Bracket Busters for College Football: A Basic Template

The remaining schedules for the final three weekends of the 2012 college football regular season are depressingly mediocre… and that's being generous. This sport, which creates so much magic, can insist on a better schedule each and every November. It can find a better way to orchestrate the stretch run of its regular season. A flex scheduling plan, explained, occupies this week's Affirmation.

FLEXED NON-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
 

Alabama is trying to stay in the national championship chase… against Western Carolina.

Florida is trying to build itself up… against Louisiana-Lafayette (last week) and now Jacksonville State.

Georgia is ramping up for the SEC Championship Game by hosting Georgia Southern.

In a different but related vein, the LSU-Arkansas game that was supposed to be a blockbuster on the Friday after Thanksgiving is now a television afterthought. The same thing goes for the late-season Nebraska-Iowa "created rivalry" that was supposed to be a hot property for the Big Ten. The Friday after Thanksgiving is a college football wasteland. The December 1 television schedule – which will include horrible ACC and Big Ten Championship Game matchups – is distressingly low on sex appeal and rich in mediocrity. That's no way to close down a season on the final full-service Saturday of competition.

You get the point: What's left of the college football schedule does not get the blood pumping. Yes, this sport has a long and documented history of surprising us precisely when a given slate of games doesn't seem to offer much of any drama. Yet, let's be real: When the hour grows late in a football season, fans want to see main-event throwdowns. They want to see the best play the best… or at least, to see the best teams reveal themselves as such by conquering either gallant contenders or oversold pretenders whose 8-1 records are exposed as inflated.

The lack of across-the-board quality in the final three weeks of this 2012 season is genuinely lamentable for people who care about the value of the regular season in general. Now that college football's biggest bowl games are inking 12-year deals, the path to those financial bonanzas needs to become more difficult. If schools are going to cash in when they make the Orange or Sugar Bowls, they need to encounter more non-conference challenges in order to reach those financially beneficial destinations. Conference affiliations shouldn't matter, either.

There is a plan that can address this larger problem. There is a plan which can create sexy made-for-TV games on the third Saturday of November, instead of the SEC cupcake festival that so regularly graces this specific part of the seasonal calendar. There is a plan which can light up television ratings in the final month of the season, instead of creating relatively dead Saturday nights such as the one we collectively experienced this past weekend, when Notre Dame quietly chloroformed Boston College and the best finish by a country mile was Vanderbilt-Ole Miss.   

Please realize this before we go forward: The Weekly Affirmation doesn't blame SEC schools for doing what they do. All the reasons for those actions are well known and quite understandable. The point of flex scheduling is to create a regular season structure in which schools have less control over their non-conference schedules, and yet can cash in financially through lucrative television arrangements, offering welcome compensation for their increased degree of difficulty on the field. It's not as though this plan is designed to weaken SEC hegemony. If anything, SEC schools that do indeed outpace the rest of the country should welcome two additional stages in which they can conclusively prove their mastery and lordship over the rest of college football's wild kingdom.

THE FLEX PLAN'S FOCUS: BRINGING THE BETTER TEAMS TOGETHER IN NOVEMBER

It's hard to be exact in this process and account for every possible contingency, but it's quite possible to provide a fundamental structure for college football's gateway toward a better and more meaningful regular season, one that tests the sport's best teams in and out of their conferences, at home and on the road.

This is not a perfect plan, because there's no such thing as a perfect plan in college football. With only 12 regular-season games, it's a fact of life that national title disputes – even with a four-team playoff in 2014 – will continue to be messy and, more precisely, uneven. The No. 5 team in the country will have a problem with the decisions reached on the first Sunday of December. The comparatively small amount of evidence provided by 12 games – at least eight of them within a conference – will make it hard to distinguish one team's resume from another's. Even with the playoff format two years from now, plenty of intriguing matchups will not be actualized on the field of play.

