I.       GENESIS - VISION

The Plan evolved out of several debates, sometimes heated, with friends and family members of how to design a methodology, which would derive a true, uncontestable National Championship of Division I NCAA college football..
Early Stages
Research was conducted on all conferences and the four independents. In 2008/2009, 34 bowl games required 68 teams. This represented 57% of the 120 FBS eligible schools. The bowls began on December 20, 2008 and ended on January 8, 2009 with the usual controversy as to what team was really the national champion.
Prevailing Philosophy
In order to bring about change, I do subscribe to the philosophy that you must “follow the money”. This plan does just that.
 
II.     MISSION STATEMENT

The clear objective of this plan is to provide Division I college football an indisputable national championship while preserving as many of the rich “bowl traditions” that college football has enjoyed for many years.
 
III.   CHAMPIONSHIP STRUCTURE

1.     There are 48 teams invited to the New Bowl Championship Series. The selection committee (which may or may not be made up of the current members of the current BCS committee) ranks the 48 teams, numbers 1 through 48 and “seeds” them much like the NCAA men’s basketball tournament (see enclosed 2008 Mock-up Bracket).
 
2. The top 16 teams receive a first round bye.
 
3.     The second tier 16 (17 through 32) host the third tier 16 (33 through 48) always commencing the Friday and Saturday immediately following Thanksgiving.
 
4.     The first round winners play the bye teams in the second round at already existing “first tier” bowl locations commencing the Thursday, Friday and Saturday the week immediately following Thanksgiving.

5.     Those winners play the following Friday and Saturday at already existing “second tier” bowl locations.

6.     Those 8 winners play in four games on Christmas Day in the Florida Citrus, the Fiesta, the Sugar, and the Outback bowls.

7.     Those 4 winners play in two games on January 1 in the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl each year.

8.     The winners play for the undisputed national championship, when the TV executives decide, but no earlier than January 8th. The “big four” bowls continue to rotate the national championship game as they do now.

IV.    COMPELLING OPPORTUNITY
 
1.     This plan provides the opportunity for the NCAA and the various bowl board members to work together so that they both “win” and the fan wins by having an undisputed national championship each and every year.
2.     Last year there were 34 bowls. This plan requires 31 bowl locations in addition to round one’s 16 home games. My plan currently requires that 3 current bowls be left out of the New BCS. The option exists that the 3 bowls that I left out replace 3 of the home teams so that only the top 13 teams of the second tier (17 through 29) would have home games the first round (instead of 16).
3.     I have included the Nielsen Ratings and the viewership numbers (see enclosed). I am not in advertising, but my belief is that the TV ratings of first three rounds of the New BCS tournament would significantly increase (see below for further discussion). I will leave it to other professionals that can accurately predict what this increase would be, but it no doubt translates into “millions more money” for all to share. The NCAA would have more than a little to say about how the money is “shared”.
4.     The increased viewership and attendance at these games would greatly solidify some first tier bowls’ financial positions. It appears that the “big four” share proceeds which enables them to all provide an equal “pay out” to each conference/team. This type of structure may be investigated to enable each round to have the same type of equal pay-out.
5.     Although teams that advance should be fairly compensated for each victory, a compensation plan should be devised to where the advancing teams receive a limited pay-out, with the excess left for the NCAA or others to decide how to share the overages. The 20 teams left out of last year’s Mock-up Bracket would have grossed approximately $17,375,000. To make up this loss some of the additional revenue could go to FBS conferences/team. Obviously, the net amount required by each institution would be far less because they would not incur any costs of “going to a bowl”.

V.    DISCUSSION
 
1.     Starting the new BCS allows for 12 Saturday dates for the regular season (see enclosed date schedule). This would equate the number of games played by most of the FBS teams BEFORE a bowl game. There are a few teams that do play 13 due to conference championships.

2.     Universities desirous of seriously being considered by the selection committee should consider their 12 game regular season opponents carefully. However, teams that do not receive an invitation to the New BCS, can schedule intra-state or rivalry games with more flexibility. I see no reason why contingency games “if we don’t make the New BCS, we’re going to play so-and-so”. If 48 teams are invited to the New BCS, that leaves 72 teams potentially looking for a game. Technology allows for contingency ticket sales, travel and lodging. The Top 48 is published and available for all football programs to be able to plan for this contingency.

3.     The structure of the new BCS will require the non-bye teams to potentially play 18 games to win a national championship, if they elect to schedule 12 games in their regular season. More than likely, the championship will be played by two of the bye teams, which will require them to potentially play 17 games for them to win a national championship. This is three more than they play currently (including a bowl game). Of course this only affects two of the 120 NCAA Division I teams. Continuing with this thought, only 4 teams are guaranteed to play two more game than they currently play. Extending the season is no doubt the largest hurdle of this plan. However, it should be noted that even though most teams stop the “regular season” around Thanksgiving and don’t play another game until late December or early January, the players are still hitting each other. There are those that would argue that a long lay-off not only creates the potential for “rusty” play, but also the potential for serious injury to players due to a lack of intensity during the lay-off. The college athlete of today is not the athlete of yesterday. Historically, seasons have gotten longer as the athlete has evolved.

