1 Alabama vs #8 Boise State

Sugar
#2 Texas Tech vs #7 Utah

Orange
#3 Penn State vs #6 USC

Fiesta
#4 Texas vs #5 Florida

It's just odd that right now they are 4 Big 12 teams in the top 10 in the BCS. But that will get sorted out. Also odd that are two non-BCS teams in the top 10.

Still, this is an improvement over the inclusion of those putrid ACC/Big East schools.

Also, a prediction: Neither Alabama nor Texas Tech will play in the National Championship.

playoff sims

espn has a new cfb playoff simulator. here's my first simulation using the bcs top 16:


here's my first sim of illinois vs usc:

Rashard's .91 touchdowns certainly helped! and here's my first sim using the fymbo formula playoff system:

the computers like oklahoma over osu 3 to 2. they even like oklahoma over lsu. but lsu is the winner of my 8-team playoff, beating west virginia, usc and ou. of course they lost to florida in a game that wasn't on my schedule. figures.

Re-Introducing the Fymbo Formula™: A College Football Playoff That Works

Here's how it works and what it looks like:

Here's a recap of what my 8-team playoff is and how it would look this year:

• The 8 teams selected include the conference champion from each of the six BCS conferences plus the highest ranking team from outside those conferences (provided in top 16) and an at-large team.
• We keep all the other Bowl games, and play them and their normal times. There will be 6 less bowl teams, as the final 3 bowl games in the playoffs will be teams playing in multiple bowls.
• This would give us 4 great bowl games on New Year's Day
  

This year's teams:

Big Ten: Ohio State
SEC: LSU
Pac-Ten: USC
ACC: Virginia Tech
Big East: West Virginia
Big 12: Oklahoma
Non-Conference: Hawaii (finished at #10 in BCS)
At-Large: Georgia (finished at #5 in BCS)

So that's the field. Here's what it would look like.

New Year's Day: Round 1

Rose
#1 Ohio State vs #8 Hawaii

Sugar
#2 LSU vs #7 West Virginia

Orange
#3 Virginia Tech vs #6 USC

Fiesta
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia


BCS Playoffs: Round 2

Rose vs Fiesta

Sugar vs Orange


BCS National Championship



The Fymbo Formula gives every legit team a chance to play for the championship, notable USC, Georgia, Oklahoma and Hawaii, while only excluding teams that couldn't win their conference or finish in the top 5 in the country. If you're not the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country.

Here's what a College Football Playoff would really look like

Here's a recap of what my 8-team playoff is and how it would look this year:

• The 8 teams selected include the conference champion from each of the six BCS conferences plus the 2 others ("at-large" selections) that are highest remaining in the BCS standings.
• I've heard the extra game argument. Now every team is currently playing 12 games. So we reduce to season back to 11. Then there will be 4 quarterfinal teams than only play 12 games in a season--so the only teams that will actually be playing more games they do now will be the Final Four.
• The 4 BCS Bowls would rotate between the matchups in a 4 year pattern so that once every 4 years, each BCS Bowl would occupy each position.
• We keep all the other Bowl games, and play them and their normal times. There will be 6 less bowl teams, as the final 3 bowl games in the playoffs will be teams playing in multiple bowls.
• I contemplated giving the at large teams #7 and #8, but that wouldn't work. Winning your conference gets you in the playoffs, but no guarantees of seeding.
• What about Boise State? Or Wisconsin? Well, they didn't win a BCS conference, and the top 2 at-large berths were taken by Michigan and LSU. If you think that Boise State deserves a shot, do you really think they are better than Michigan or LSU?
  

Sat, Dec. 23rd

Cotton Bowl
(#4 LSU vs #5 USC)

Gator Bowl
(#3 Michigan vs #6 Louisville)

Fiesta Bowl
(#2 Florida vs #7 Oklahoma)

Orange Bowl
(#1 Ohio State vs #8 Wake Forest)


Mon, Jan 1st

Rose Bowl
(#1 Ohio State vs #4 LSU)

Sugar Bowl
(#2 Florida vs #3 Michigan)


Mon, Jan 8th

National Championship Game
(#1 Ohio State vs ?????)


This option rewards Ohio State and Florida for being the top 2 teams, with the easiest first round games. And then it gives 2 amazing New Year's Day bowl games, and lets it be settled on the field, who really deserves to be in the title game.

College football needs a playoff. Part Three: Here’s what it would look like now

This is what it would look like if the playoff seeds are strictly based on BCS Standings. I contemplated giving the at large teams #7 and #8, but that wouldn't work. Winning your conference gets you in the playoffs, but no guarantees of seeding.

Sat, Dec. 23rd

Cotton Bowl
(#4 Florida vs #5 LSU)

Gator Bowl
(#3 Michigan vs #6 Louisville)

Fiesta Bowl
(#2 USC vs #7 Oklahoma)

Orange Bowl
(#1 Ohio State vs #8 Georgia Tech)


New Year's Day (this year Mon, Jan 1st)

Rose Bowl
(#1 Ohio State vs #4 Florida)

Sugar Bowl
(#2 USC vs #3 Michigan)


About One Week After New Year's Day (this year Mon, Jan 8th)

National Championship Game
(#1 Ohio State vs ?????)


Under this plan, Ohio State gets rewarded for beating UM, by getting GT in the first round. And would you look at that final four, Florida has a shot at the title game, and we would actually get a fair answer as to who should play OSU for all the marbles. If you can't see that this is an improvement over this, then I don't know what more I can say.