For years, fans of college football have clamored for a playoff at the highest level of the NCAA sport. Instead, the school presidents have opposed it in favor of the BCS system. And while some school presidents on the outside of the BCS have made some noise, and even government officials such as Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, no major changes have been made.

Sure, there were some minor tweaks to the BCS, where schools could gain access to the BCS based on their BCS computer ranking. This has enabled schools like Utah, Hawaii, Boise St. and TCU, all whom were outside the 6 BCS conferences, to crash the party.

There’s been another big public push for a playoff of late, thanks to the book “Death to the BCS” by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan. Even more recently, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has proposed a system in which he would work to fund that would create a national playoff system.

The age old argument in favor of a playoff system has been that it would decide a true national champion, decided on the field. The same “pro-playoff” camp will argue that if the NCAA can get a multi-billion dollar deal for it’s basketball playoff tournament, that for an even more popular sport like football, they’d certainly be able to make more money than they are now in the BCS.

The “anti-playoff” camp has always been quick to denounce a playoff saying that it would keep the students away from classes, the primary reason for attending a university. Of course “pro-playoff” people will point to the FCS level of football (I-AA) and the lower divisions like Division 2 and Division 3 and say that if they can have a playoff, why not in FBS? It’s worth noting that conferences in FCS such as the Ivy League do not participate in the FCS playoffs. And for many schools in BCS conferences, despite the big money in their athletics, they more closely associate themselves with the Ivy League than say, the Big Sky Conference in FCS.

The potential playoff revenue issue is further supported by many since it would only be a 12-16 team playoff…the best of the best…unlike the basketball tournament in which with so many automatic bids from lower Division 1 conferences, means there are a number of games that are quite unbalanced. There’s a reason why no #16 seed had ever beaten a #1 seed and why it’s such a shocker when a #2 or #3 seed loses in basketball.

In football, with the best of the best, you’d instead have a more even playing field with even a #16 versus a #1 seed. This year, according to the BCS rankings, that would be #1 Auburn versus #16 Alabama. That’s a much more attractive match-up than say in the NCAA Basketball Tournament game with #1 Duke versus #16 Prairie View A&M.

But with all the issues that seem to support a playoff system, there are a number of reasons why the BCS has been favored….including an issue that nobody seems to talk about.

The school presidents at the majority of the BCS conference schools favor the BCS for the obvious reason: money. Students missing classes is hardly the primary factor when so many millions of dollars are in play. But the BCS system better compensates the BCS school members. And to those school presidents, it’s a reward for their tougher conference schedules and a rationale for the large financial investments they make in their programs.

If you’re Ohio St. and you know you have to play the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Penn St. each year, while a MAC school has a much lower quality schedule, it hardly seems fair to them that the MAC would be equally rewarded. And when looking at the WAC, even with Boise St. having such a good run the past decade, they’ve had a conference schedule that included schools like San Jose St., Idaho, New Mexico St., and LA Tech. If you’re USC, Texas, Florida or Ohio St. playing in a tough Pac-10, Big 12, SEC or Big Ten, one can see why these schools feel they should be better compensated.

So when it comes to a playoff, the obvious necessity for the BCS conferences would be for the revenue distribution to be favored to them. If they were making more money than in the BCS and a larger portion of the total revenue shared, then it would be in the best interest of the current BCS conference schools.

But there is still one larger problem that people rarely discuss.

And that problem is simply this: while the public says they want a playoff, is the market really there for the number of games that would comprise a 16 team playoff?  15 total games involving only 16 total schools? Games that unlike Bowls which leave a month for planning, would be decided only a week in advance.

Those in favor of a playoff just assume that there would be the market; that a schools fans would wait in line for days just for the chance to see their school in the National Championship Playoffs. But is that really the case?

Mark Cuban mentioned in his initial proposal for a playoff, that the system would have the higher seeded schools having home field advantage. It is unknown if this would mean that the the second round and semi-finals would be on-campus or at a neutral site. We can assume that for a championship game, that it would be treated like the Super Bowl, held at a predetermined neutral location.

