The College Football Playoff Has Messed Up Again.

 

December 11, 2023

The end of this 2023 college football season, where a champion is crowned during the four-game "College Football Playoff (CFP)," was supposed to generate fan interest and drive TV ratings. However, a wrench was thrown into the process after the Florida State Seminoles, who went undefeated (13-0) and won their conference championship for the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), were not one of the four teams that qualified for the playoff: Michigan, Washington, Texas, and Alabama.  It has caused somewhat of an uproar amongst Seminole fans, and a certain segment of overall college football fans, potentially ruining a slew of anticipated matchups among the four chosen teams.

________________________________

College football for many years was a simple process, in that schools played the teams in their conference, along with three out-of-conference games. At the end of the season, sports columnists from around the country would determine which teams were "national champions." This was done primarily through a ranking of teams in the Associated Press (AP) Top 25, along with a United Press International (UPI) Coaches Poll, which was voted by active Division 1 coaches.  These rankings were highly subjective in my opinion. In a few cases, teams that were crowned national champions had in some cases lost to teams ranked lower than them but were judged on the season, instead of head-to-head matchups (USC and Alabama in 1978 shared that title: the AP chose Alabama, and the UPI Coaches Poll selected USC). Additionally, fans of the game were upset that in 1984 Brigham Young University (BYU), which played in the less prestigious Western Athletic Conference (WAC) was crowned national champion that year.  Observers felt their schedule was not competitive and did not have a signature win to justify their title. 

There were other split champions spread out over the years, so the major conferences got together and created the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) which was another progressive attempt by conferences to unify the champion of college football between 1998 and 2013.  Previous endeavors included the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition.  The four major bowls that were, over time, to be the bowls that rotated semifinal games were the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar Bowl, and Orange Bowls. The bowl games that were not selected as semifinal hosts were given teams that were ranked within a certain bracket.

A quirk in the selection of title game participants was the use of a computer algorithm, which was not transparent in its methodology and proprietary to the creators of those models.  Like Florida State this year, in previous years Southern California (USC) in 2003 and Auburn University in 2004 were left out which resulted in anger and consternation amongst fans of the sport and the respective universities.  Tweaks were implemented in the following years to correct an evolving model to select two worthy teams to play for the national title.

The sport, despite all the corrections and tweaks, is still really a subjective beauty pageant.  Rankings for teams are selected based on the aggregate opinions of sports writers, whom I am sure get "suggestions" and are encouraged to rank certain teams higher than their merit.  Some of this is probably done by conference executives to grease the wheels for their teams. I am not a fan of this process.  

You would need to have a simple, easy-to-follow format so that teams and their players know what is needed to make the playoffs more legitimate and free from any manipulation from television partners, conference commissioners, and other interested parties. The system must be immune to pressure from outside forces.

This is what I propose (which might have saved the Pacific 12 Conference (PAC-12), which recently imploded with the defections of USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon over the past two years):

The PAC-12 was part of a group of conferences known as the "Power 5," which comprised the PAC-12, the Big-10, the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the ACC, and the Big-12. These conferences controlled the dialogue regarding bowl games and national championships, with minimal influence from the National Collegiate Athletic Administration (NCAA), and set the agenda for the sport.  This group also includes the University of Notre Dame because they are a wealthy and influential independent brand name (in 2013 Notre Dame agreed to partially join the ACC, with an agreement to play at least 5 ACC schools every year). 

The playoff format I think would work best is an eight-team format.  Each conference champion gets an automatic berth, along with three at-large teams from any conference or independent Notre Dame. The at-large teams would be based on non-conference victories that must be ranked in the Top 15 with an impressive strength of schedule (to be determined by a CFP committee, and metrics must include road wins against Top 10 teams, along with schedules that include strong non-conference games, which are chosen by the school years in advance).

Once all eight teams have been selected, they are seeded based on the overall strength of the schedule.  This means just because you are a conference champion, you do not get a home game in the first round of the playoffs. An at-large team with a better non-conference and Top 10 road wins should get a home game.  This rewards schools that schedule tougher opponents.  

There would be three rounds to determine a champion.  In round 1, all eight teams play.  In the next round, the remaining four teams would be re-seeded by the committee and the two semifinal games are played between the rotating group of four major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange).  The final round would be played in one of the two remaining "Big Four" bowls.