College football can't solve all of its problems, and it will never have a perfect plan that will make all of its worries vanish. In order to uphold "the sanctity of the regular season" – the best regular season in American athletics, college or pro – there's only one thing the sport can do, now that the new versions of Bowl Championship Series games have implemented the very same conference lock-ins that were the worst and most constraining elements of the whole BCS bowl setup. What's that one thing? Stage more defining matchups in the regular season.


This should not be a point of debate or argument. The best way to make the regular season better (and the playoff/bowl process less controversial) is to stuff the regular season with as many high-quality non-conference games as possible. Could any college football fan argue that the quality of the on-field product would be hurt by such a shift in the sport's inner workings? Not with a straight face or an honest mind.

When one speaks of a "high-quality game," one isn't just talking about the names on the front of the jersey. A "high-quality game" involves teams that are known to be good, not merely "suspected" of being good. In other words, let's have a 9-0 team play an 8-1 team in November, instead of matching two teams in the middle of September, one of which will stumble to a 7-5 or 6-6 record. In September, there's a possibility that two high-profile teams will both be great at the end of the regular season. In November, one can know that two teams have earned – if not their high ranking – a chance to demonstrate that a high ranking is deserved. A 9-1 team (see Louisville or Florida) might not yet deserve to be viewed as a truly elite team, but that kind of team deserves the stage on which it can compete for a premier bowl bid and genuinely earn its way to the sport's top tier for that given season. This is why flexed non-conference scheduling – with the flexed games being played in November – can become the salvation of college football and, more precisely, its regular season. Let's unpack what this system would look like and how it would be implemented.   

THE FLEX PLAN'S ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES

The first issue to address with flexed (i.e., non-locked-in) scheduling is logistics. Under a flex scheduling plan, two non-conference games would be shifted to November, one home and one away. Teams using an eight-game conference schedule would still be able to keep their rivalry game and a cupcake game on their schedules. Teams using a nine-game conference schedule would still be able to keep their non-conference rivalry game. (In other words, a flex plan would make conferences move toward eight-game schedules. That would be a loss, but it's quite reasonable to claim that playing two flexed non-conference made-for-TV games in November would provide a level of value that would outweigh the negatives associated with the loss of a ninth conference game.)

Because of the dynamics of flexed scheduling – chiefly, that opponents would not be known when the season begins – the dates for flexed games must be locked in at an early point. The dates would need to be determined in January, after the end of the previous season. In order to include a maximum of merit-based components in this process, the defending national champion would get the first pick of dates in a three- or four-week window in November, with the regular season being bumped back one (but only one) week to accommodate this flex period. Using this season as an example, Alabama would get first pick of flexed dates. Since Alabama was scheduled to play at LSU on Nov. 3 this year, the Crimson Tide would probably have wanted to take a bye week on Nov. 10 to rest. Since flexed non-conference scheduling would involve one home game and one road game in November, the Tide might then have opted to play their road flex game on Nov. 17 and then return home for their second flex game on Nov. 24. The Tide could have played Auburn – their traditional rival – on Dec. 1. The SEC Championship Game would await on Dec. 8, the final day of a pushed-back regular season. LSU would have gained the second pick for flex dates in this plan's architecture; Oklahoma State would have received the third pick, and so on. That's simple enough on a general conceptual level, but things could obviously get messy.

What if all the schools with the first set of picks choose Nov. 10 for their bye week, Nov. 17 for their road flex game, and Nov. 24 for their home flex game? The system could not be implemented if schools flowed in one and only one direction with their choices. For this reason, only the top tier of schools would possess the ability to truly shape flex schedules. That’s not a problem, though; rewarding teams for doing well in the 2011 season as they set their schedules for 2012 is (and should be seen as) desirable. It is, however, a constraint on the larger scheduling process. 