The alternative would be to have all games at neutral sites, much like in college basketball, similar to the bowl system now. And of course there could be a system in place where just the 1st round games were on campus while the quarter, semi and finals were held at neutral sites.

But any way you look at it, there is still that question: is the ticket purchasing interest really there?

Because based on the information we have now, that might not be the case.

Fans of FCS (I-AA football) schools and many in the media covering these schools have a large amount of pride with a playoff system. Fans of these schools will even go as far as claiming they have the better system over FBS (I-A football) because they have a playoff.

Everyone is entitled to pride in their school and the system their school participates in. But perhaps it’s time we look at the numbers that really matter: attendance.

The University of Delaware has for years been a dominant force in FCS college football. They’ve won championships, been a regular playoff participant, and this year, have already advanced to the FCS Semi-Finals where they will host another legend in the level, Georgia Southern.

But what has made Delaware such a envy to other FCS schools has been their tremendous fan support. Most years, Delaware will average between 20,000 and 30,000 per game attendance each year. This year, they continued the trend with an average of 20,684. These home games included games such as against Maine, a school located 600 miles away, along with URI, a school downgrading in football in 2013. Delaware also hosted Duquesne, a limited scholarship program in Pittsburgh, as well as games against it’s conference foes Villanova and Towson and Division 2, West Chester. Yet with the home schedule, Delaware averaged 20,684 fans.

And then the playoffs started.

Delaware’s first game was against a nearby school, Lehigh, just 80 miles away. With all the regular support at Delaware, the excitement of hosting a playoff game, and the opponent being just a couple hours drive away, one would assume that Delaware would have been selling more tickets than usual. It’s the playoffs, it’s to determine a true national championship, and there are only so many schools good enough to make the tournament….so it should sellout, right?

Wrong. Instead, Delaware had a playoff attendance against a nearby opponent, of only 13,669.

So perhaps it was just an anomaly.

But then after winning it’s first playoff game against Lehigh, Delaware got to host a 2nd game in the next round against one of the best in FCS, New Hampshire. The result: only 8770 in attendance.

But we know that this attendance issue isn’t limited to just Delaware.

Appalachian St. is another FCS powerhouse. After multiple FCS Championships and an upset win over FBS Michigan a few years ago, Appalachian St., along with schools like Delaware and Montana has been an FCS power.

This season, Appalachian St. averaged 29,450 in attendance against the likes of Jacksonville, North Carolina Central, Elon, Citadel, Wofford and Furman. Hardly household names to the rest of the country, but primarily conference rivals of Appalachian St.

Yet for the playoffs, Appalachian St. had only 13,332 in attendance against Western Illinois. In it’s 2nd playoff game this year, against last years national champion Villanova, the attendance was only 15,706.

That’s quite a drop.

And last year, you had Villanova win the FCS National Championship. This same Villanova program, that has been extended an invitation to join the BCS in the Big East conference, had only 4771 in attendance in it’s home national semifinal game last year against conference foe William & Mary.

The numbers don’t lie: people say they want a playoff system, but in a level that has a playoff system, those fans don’t actually have the level of interest to actually attend the games. And we’re not talking about some lower level schools that got lucky and advanced. We’re talking about programs like Delaware and Appalachian St. that average more in attendance than a number of FBS schools.

The reality is that the college football playoff system seems great on paper to the fans, but it creates a higher level of inconvenience to the fans than the current bowl system.

In FCS each summer, alumni, students and fans can plan their schedules to attend games on campus, making their arrangements months in advance. But when the playoffs start, the schedule and location of the games are unknown even a single week before. Passionate fans might change their schedules or have the spontaneity to attend a game. But that is a limited number of fans.

For basketball, many of the seats sold to neutral site games are sold to people living in that area. They are sold months in advance and the fans are buying tickets to an event, not knowing who the participants will be. Each school then has it’s allotment of tickets to sell, resulting in a what appears to be a balanced fan base…depending on the location.

