HK3: Revised Postseason Format (3/3)

The third (and final) component of the comprehensive HK3 Proposal for college football is a revised postseason format.

The revised postseason format builds on both of its predecessor parts — the conference realignment structure (HK3 component 1/3) and the regular season scheduling protocol (HK3 component 2/3).

By virtue of equitably aligning the conferences, HK3 proposes a more symmetrical and efficient regular season protocol.

And by virtue of the regular season protocol, which structures conference and non-conference play into a 14-week, 12-game regular season for all 144 FBS teams, HK3 is enabled to propose a two-phased college football postseason which restores value and integrity to the bowl system while preempting the need for playoff expansion.

Rather than being subordinated by a superseding postseason entity, the entirety of bowl season would precede the playoff, and serve as the most relevant and weighted data point for the invitational playoff to evaluate.

Moreover, HK3 proposes a bowl game revenue sharing model, consistent with the timely institution of player compensation, which would appropriately align the interests of college football and its players in a performance-based structure.

The playoff itself is then held constant at four teams. Together, the phased postseason preserves the bowl game tradition and achieves that which playoff expansion sets out to achieve, but in a format that uniquely embodies college football, while solidifying a hard maximum of 15 games for a team — a figure which should not be breached at the collegiate level.

Altogether, HK3 represents a carefully considered, comprehensive vision for college football, benefitting from synergy as it balances the impacts of these three core components of college football. Such cohesion results in a whole of college football greater than the sum of these parts, representing a marked deviation from the counterproductive practice of piecemeal part change that results in a fractured whole.

Update: 2021 HK3 Postseason Simulation

The Postseason

Second only to the over-weighted value of the regular season, most unique to college football is the tradition and significance of the bowl games. What March Madness is to college basketball, the Frozen Four to college hockey, and the College World Series to college baseball, the bowl game tradition, not the playoff, is to college football.

The bowl game tradition dates back to 1902, when the Tournament of Roses Association sponsored a Tournament East-West football game between Michigan and Stanford. The ninth such game, the 1923 matchup between Penn State and USC, was the first held at the newly constructed Rose Bowl Stadium, which conferred its name to the eponymous Rose Bowl Game.

The 101st such game, the 2015 matchup between Florida State and Oregon, was the first ever College Football Playoff (CFP) game. The greatest error in the CFP’s implementation was that it was positioned alongside the bowl games, commandeering a couple bowl games and promoting them as superior, rendering the others as de facto consolation prizes.

A disproportionate amount of attention is concentrated on these two semifinal bowl games, reinforced by a weekly CFP show which asks, “Who’s In?”

The upshot of having two bowl games populated by the four in-teams, is that all other bowls become, by definition, the not-in bowl games. Far worse, these non-playoff games have increasingly been referred to as meaningless bowl games, as best articulated by Josh Pate.

What happens when you abhorrently slander these great traditional bowl games? The players listen, and ask themselves, why would I subject myself to something meaningless, particularly if I have Sunday football aspirations?

Much interest and high-profile participation is thus lost in these non-playoff bowl games — a new phenomenon directly correlated to the institution of superseding bowl playoff games and the reckless language adopted to promote them.

And while bowl opt-outs are merely the norm now, the unfortunate impact of the nonchalant use of meaningless, as defined by no longer playoff eligible, threatens to invade further backwards into the regular season, particularly if the playoff is expanded, almost akin to Newton’s Third Law of Motion — by attempting to push interest further forward into an expanded postseason, interest in the regular season is detrimentally pulled backwards in the regular season.

Alternatively, the bifurcation of college football’s postseason into two successive parts would enable the CFP to become a complement to the bowl games, rather than a cannibalizing competitor to it.

Thus, the overarching problem is that the CFP unsuccessfully attempted to integrate the existing bowl framework as opposed to reimagining a multi-part postseason in which the CFP could exist while preserving the sanctity of college football’s regular season and bowl games.

A simple 12-team playoff expansion would further diminish both the regular season and bowl season. An ill-fated misdiagnosis, a 12-team playoff represents yet another uninspired piecemeal solution, incapable of solving the problems it professes to address. Consider, what would become of the traditional bowl games when there exists an 11-game, 12-team tournament, and what is the likelihood that the existence of such a tournament would cause the opt-out mentality to further percolate into the regular season?