This format shares some similarities with the format being used now, notably the shared hosting duties for the semifinals of the "Big Four" bowl games.  The main difference is that you are protecting and rewarding winning your conference, but not providing a sense of entitlement that a conference winner will get a home game in the first round of the playoffs.

I think this format would be a better option than the current CFP model the sport is using now.  My proposal protects winning your conference, while not shutting the door on great teams that are not able to play for their respective conferences.  I think my idea has merit, and the powers that be should use it, instead of the 12-team playoff that will come into effect next year (that's too many teams!).

I welcome any feedback and am open to a better proposal for how college football can crown a true national champion in the future.

PAC-12 is Dead: College Football Is All About Money Now.

 

September 1,2023

College football over the last 10 years has seen monumental change, with universities abandoning conferences, and severing decades-long rivalries and relationships, in pursuit of massive amounts of television money and a path to a 'national' championship.  For now, its popularity continues to thrive.  However, over the long term, college football is entering unchartered territory, and its future and relevance hang in the balance. One of the casualties of this chaos is the PAC-12 Conference, the "Conference of Champions."  It has produced many individual and team titles but in primarily non-revenue generating sports, such as soccer, track & field, tennis, golf, and swimming. Its undoing was mostly due to a lack of overall success in the multi-billion-dollar world of college football, where television money is king.

_______________________________

The Pac-12 Conference morphed over the years from various incarnations to what it was briefly in the last 8 years, with schools mostly from the West Coast and the 'four corners' states of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona.  It began in 1915 as the Pacific Conference with four founding schools, which at that time included the University of California at Berkeley (Cal), University of Washington, University of Oregon, and Oregon State University. A year later the conference added Washington State University, followed by Stanford at the end of that decade. A few years after that the conference added the University of Southern California (USC), and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). It went through a few other forms before finally becoming the Pac-8, made up of those schools minus Idaho and Montana, who had joined for a few years but left for other conferences (Wikipedia).  In the late 1970s, the conference added the University of Arizona and Arizona State University to become the Pac-10, which did not change for close to 30 years.

During that time, a few schools became name brands, notably USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon. USC especially, became part of the national consciousness, winning several national titles under legendary coach John McKay in the 1960s and 1970s and 4 Heisman Trophies (for best college football player) by their running backs (Mike Garrett, O.J. Simpson, Charles White, and Marcus Allen). Their commissioner at the time was Tom Hansen, a dedicated servant to the athletics departments of its member schools.  He was not a visionary by any means, but he put the conference first and made schools improve their revenue generation to compete nationally.

During a period of 30 years, (1962-1992) USC, and once each by UCLA and Washington, was able to claim an outright or shared national title, which was respectable, but not what other conferences were able to produce (BIG10, Southeastern Conference (SEC), or Big-8/Big-12 and Big East) during that same time span. There were long periods when none of the PAC-12 schools were relevant nationally.  

National championships were at times shared between schools (USC and Alabama in 1978, Washington and Miami in 1991for instance) so the television networks, along with the major conferences, created a format whose goal would pit the top two schools in a title game, which was called the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).  The first game of this new type of format took place in 1998 when the Tennessee Volunteers defeated the Florida State Seminoles.  This format, was itself flawed because it based its rankings that determined the two finalists on subjective opinions of sports journalists.  The PAC-12's only representative in the format was USC, which played in 2 consecutive BCS title games, winning one (in 2004, which was later vacated due to sanctions by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA).

I think one of the reasons for the lack of relevancy between PAC-12 member schools was that although they generally cared about being competitive in football, they did not care as much as presidents, athletic directors, and boosters (supporters) of schools in other conferences. Those conferences just cared more, which resulted in more money being spent on facilities, coaching staff, and stadium improvements which in turn attracted recruits and ambitious coaches.  Additionally, fans and boosters spent more money on their fandom, and the aggregate passion amongst those groups showed in the university's product on the field and producing players that were ready for the NFL. Over time, that passion led to better television deals with the networks, such as ESPN, NBC Sports (for Notre Dame football only), and Fox Sports.  ESPN and Fox Sports have massive deals with the SEC and BIG10 that separate them from the others. The SEC Network and The BIG10 Network, which is popular amongst fans of those conferences, drive high viewerships for its member schools and generate revenue that other conferences can only dream about.