When it comes to a proposed FBS football playoff, there would exist the same inconvenience for fans not having the necessary time to plan. Perhaps it means finding a babysitter, or moving a work schedule around. There are always things that come up. Because with the bowl system, the fans have a month to plan a trip. For some fans, it means a cross country trip from Pennsylvania or Ohio to get to the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles. For others fans in the SEC or ACC, it’s a convenient nearby trip to either Miami or New Orleans. Not are convenient as a trip to a nearby campus for a home game, that we know. But as we’ve seen in life, it’s often easier to plan a trip on the other side of the world with a months notice than it is to rearrange a set weekend schedule to do something just a few miles away.

It’s doubtful that the attendance drop would be as drastic in an FBS playoff as it is with even powerful FCS schools like Delaware and Appalachian St. At the top, schools like Texas, USC and Ohio St. would likely do fine based on the population of their communities. Schools that traditionally have attendance figures over 100,000 per game like Michigan, Tennessee, Penn St., etc would also likely do fine. But would there be a drop in attendance at all? Perhaps.

The assumption that all fans in favor of a playoff have is that a playoff system would be exactly on par with the NFL, where there is a huge demand for tickets to a showcase event. But what if an FBS playoffs were even a small step down from that and more similar to the FCS playoffs? If there were an average attendance drop in FCS regular season versus playoff games of 35%, is it a stretch to think that maybe the FBS attendance drop would be 5% or even 10%?

While the bowl system has more flaws than one can count, the one advantage it has is in the convenience it provides for the participating schools fan bases. In most cases, a fan of a school will have at least a month to finalize their travel plans. At the time of this article, UConn has sold roughly 4,000 tickets to it’s BCS game this year, the Fiesta Bowl. That number will grow. But how many people would travel for 4 road games in the playoffs each year? Very few. And those road tickets sold do make a significant part of many attendance figures. Fans need to look no further than watching an Ohio St. at Michigan game and seeing the number of red shirts in the crowd. And those road warriors are usually planning their trip to a rivals field with much advanced time…it’s rarely a spur of the moment decision.

The potential attendance issue is worth factoring into a playoff system because it is a real risk. If next week they announced a playoff system, the novelty would be quite high. But would it be enough to remain so that every year, you’d have all 15 games sold out when the people attending only have 1 week notice? The benefit of the NFL is that is takes place in metropolitan areas. So in addition to the regular attendees of seasonal games, you have another demographic to attend the playoffs. And in most cases, you’re talking about cities with 1-5 million people, versus college towns where the attendees are often driving from hundreds of miles away.

The risk is that the novelty could wear off with a playoff system and the attendance figures drop as they have on many FCS football campuses. And even as a TV product, a full stadium is always desired.

But the reality is that this risk will need to be put aside is a playoff system is to ever come to be. And for many fans, it’s a risk much worth taking.

Update: for Delaware’s home national semifinal game versus Georgia Southern the attendance was 10,317, half of their regular season average.

Going independent is a bold move. And we’re fine to question the logic.

BYU has said that the reason for exploring (and now going forward with) independence, has been due to the low revenue numbers for the MWC TV deals. Perhaps that’s a big factor. But it’s clear that at some level, BYU is guilty of the sin of envy regarding the University of Utah. In a blink of an eye, as the Pac-16 plan with Texas fell apart, Utah was accepting it’s Pac-10 invite. Meanwhile, BYU admins waited by the phone and never got as much as a wave by the Pac-10. Utah now stands to generate much more revenue than they have in the past. And BYU was set to get no revenue boost.

Note that with the Pac-12 being a BCS conference, they get a larger payday regardless of the TV contract. And the Mountain West has been on the cusp of a BCS autobid. Utah was leaving, sure…but they were being replaced with the top non-BCS program in football during this BCS evaluation period, Boise St. So on paper, replacing a top school like Utah with Boise St., and teaming them with BYU and TCU, made the MWC an even stronger conference; a conference that might have been awarded an autobid after next season.