The Revised Postseason

The revised postseason format would commence immediately following the conference championship games (week 14), with the title-only revival of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Each bowl game would be the 13th game for each team, taking place in weeks 16–18.

Having restored the BCS era six automatic qualifying conferences into the new Power 6 Conferences, the P6 now would perfectly shape the top tier of a tiered bowl system. Important to note — so as to not result in marketing hierarchies or unintentional language drifts, tiers are not intended to be used colloquially, but rather to solely articulate and segment the bowl game selection process.

The top tier honors traditional bowl tie-ins and strictly adheres to pre-determined conference affiliations.

Tier 1 (T1) Bowls

Rose Bowl Game (Pasadena, CA) — January 1 (~5pm EST)

(Big Ten team, presumably winner of the Big Ten Championship, vs. Pac-12 team, presumably winner of the Pac-12 Championship).

Sugar Bowl Game (New Orleans, LA) — January 1 (~8:30pm EST)

(SEC team, presumably winner of the SEC Championship, vs. Big-12 team, presumably winner of the Big-12 Championship).

Orange Bowl Game (Miami, FL) — January 1 (~1pm EST)

(ACC team, presumably winner of the ACC Championship, vs. Big East team, presumably winner of the Big East Championship).

Note — Consistent with the Rose Bowl’s “Never on Sunday” tradition, and in deference to NFL Sundays, no bowl games would occur on Sundays. In such years, these T1 bowl games shall occur on Monday, January 2nd.

The strongest T1 conference affiliation historically is the Rose Bowl Game. Of the 107 Rose Bowl Games, P12 and B1G schools have appeared in 99 and 71 respectively. The SEC has appeared in 79 of 87 Sugar Bowls, followed by the 31 of the B12 (and, by extension, the Big Eight/SWC). And since 1999, the Orange Bowl has had a direct tie-in with either the ACC (currently) or Big East.

Each bowl game (at all tiers) would have a selection committee which would include, but not be limited to, representation from bowl game management, local community/business leaders, affiliated conferences (if any), game sponsors, television partners, and a group of former legends (who participated in that game).

It is these committees, which would have a strong collective vested interest in fashioning and making the bowl exceptional, which would formally invite participants. A secondary role of the committee is to ensure great experiences for the players and the fans, by developing event activities (such as concerts) to stimulate excitement and tourism. To boot, as described later, the players would have a newfound interest in enhancing their bowl games as well.

It is exceedingly likely that the Rose/Sugar/Orange would select their respective conference champions on every occasion; however, it too is conceivable to imagine a scenario where a two-loss #2 seed narrowly defeats an undefeated #1 seed in a rematch game.

Note — By simple majority vote (>= 7–5), any P6 conference can vote to make it automatic that the conference championship winner gets birth in Rose/Sugar/Orange.

All T1 bowl games are intended to be played on the same day, in an unrivaled triple-header, in order to allay concerns of extra preparation time / rest ahead of the playoff.

Tier 2 (T2) Bowls

Cotton Bowl Game (Dallas, TX) — Dec 30/31 or Jan 2

(7th Selection vs. 8th selection)

Fiesta Bowl Game (Las Vegas, NV) — Dec 30/31 or Jan 2

(9th selection vs. 10th selection)

Peach Bowl Game (Atlanta, GA) — Dec 30/31 or Jan 2

(11th selection vs. 12th selection)

T2 bowl games are populated via a rotational draft, whereas the Cotton/Fiesta/Peach would each get the 7/8, 9/10, 11/12 selections once each, every three years.

Note — A 7/10, 8/11, 9/12 selection order is palatable, though such would, on most occasions, prevent the most competitive and desirable matchup.

Furthermore, at least one G6 school must be selected within T2, becoming compulsory to the 12th selection if no G6 selections are made by 7–11. Schools from the same conference cannot be selected into the same bowl; however, non-conference re-matches are permitted.

Tier 3 (T3) Bowls

T3 bowls comprise the balance of the bowl games, outside of the still-called New Year’s Six, as there is no further utility derived from further tier hierarchies. T1/T2 exist for the allocation of the most prestigious games, which, on nearly all occasions, would exclusively populate the CFP.

T3 bowls would number roughly 30 postseason games, representing a 13th and final game for teams to register a postseason win and conclude a great season.