This revenue gap is the primary reason that other conferences lose members and will most likely fade away, the PAC-12 being the main one so far. The dominoes began to fall at the beginning of this century when the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) was able to poach schools from The Big East (Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, and Miami), which effectively ended that conference overnight. In 2011, Missouri and Texas A&M left the Big 12 and moved to the SEC.  Around the same time, Colorado left the Big 12, and along with Utah, moved to the PAC-12.  This game of musical chairs intensified when Texas and Oklahoma, two titans and power centers in the Big 12 announced recently to join the SEC in 2025.  That effectively crippled the Big 12, but the conference didn't fold. It was able to rebound and bring in new schools Brigham Young University (BYU), University of Central Florida (UCF) University of Cincinnati (UC), and the University of Houston (UH). These invites helped stabilize the Big 12 and it was able to secure a viable television deal that saved the conference.  Time will tell if it will be a player in the new era of college football.

This leaves us with the conference that now requires hospice care. The PAC-12 traded unassuming Tom Hansen in for a "new age" commissioner, Larry Scott in 2009, who prioritized image over substance (moved the conference headquarters to expensive San Francisco, and assumed a PAC-12 Network, similar to the SEC and Big10, would become highly lucrative and turned down expansion at a time when they should have done so). He, along with university presidents and athletic directors, had a chance to incorporate Oklahoma and Texas into their conference in 2011 but decided against it when the deal included bringing in their in-state siblings Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. In hindsight, it should have been a brilliant move, one that would have made the PAC-12 the nation's premier conference with its various athletic sports (football, basketball, soccer, baseball, etc.). Instead, those schools left for the SEC, the Big 12 is on stronger footing, and the PAC-12 is now on life support. 

Once USC and UCLA saw the writing on the wall, in that their payouts per year from a new television deal with their current partners would pale in comparison to the BIG10 and the SEC, the schools formally notified their conference that they had accepted bids from the BIG10 to join in 2024.  The financial gap between the PAC-12 the BIG10 and the SEC would be too great to match, and they would fall behind, especially in football, and realize they had to break relationships and rivalries in order to remain competitive with their national aspirations to become relevant again. With the addition of USC and UCLA, the BIG10 now becomes a coast-to-coast conference, one that boasts name brands such as Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, and now USC and UCLA.  It is the reason their new television deal is lucrative ($7 billion over 7 years with NBC, Fox Sports, and CBS), with yearly payouts per school to be between $80-$100 million, something the PAC-12 could not offer both Los Angeles schools.

Once USC and UCLA left, the remaining schools had to adapt and make choices quickly.  Colorado returned to the BIG12 and brought Utah along with it.  Later, the University of Arizona and Arizona State left a sinking boat and were accepted by the BIG12 as well. That left four remaining schools, Washington State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal. While the two academic powers in the Bay Area have attractive appeal nationally, there is no final decision on their end yet. For Washington State and Oregon State, the best option would be to join the Mountain West Conference.  They may not make as much money, but they would get more stability in return. As of now, no new movement has been verified, but effectively, the PAC-12 needs to be given its last rites soon. George Klaviakoff, the current conference commissioner, is the captain of the Titanic now. He needs to jump into a lifeboat. The ship is going down.

Television money is what college football has more of, and that made the universities lots of money, which they spend lavishly for their alumni, hiring the best coaches at market value, and seeing their endowments rise with football success.  The sport has moved away from "mythical" national titles, into formats that let play on the field determine who is best. However, there is a cost for this largesse.  Long-standing rivalries, academic relationships, and the ability to travel to your favorite away game in a college town will be lost.  It has shown that colleges and universities care a lot about money, rather than academics, especially when it fuels success in athletics, notably football and basketball. Tradition, history, and symbolism will be traded in for excess in facilities and spending. That is what motivated USC and UCLA to leave a conference they have been a part of for decades.  