And hopes for a MWC autobid are now over. It will take another long and strong run by it’s members to prove a new sense of worthiness to the BCS gods. TCU and Boise St. will need some help by a 3rd MWC program to do some damage. Maybe that will come from one of the new additions, Fresno St. or Nevada. Or maybe one of the other programs will turn things around and build a strong program. UNLV has a new coach. SDSU has the recruiting advantage. Colorado St. a solid historical program back in the Sonny Lubick
days. Whomever it is, at least 1 of the other 8 MWC schools will need to improve to a much higher level.

But for BYU, their envy of Utah and greed for more TV money, might have hurt them.

BYU will participate as an independent. And they won’t get any preferential BCS treatment like Notre Dame does.

So if BYU goes 10-1 in a season, their are no assurances that they will get a BCS invite. Meanwhile, that same record in the Mountain West would in most years assure them a spot. And with that spot comes the riches of the BCS.

For now, the only revenue boost will be from having it’s own TV schedule. But how great is that advantage? BYU will have the help of ESPN, a big reason they’ve gone down this path.

But the Goliath that is the BCS will have an even bigger advantage over BYU than it will over Mountain West programs like TCU and Boise St. Don’t be surprised in a few years if you see a 2 loss MWC team selected over 1 loss BYU team that was forced to offset 1 big game against an opponent like Texas, with a flurry of late season games against the likes of Idaho, SJSU, NMSU, LA Tech, Utah St as well as a Big Sky or MAC foe.

BYU has a challenge ahead of them. But they know what they’re getting themselves into (we can only hope). Ultimately, BYU hopes to defeat the Goliath of the BCS, but now by taking control of it’s destiny. BYU hopes to plant some seeds that will grow into an eventual Big 12 invitation and entrance into that BCS conference. And if things work out for them as an independent, the Big 12 might knock on their doors and take away the pain of being slighted by the Pac-10

As the rumors continue to spin about a proposed CUSA/MWC merger to 23 schools, there’s been more clarity that instead of this drastic option, that something else could be in the works.

Reports say CUSA and Mountain West officials have met to discuss the idea of having the conference football champions meet in a championship game. The winner of the game would then be granted access to a BCS bid.

The arrangement would not include a full merger but would promote certain scheduling concessions in sports like basketball.

The proposal would be a bi win for CUSA, which has been behind the Mountain West and the WAC of late when it comes to BCS bids. For the MWC, it’s an opportunity for them to have a 50/50 chance at an automatic BCS bid rather than relying on the polls and where their top school finishes in a given year. It’s not a stretch to envision a few years where the MWC could parlay this agreement into the automatic bid for 1 school and an at-large for another school. Such an example could be if TCU won the Mountain West and championship game with a 9-2 overall record and beat an 10-1 Boise St. team that finished in the top 12 in the BCS rankings.

There has been all this talk of lobbying congress to get them to change the system. But perhaps what congress should do is work within the current guidelines of the bowl system and give it a little push. Here’s a simple plan:


* Ask the BCS to expand by 1 more game
This would be a total of 6 games and 12 teams…new bowl could be in Dallas, Cotton Bowl.


* Provide “automatic bids” to the Conference Championship Game winners from the top 7 conferences and 5 at-large bids


* 5 at-large teams are those rated the highest in BCS standings regardless of conference

That’s it. Plain and simple.

But you have to read between the lines.

In order to have a championship game, conferences need to have 12 members. This would force a number of conferences to expand, bringing in teams not currently in BCS conferences. This could mean…

Big Ten: Expands by (1) with Rutgers
Pac 10: Expands by (2) with Utah and BYU (perhaps Colorado and then the Big 12 adds BYU which they originalyl wanted until Baylor was forced on them)
Big East: Expands by (4) with Memphis along with football-only members  Army, Navy and Temple. Replaces Rutgers with Notre Dame.