4.     For all but 8 teams, the season is over on the second Saturday of December, providing the student athlete time to focus and get their studies in order.

5.     Even though this plan potentially requires more games, there are more days between most rounds than the athlete has during the regular season and almost over two weeks before they would play their 15th game on December 25th. The format can almost be looked at as though there is the possibility of a mini 3-game post season for only 8 teams.

6.     I have also come up with shortening the regular season by one game and starting the tournament the Saturdays before Thanksgiving. This would reduce the potential of games required down to 17 to win the national championship.

7.     The reward for the first 16 teams is a bye, but the second 16 are rewarded with a home game. This establishes new goals within individual football programs. 

8.     This plan opens the BCS to all 120 NCAA Division I universities. This plan provides the framework for more parity and an equalization of revenues, WITHOUT REDUCING THE CURRENT BCS BOWL ELIGIBLE CONFERENCE’S REVENUE.  The current financial disparity between “automatically qualified” and “non automatically qualified” BCS universities is unfair. This plan can enhance the revenues for all non-BCS bowls without affecting the BCS bowl revenue streams. It is my contention that even the BCS revenues will increase as more of the population participates in “bracketology”. There are those that will only follow the championship, but I contend that those would constitute a new fan base.

9.     From a recruiting standpoint, which is better, a coach that had a 6-6 record touting to his recruit that we went “bowling” (to a lesser bowl) or  “we now have the chance to play for the National Championship”? I can see the smiles on hundreds of recruits’ faces. The athlete wants to play on national TV, on a national platform, this play-off plan provides all programs that opportunity.

10.   This plan attempts to maintain tradition. The Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl will be played every January 1st. In my opinion, this is the way it should be. The pageantry that accompanies both bowls remains intact. Christmas day used to be a big college bowl day and this plan re-establishes this tradition (move over NBA). The Fiesta Bowl and the Sugar Bowl will always be played on Christmas Day. The Capital One, the Outback, the Holiday, the Cotton, the Champs Sports, and the Gator bowls may agree to rotate for Christmas Day bowls much like the big four do for the national championship.

        The plan creates new tradition. The day after Thanksgiving would now belong to college football like it has never before. First round host teams would make the second tier (17 through 32) ranked teams highly sought after. It is no longer the “Top 25” but rather the “Top 48” in three groupings that command the fan’s attention. The Top 48 will only increase the importance and interest level of the regular season.

        The enticement of smaller universities playing “the big school” is greatly reduced because of more parity. Appalachian State versus Michigan is a great story and is not to be short-changed, but I for one would give up games like that to have the benefit of seeing games that the enclosed play-off structure would bring.  Notice what some of those early match-ups would have been. In the second round Penn State gets a rematch with Iowa, Northwestern versus Oregon (Big 10 versus Pac 10), and Pittsburgh versus Cincinnati, to name a few. Anyone looking at the 2008 Mock Up Bracket has got to be excited at what this play-off format would bring in the future.

11.       The other existing bowls gain significantly, more prestige and importance by hosting games that lead to the “Final Four” and the ultimate National Championship. The bowls argue that they are not just a game, but rather an event. I believe this structure allows for bowls to plan their event in exactly the same fashion that they currently enjoy. It may even be easier as the play-off format requires consistent dates from year-to-year.

12.   The quality of the “match-ups” at each game is greatly increased. Imagine some of the match-ups not only during the early rounds but as the tournament progresses. The importance of the traveling fan base of each school is not to be overlooked but from a purely financial standpoint, is diminished and replaced by other revenues. The bowls currently bring in important “foreign” dollars into the 29 communities. Now local businesses can sponsor corporate events at the smaller bowls with a great deal of certainty that a high quality match-up will occur. In my 2008 Mock Up bracket, I do not see a “poor” or “ho hum” game.

13.   It is not the intent of this plan to under value what college football means to hundreds of thousands of fans but for any play-off plan to have any chance of materializing, the financial considerations must be addressed and at least maintained, if not, enhanced.

14.   An argument can be made that more revenue from this format COULD transcend from football into other NCAA sports, bringing even more parity to sports like men’s and women’s basketball. Some of this additional revenue could be earmarked for academic scholarships as well.

15.   Some traditionalists have argued that the regular season is actually a play-off. Webster defines a play-off as “a series of games, as between the leading teams of two leagues, that play in order to decide a championship”. Regular season games do not qualify as a play-off. The Bowl Championship Series is advertised as a national championship series, which is not really accurate.