It goes to show that leadership and foresight do play a large role in financial success in college athletics.  The SEC and the BIG10 have or have had, conference commissioners that saw the value in being aggressive and confident with their product (football), and the value of that product has generated large sums of money for their schools.  It helped that their fans were some of the most passionate around the country. The PAC-12 had a commissioner who did not understand what he had and assumed what he did not (rabid fan base), and convinced conference presidents and athletic directors to put all their chips in a television network that would not bear fruit. Instead, it would become an albatross around the neck of potential revenue streams that would have allowed the conference to be competitive nationally.  They focused more on what schools would be a better fit academically during a potential expansion (Texas) rather than what schools would help generate viewership for their product (Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State) and bring in revenue to make them serious players on the national scene.  As a result, the PAC-12 was undone by obtuse presidents and athletic directors trusting a commissioner who could not deliver on what was required in this new era, money and viewership of their product. This made the conference less competitive and ultimately ruined their future as a group and splinter into schools looking out for themselves.

RIP PAC-12

1915-2024

2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar: A Sweet and Sour Fan Experience

 

February 3, 2023

Last November and December, the world sat transfixed as one of soccer's greatest stars, Lionel Messi, led his native Argentina to their elusive third world title in the tiny country of Qatar.  It was a controversial moment in December of 2010 when FIFA awarded a country with no soccer history or culture, the pinnacle of the sport's international tournaments.  It turned out to be a World Cup with many underlying negative storylines (its stance on LGBTQ issues, international workers, and women's rights). Those issues still did not overshadow the incredible games that progressed over the monthlong tournament.   

______________________________

The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most memorable football tournaments in recent memory, possibly ever.  The important issues being discussed before the quadrennial event were the dubious process and methods that awarded the spectacle to a tiny country with no real soccer culture or commercial appeal.  What did entice voting members of FIFA's Executive Committee was the rumored, large sums of money that were given to those who voted favorably for the gulf state. I remember reading countless online publications and watching ESPN once Qatar was announced as the winner over the heavy favorite, the United States.  There was palpable shock and surprise, and shortly after, many media pundits and sports anchors believed there was some unfortunate, backroom horse-trading that transferred votes to the gulf state.  Additionally, the specter of imported workers from poor regions of Asia, Africa, and India building these gigantic stadiums, which resulted in an unconfirmed (official) number of deaths, received a small amount of negative publicity. It was talked about relatively little in Western media (including during the World Cup by the late soccer writer, Grant Wahl), but nothing was really proposed to protect workers from these practices leading up to the World Cup.

The games themselves were full of drama, with doses of "shock and awe", and had many surprising teams pull off victories for their passionate supporters, some of whom traveled in large numbers with them.  In the group stage, viewers saw the eventual winner Argentina lose to Saudi Arabia, generally a minnow in international soccer. Japan surprisingly defeated the 4-time winner, and global powerhouse Germany along with European power Spain, which allowed them to win the tough Group E and eliminate Germany from the knock-out rounds.  Germany has not made it out of a World Cup group since 2014,  the year in which they last won it all.  That is a mind-blowing statistic for a country that produces stellar players and has a reputation for being tough opponents to beat consistently.

Another country that captured the world's attention and support was Morocco.  The north African country has never made any waves in tournaments they have played, but in Qatar, they beat Belgium (2-0), Canada (2-1), and tied 2018 Runner-Up Croatia (0-0).  They beat Group E runner-up Spain in the Round of 16 (3-0) and defeated Cristiano Ronaldo in the Quarterfinals to make a historic statement by making the Semifinals, the first time an African team has made it.  They won the hearts of many soccer fans, but their journey to mythical status was cut short by the defending World Champions, France.  They would eventually lose the 3rd place game for an impressive fourth-place finish.  They are the new bar for African teams when they participate in this tournament now.

After the failure of not qualifying for the 2018 tournament, the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) made it to Qatar with a young, talented squad that was a little "wet behind the ears." Most soccer analysts believed the U.S. team would stand a good chance of getting out of the group, but advance no farther than the Round of 16, which is what happened when the United States ran into a solid Netherlands team.  I for one had hoped the men would put up a good fight, and they did in spurts throughout the game, but three fatal failures during the run of play and on defensive lapses sealed their defeat.  Most USMNT fans feel the results were acceptable of the tournament but now hope that with the experience on the world stage behind them, the team can do great things in front of their home fans when this great tournament comes to Canada, Mexico, and the United States.  I would love for them to make a final (and even win!) on home soil, but I am just hoping for a good show and a respectable run.