And then there is the #7 Conference. Yes, if there are 7 conferences included, that means there is one more automatic berth added to the BCS:

Mountain West: Expands by (3) with Boise St., Houston and Fresno St; Replaces Utah ans BYU with UTEP and Nevada

With all that shuffling, you’d now have the non-BCS conferences looking for replacements as well. Because they would need to be at 12 teams in order to ever be eligible for a BCS spot. And since the 7 automatic berths are simply the top 7 conferences, a good year could mean a WAC or CUSA school leapfrogs into the #7 spot for conference ratings.

Potential changes could be:
CUSA: replaces Memphis, UTEP, Houston with Florida Atlantic, Florida International and Troy
MAC: Replaces Temple with Middle Tennessee St. and expands to (14) for scheduling with WKU
Sunbelt: folds as they would have zero teams 
WAC: Absorbs the sunbelt schools and grows to (13); Replaces Boise St, Nevada, Fresno St with (7) schools – North Texas, Arkansas St, LA- Monroe, LA-Lafayette, South Alabama and FCS upgrades Texas St, UTSA

If you’re keeping track of all the schools mentioned, you’ll come to a conclusion: EVERY SCHOOL IS INCLUDED.

Yes, it would be difficult for the new look CUSA, WAC or MAC to sneak into the top 7, but it could happen. And if it didn’t, those schools would still have a chance to finish in the top 12 individually, and grad an at-large bid on their own.

The only loss would come to the Sunbelt, which would have zero schools left as they all fill slots in the WAC and CUSA.

But it’s a chance for every school to have an opportunity if they perform. And right now, the decisions aren’t based on performance.

Stick to this plan and you get 6 things:
1) Number of current schools with BCS autobids rise from 65 to 84
2) Remaining 3 conferences (47 total schools) all get chance for automatic bid if their conference finishes in the Top 7
3) Mountain West likely falls into the #7 conference spot
4) Force Notre Dame to align with a conference
5) 6th BCS game added (likely Cotton Bowl in Dallas)

6) Performance based system for BCS bowl rewards

If you want to get a feel for what the new conferences would look like, here they are:

ACC (12 schools)

Atlantic:
Boston College
Clemson
Florida State
Wake Forest
NC State
Maryland

Coastal:
Georgia Tech
Miami (FL)
Duke
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Big 12 (12 schools)

North:
* BYU
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Nebraska

South:
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M;
Texas Tech
Baylor

Big East (12 schools)

North:
Syracuse
Connecticut
* NOTRE DAME
* ARMY
* NAVY
* Temple

South:
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia
* MEMPHIS
South Florida

Big Ten (12 schools)

West:
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

East:
Illinois
Ohio State
Penn State
* RUTGERS
Purdue
Indiana

Conference USA (12 schools)

East:
East Carolina
Marshall
UCF
* FLORIDA ATLANTIC
* FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL
* Troy

West:
Rice
Southern Methodist
Southern Miss
Tulane
Tulsa
UAB

Mid-American (14 schools)

East:
Akron
Buffalo
Ohio
Bowling Green
Kent State
Miami (OH)
Toledo

West:
Ball State
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Northern Illinois
Western Michigan
* Middle Tennessee St
* WKU

Mountain West (12 schools)

Mountain:
Air Force
Colorado State
Wyoming
* HOUSTON
TCU
* UTEP

West:
New Mexico
San Diego State
* FRESNO ST
UNLV
* NEVADA
* BOISE ST

Pacific-12 (12 schools)

South:
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC

North:
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
* COLORADO
* UTAH

SEC (12 schools)

East:
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

West:
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State

WAC (13 schools)

East:
Louisiana Tech
* Louisiana-Lafayette
* Louisiana-Monroe
* South Alabama
* UTSA ~
* Texas St ~
* ARKANSAS ST