Here's how the schedule would be amended within a framework that still gives the top teams the freedom of choice they deserve: 

First of all, if the top teams are given preferred picks, that obviously means second- and third-tier teams won't enjoy the same degrees of decision-making leverage. Therefore, the top three teams in each power conference get protected selections, but teams below them are not guaranteed anything. Notre Dame and other independents plus non-AQ schools would get a protected selection if they met a ranking criterion (20 or 30, just to provide a round number; we could arrive at the number upon further discussion). Criteria governing first right of selection and the eligible pools of opponents for a flex plan would need to be hashed out by conference commissioners and television networks. Given all the dealing that has surrounded the creation of the host/contract/access bowls, one should not worry too much about the ability of these same power brokers to create and then divvy up even more television dollars when creating TV-friendly November blockbusters.

Moving along…

Having given protected selections to top-three finishers in each conference plus qualifying teams from the indies or the smaller FBS conferences, the rest of the flex schedule can be filled in. This is where the plan's structure necessarily takes on added dimensions.

All 124 FBS teams would participate in these flexed non-conference games. With the relief of a bye week afforded to the teams that feel they'd need it (there would be plenty of takers in November), the sport would basically be trying to play 124 games over three or four weeks. The top teams (those with first dibs) would also choose when they'd want to play their traditional rivalry games, which should be preserved for every good and conceivable reason. Two acute needs quickly emerge from this backdrop: 1) Bye weeks would need to be evenly distributed among conferences. 2) The balance between home and road games would need to be evenly distributed among conferences.

Some examples:

Let's say that the top three teams in the SEC – Alabama, LSU and Arkansas – all choose their bye weeks on Nov. 10, their road games on Nov. 17, and their home games on Nov. 24. Let's then say that the top three teams in the Big 12 – Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma – all choose the same. You can't continue to go down this road. At some point, Nov. 10 has to be filled with games. Nov. 17 has to be occupied by home games in some conferences, and Nov. 24 has to include a fair number of road games for various power-conference teams. Under this specific scenario, the fourth- through sixth-place teams in the SEC and Big 12 would be forced to balance the schedule: They'd have to play games on Nov. 10, take their bye on either Nov. 17 or 24, and switch up the home-road patterns established by the top three schools in their respective conferences. Ultimately, each conference would need to arrive at balanced and proportional distribution for each week of this flex window. 

Conferences without 12 teams couldn't be neatly cut into thirds, but those with 12 could fit into this scheduling framework without too much difficulty. In the end, each of the three Saturdays in a flex schedule would have relatively even numbers of home and road games spread throughout each conference, so that the requisite mixing and matching of non-conference teams can take place. This is not something that could take place in a day, but within one or two weeks. The nation's athletic directors, conference commissioners, school presidents, and television executives could hammer out the dates. 

 
Season ticket holders at the nation's 124 FBS programs would know, at the end of January, when these November non-conference games would be played. Dates would be set in stone to give fans a head start on planning, but times and opponents would be determined later. When should the flex schedule be arrived at, you ask? That's a really good question.

A legitimate response – one that would give schools and fan bases at least three weeks' advance notice for the first potential flexed game – is to say that the selection day for the two flexed games should occur on the Sunday night following the seventh weekend of the season. After week seven, just about every team has played at least six games, or half of its regular season total. This does not offer a complete basis for determining the top tier of teams that will exist in November, but it at least uses half of the season as an observed, empirical basis for creating matchups, as opposed to pure projections or guesswork.

If college football can chuck the coaches' poll and make public the formulas used by the computer ranking systems that help generate the current BCS rankings – the two reforms that are universally seen as necessary for creating a fairer rankings process – the release of the week seven rankings (given early to the conference presidents, television executives, athletic directors, and coaching staffs) can be used as the metric by which flexed games are arrived at.

Yes, it's understandable that fans want to know the opponent in advance, but keep in mind that the notion of flex scheduling is to create top-quality matchups for your team if your team is a national championship or premier bowl contender. (The technical jargon for the 2014 postseason plan is now "contract" or "host" bowl.) In other words, fans don't need to fret about the quality of matchup if their team delivers the goods through September and October. A five-star, made-for-TV matchup awaits in November if your school claims an 8-1 or 9-0 record and inserts itself into the conversation. 