The 2022 FIFA World Cup champion, Argentina, even though it was one of the favorites, did not start the tournament well.  After their defeat to Saudi Arabia, their next game against Mexico would be pivotal; this would tell soccer fans whether they had the horses to get back on track.  While Mexico provided a good test, Argentina passed with flying colors and would win their group. In the Round of 16, they held on against a tough Australia squad (who nearly equalized in injury time), 2-1.  Next up was the Netherlands in the Quarterfinals, which was a dark horse team to go far in the tournament. It was one of the best games to date.  The Dutch went down 1-0, then 2-1 until Wout Weghorst tied the game in injury time.  It was one of the most surreal endings to a soccer game I have seen in many years (outside of LAFC tying the Philadephia Union in the Major League Soccer [MLS] Final the other time). Neither team scored in Extra Time, and the game was decided in penalties, which the Argentinians won in dramatic fashion. Leo Messi and his fellow Abliceleste (White and Sky Blue) easily handled Croatia in the Semi-finals.  

The final, Argentina vs. France, matched countries that have previously won the World Cup twice, and the winner would win their coveted third star above their crest.  In the first half, Argentina set the pace, controlling possession, and keeping French striker Kylian Mbappe at bay, for a comfortable 2-0 lead at halftime.  The second half saw France exert itself, using two penalties and a beautiful third strike by Mbappe to send the game into Extra Time and giving him a hat trick in a final, something that has not been done in 60 years. This classic would go to penalties, which can go either way, but this time, whether it be destiny or luck, Argentina won. It gave Argentinians something to celebrate, lifted a huge burden off of Leonel Messi, and put him in rarified air with another Argentine legend, Diego Maradona.  It was a fitting end to this great tournament.

Now that the tournament is over, there are things that FIFA can do to ensure that future World Cups do not have any negative stigmas surrounding the build-up before the first game is kicked off. The Executive Committee should enshrine in their rules that any host country, or countries, must pass certain criteria and benchmarks that promote equal rights for all: LGBTQ and especially women. Those who build the infrastructure (stadiums, roadways, FanFest locations, etc.) must have protections so that their welfare is paramount and will not be abused during the lead-up to the tournament.  No country bidding to host the FIFA World Cup that excludes ethnic or religious minorities, people who have been historically abused or mistreated, or do not have equal rights, should be allowed to win hosting rights at all. This must be strictly enforced, no matter how much money a bid amount is thrown at FIFA's Executive Committee (I am looking at you Qatar).  This is known as "sport washing," where a country with a dubious track record of protecting human rights and authoritarianism is allowed to host global events (World Cup, Olympics, F1 racing) and launders their sins through these sporting spectacles, and buys or bullies for positive press during a monthlong tournament, like the World Cup.  Qatar and China are two countries that exhibit this idea. FIFA should be stringent in the guidelines that Executive Committee voting members must adhere to in order to vote for a country's winning bid.

The United States, which is co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup with Canada and Mexico, has some of the best stadiums in the world, and along with a strong currency and economy, it should break all kinds of attendance, viewership and attendance records (that it held since the 1994 World Cup in the United States).  The U.S. Men's National Team and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) need to get their house in order before that event arrives in America, however. Recently, it was discovered that there was tension between two families within the U.S. soccer community, those of current coach Greg Berhalter and Claudio Reyna, both of whom played soccer together for years: club, college, MLS, and the USMNT. Since Mr. Berhalter did not play Gio Reyno (son of Claudio) regularly during the recent World Cup, Mr. Reyna's wife told senior officials at the USSF that he had assaulted his wife nearly two decades ago.  This purported blackmail, so that Greg Berhalter is punished for not playing their son and not allowed to return to coaching the national team, has been a serious black eye for the men's program.  

The federation needs to remove all parties who are involved and associated with any previous misdeeds and not allow them to feature prominently for either MLS or the USSF.  The USSF needs to find a coach with a solid track record of taking a group of players and having them play above their weight, to coach the latest generation which has proved it has more talent than the teams of the past.  Hope springs eternal, and for once in 2026, it may meet expectations for U.S. men's national team fans.