WEST:
Hawaii
Idaho
New Mexico State
San Jose State
Utah State
* NORTH TEXAS

FBS:
1.      Florida 
2.      USC
3.      Texas
4.      Oklahoma
5.      Ohio St.
6.      Virginia Tech
7.      Oklahoma State
8.      Alabama
9.      Ole Miss
10.    LSU
11.    Penn State
12.    Georgia Tech
13.    Oregon
14.    Boise State
15.    California
16.    BYU
17.    Georgia
18.    North Carolina
19.    TCU
20.    Utah
21.    Iowa
22.    Kansas
23.    Florida State
24.    Notre Dame
25.    Arizona

Others (in alphabetical order):
Arkansas, Auburn, Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, East Carolina, Houston, Miami, Michigan State, Minnesota, North Carolina State, Northwestern, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, South Florida, Tennessee, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Wisconsin

FCS:
1.   Richmond
2.   Montana
3.   Appalachian State
4.   Northern Illinois
5.   Villanova
6.   James Madison
7.   New Hampshire
8.   Southern Illinois
9.   Elon
10. Weber St.
11. Cal Poly
12. William & Mary
13. Maine
14. Woffard
15. Central Arkansas
16. Massachusetts
17. McNeese St.
18. Delaware
19. Eastern Washington
20. South Dakota State
21. Furman
22. Georgia southern
23. Texas State
24. Montana St.
25. South Carolina St.

Others (in alphbetical order):
Albany, Colgate , Eastern Kentucky, Florida A&M;, Grambling State Harvard,  Holy Cross,  Jacksonville State,Liberty,  North Dakota State, Northern Arizona,  Pennsylvania,  Prairie View A&M;,  Samford, Tennessee-Martin, UC Davis, Western Illinois, Yale, Youngstown State

There was even an informal agreement that in years when a Pac 10 or Big Ten team played in the BCS Championship game, that when either conference had a second team in the BCS, the Big Ten vs Pac 10 rivalry would remain. For example, if USC were ranked #1 and off to a BCS Championship game, and say, Cal qualified for the BCS, then the Big Ten champ would play Pac Ten school Cal.

But things are changing.

With a new rule in place, a NON-BCS conference school that qualifies for the BCS could force the Rose Bowl to invite them, even if another Big Ten/Pac 10 school qualifies and could maintain the rivalry.

Via, ESPN, here’s how it would work:

“Let’s say USC is selected for the national championship game following the 2010 season. Rather than selecting another Pac-10 team, the Rose Bowl would have to take a non-BCS team if that team is eligible for BCS bowl selection and not headed to the national championship game. So you could have the Big Ten champion against a team from the Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC or Sun Belt.”

A buttoned-up BCS finished its last day of meetings Wednesday in the city that will host the championship game in early 2010. Only BCS coordinator John Swofford emerged briefly to speak to reporters a day after the group heard a case for changing to an eight-team playoff from the current single-game championship format.

It’s unlikely that the MWC’s proposal will bring about any major changes to the BCS’s format, despite pressure from the major-college conferences largely left out of the big-money bowls, as well as legislators and government officials including President Barack Obama.

Read More…

Does anyone recall hearing some coaches this week talk about the BCS, their individual teams performances and their voting intentions in the USA Today Coaches Poll? Maybe you recall Texas coach Mack Brown touching on the subject in oh so minor detail when he said:

“I wasn’t sure before, right now, in Friday morning I’m going to vote Texas No. 1 because I think this is the best team in the country”

I know, I know, Mack Brown wasn’t very clear. He wasn’t specific. When he said “I’m going to vote Texas No. 1″ he meant “I’m going to vote for Florida“. And then there is Pete Carrol. Maybe you recall Pete Carroll proclaiming his team the best int he country. But perhaps he meant otherwise when he said

“With all due respect, those are two great programs,” USC coach Pete Carroll said of Florida and Oklahoma. “I don’t think anybody can beat the Trojans.

But Pete Carroll doesn’t vote in the Coaches Poll. So he’s free to complain but, but doesn’t have to put his money where his mouth is. Mack Brown on the other hand has no excuse. He does vote. And he said he’d vote Texas. but instead, he voted Florida. Only Kyle Whittingham of Utah did what he said he would: vote for the team he thought was #1…his own.