HOW WOULD FLEX SCHEDULING HAVE AFFECTED THE 2012 SEASON? 
A GLIMPSE AT A PLAN'S POTENTIAL

How would this plan have looked in 2012? Let's offer a brief sketch:

Let's start by using the week seven BCS rankings as the basis for flexing 2012 games. 

On the night of Sunday, Oct. 14, the BCS rankings looked like this:

1 – Alabama; 2 – Florida; 3 – Oregon; 4 – Kansas State; 5 – Notre Dame; 6 – LSU; 7 – South Carolina; 8 – Oregon State; 9 – Oklahoma; 10 – USC; 11 – Georgia; 12 – Mississippi State; 13 – West Virginia; 14 – Florida State; 15 – Rutgers; 16 – Louisville; 17 – Texas Tech; 18 – Texas A&M; 19 – Clemson; 20 – Stanford; 21 – Cincinnati; 22 – Boise State; 23 – TCU; 24 – Iowa State; 25 – Texas.

Keep in mind that with two non-conference games being flexed to November, teams' records through seven weeks (most likely six games) would include only one non-conference game instead of three or, in some cases, four. Teams' records and rankings would be based much more on conference play, meaning that a team like Mississippi State or West Virginia would not be able to rise as high in the mid-October (midseason) rankings.

At any rate, the top 20 or 24 or 30 teams in the week-seven BCS standings could be agreed upon (by conference commissioners, television executives, and other relevant power brokers) as the top cluster of teams, the cluster that would provide the pool of opponents for November's flexed games. The next group of 20 (or 24, or 30, whatever the number might be) teams would create its own cluster with its own tiers of scheduling rights. Oklahoma State, not in the top 25 of this year's week-seven BCS standings, would likely have fallen into this second cluster, gaining first pick of opponents in that cluster based on its No. 3 finish in the 2011 season.

What would teams have chosen?

Let's say that teams could choose one opponent in the top 20, but would have to pick one opponent from the top 10 to ensure television friendliness and a reasonable degree of difficulty. (Such a rule makes a lot of sense within this flexed structure.) Alabama, with first pick, probably would have opted for Stanford or Texas Tech. That's not a drop-everything TV date, but it's a lot better than a September cupcake. Alabama probably would have opted to make Stanford or Texas Tech its road flex-game opponent. The Crimson Tide would have then chosen – in all likelihood – Oregon State as the home flex opponent.

LSU, with the second choice of flex foes, probably would have taken Texas Tech or Stanford as well (whichever team Alabama did not choose). The Tigers also would have opted to play that game on the road. LSU would have probably followed that first decision by then picking Oklahoma or USC as its home opponent.

Instant. Schedule. Upgrade. 

It took only two teams' selections to get there, too.

Sure, the glut of SEC teams in the top 10 would mean that there wouldn't be as many available flex options within the top 10. The "one top 20, one top 10" provision would be elastically bent so that teams would simply pick the highest-ranked team available. That would decrease the amount of scheduling choice involved, but remember: Alabama and LSU would have earned the top two picks based on their achievements the previous season. It's not as though this is a primarily arbitrary system. It's based on merit to an appreciable degree.

Would a flex scheduling system create a lot of headaches and logistical challenges? Sure. Would it be painless for the schools and fan bases involved? Of course not. Would it improve quality, increase television dollars flowing into conference coffers, and give various teams – including the Boise States of the college football world – the high-visibility opportunity to prove themselves against name opponents late in the season? Yes. Yes it would.

Such a plan would unmask more pretenders in November and burnish the credentials of legitimate contenders before the bowls. Such a plan would remove ghastly week 12 television schedules – such as the one we're about to encounter this Saturday – from the sport's landscape.

Flex scheduling – it's an idea whose time has certainly arrived in college football. If the sport can lock in 12-year deals for contract bowls, it can certainly force teams to earn their way to these lucrative games in the month of November, especially in the realm of non-conference competition.