16.   There exists the possibility of an “NIT Tournament” or similar at the end of the regular season for teams bubbling under the Top 48.

17.   This is a true championship format and does not reward mediocre performance during the regular season. The argument that the regular season is not important is not viable. One loss does not rule out a team’s chances at winning the national championship. A case in point would be last year’s USC team that got beat in mid-season. That loss pretty much negated any chances that USC would play for the national championship. How much more meaningful would USC’s or any other one loss team’s regular season be knowing that attaining the national championship is not over with one loss. Let’s include Utah in the discussion. Utah would have gotten even more attention because of their opportunity to win the championship on the field of play. A play-off creates more interest in the regular season, not less.

18.   I consider myself a traditionalist. I didn’t want a DH, or wildcards, extra divisions, or inter-league play, but in every case, I was wrong because each change created more interest and excitement.

19.       The current BCS has been in existence for over 10 years now and if it were to be “shelved” it would not take long for “things to get back to normal”. My plan does not destroy the bowl system, I believe if this plan does not work, it would not take things long to get back to normal.

20.   The NCAA March Madness selection show received a 4.3/18 Nielsen Rating. I am not sure how much money that show generates for the NCAA, but add this new revenue to overall pot.

21.   The 2009 Nielsen Ratings for CBS during the first 8 days of the March Madness tournament were 5.9. The men’s national championship received a 17.2 Rating. Compare that to the FBS national championship’s Rating of 26.767 one can easily see that the first rounds of my play-off plan will generate at least two or three times what the first and second tier bowl games generate. Adding two or three times the TV revenue to the overall revenue is not a bad thing.

22.   Lastly, the athletes will embrace this format, especially those athletes at the 51 universities that currently do not have a feasible chance of winning a national championship. The athletes that I have had the opportunity to speak with “hate” the lay-off between the regular season and their bowl. There is excitement in looking towards the bowl, but is difficult staying sharp and in tune. I think this format provides them, all of them, the opportunity to do their best on an even playing field, which is what the NCAA should be all about. The financial side of things has impeded the opportunity for “fair play”. It is time for change.

VI.    SUMMARY

This came about because I selfishly desire to have an undisputed National Champion, each year. With all due respect given to the current participants, it is just not right that arguably the best sport the NCAA has to offer is the only one that does not have a play-off to determine its champion. The NCAA does sanction 88 other national championships, a system must be developed to crown an undisputed champion.

The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and reliable. I am in no way representing myself as some “guru” of the sport, just a fan….  By the way, the 2008 Mock-up Bracket assumed that there would be no upsets. Football upsets are easier to accomplish than in many other sports. It is my contention that numerous upsets would have taken place and would have only supported the New BCS system.

VII.      COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION

            There several original and feasible ideas to this plan.

1.         The concept of utilizing existing ALL or significantly all of the bowls in a championship series is unique. Some of the bowls are already used in the current Bowl Championship Series, which has been deemed by the US Congress as being not a true championship.

2.      This plan keeps the existing bowl structure and importance (actually increasing their importance in most cases) in post regular season play is unique.

3.      Mr. Derrick Fox, President and CEO of the Alamo Bowl was quoted on Friday, May 1, 2009 under oath in front of the Sub-Committee of the US Congress as saying, “Every play-off proposal that he has seen undermines the importance of the bowls”. This is because the bowls would probably disappear in short order if a play-off structure did not include them.

4.      The suggestion of a play-off using some of the bowls is not new, it is the systematic implementation of “tiering” the bowls (lesser bowls used for the earlier rounds) is what is unique with this proposal.

5.      The utilization of the first “tier” bowls for the earlier rounds in conjunction with the highest powered bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta) without changing or impeding the importance of these bowls is also unique.

6.      The inclusion of all members of the current NCAA Football Division I in this national championship plan is unique.

7.      The tiering of the 48 invited contestant universities into 3 groups of 16 is unique and provides the 3 groups clear hierarchical benefits. The top ranked group of 16 receives a first round bye, the second group is awarded the benefit of being the host at their home location for the first round. The last group is awarded the opportunity to play in the tournament.

8.      The introduction of the concept of having teams host the first round of the play-off is unique in conjunction with the utilization of the existing bowls in subsequent rounds.

9.      The concept of revenue sharing is not new but providing the NCAA and its members a way to completely even the playing field in determining an undisputed national championship by providing a framework from which to derive more revenue is unique. Increasing the fan interest at all host (home) and first tier bowls is in part, this framework.           

10.    Incorporating my plan into the current BCS bowl structure and the rotation of the national championship is unique.

Denny Miller
Las Vegas, Nevada