Having 30 T3 bowls would create postseason opportunities for exactly half of the FBS. T3 should contain a hard limitation of 36 games, which would extend postseason opportunities to 58.3% of the FBS, including some with losing records.

While some would criticize the existence of 42 bowl games as too many, such criticism is entirely trivial, as those who do not possess a love of college football sufficient enough to watch, simply do not have to.

While not undertaken in this proposal, college football should also find the opportunity to de-clutter the branding of T3 bowls. Too often, bowl games primarily take on the name of their, often fleeting, sponsors, disrupting the recognizable continuity of the games.

For example, the Gator Bowl existed from 1946–1985, before taking on title-sponsors Mazda, Outback, Toyota, Konica, Progressive and TaxSlayer.com. From 2014–2017, the Gator Bowl went solely by the TaxSlayer Bowl.

Or, the former Queen City Bowl, aptly named for the nickname of its location, Charlotte, North Carolina. Since its 2002 inaugural game, the Queen City Bowl has been renamed as the Continental Tire Bowl, Meineke Car Care Bowl, Belk Bowl, to the current Duke’s Mayo Bowl.

Bowl games should feature simple names with a partiality for things that grow near, or are otherwise profoundly associated with, the game setting. A notable exception would be the Outback Bowl, continuously sponsored by Outback Steaks for 25 years, thus worthy of being grandfathered in.

This is not to suggest that sponsors should not be heavily involved in the branding and fanfare surrounding the bowl games. College football should actively seek sponsors, both existing and new, committed to enhancing each bowl game experience.

A perfect example is the (recently announced) sponsorship of the Arizona Bowl by Barstool Sports. Barstool has announced that it will incorporate unique features to the pre-game and in-game experience. But rather than renaming the Arizona Bowl as the Barstool Sports Bowl (a la Duke’s Mayo), it added its branding to the bowl game logo:

Much is left to do here, but below are some cursory suggestions, while demonstrating my personal preference for retro branding:

· Alamo Bowl (San Antonio, TX)

· Aloha (or Pineapple, or Aloha Pineapple) Bowl (Honolulu, HI)

· Bahamas Bowl (Nassau, Bahamas)

· Birmingham (or Yellowhammer) Bowl (Birmingham, AL)

· Cactus (or Copper) Bowl (Glendale, AZ)

· Citrus Bowl (Orlando, FL)

· Famous Idaho Potato Bowl (Boise, ID)

· Holiday Bowl (San Diego, CA)

· Independence Bowl (Shreveport, LA)

· Las Vegas Bowl (Paradise, NV)

· Liberty Bowl (Memphis, TN)

· Music City Bowl (Nashville, TN)

· New Mexico Bowl (Albuquerque, NM)

· Outback Bowl (Tampa, FL)

· Poinsettia Bowl (Inglewood, CA)

· Sun Bowl (El Paso, TX)

With new bowls in:

· Austin, TX

· Charleston, SC

· Hattiesburg, MS

Proposed renames:

· Boca Raton Bowl to Palm Bowl (Boca Raton, FL)

· Redbox Bowl to Silicon Bowl (Santa Clara, CA)

· Quick Lane Bowl to Cherry Bowl (Detroit, MI)

All bowl game matchups would be announced the day immediately following the Week 14 conference championship games, via a televised unveiling show, and would take place between mid-December and January 5.

New scheduling uniformity enables the simplification of bowl eligibility standards to simply having 6 wins. Depending on the number of bowl games, teams without 6 wins may be needed; however, no team without 6 wins can be slotted into a bowl game until all FBS bowl eligible teams have been invited to at least one bowl game, regardless of acceptance.

Revenue Sharing Model

Bowl games are post-season, non-regular season games — in fact, they’re celebrations, slash validations, of successful regular seasons. As such, we can approach them differently than on-campus regular season games, starting with this seemingly obvious, yet important distinction.

As we enter this new era of college football in which players are able to be compensated, starting with their marketability value, the unique structure of bowl games enables the creation of a revenue sharing model inclusive of a fixed, to-be-determined proportion of television advertising revenue, ticket sales revenue, and merchandise/concessions sales revenue.

This player allocation of shared revenue would then be distributed between the two participating teams, in one of the following proportionalities:

• 66.6% and 33.3% to the winner/loser respectively, thereupon the winner gets 2x more allocation than the loser.
• 75% / 25%, thereupon the winner gets 3x more.
• 80% / 20%, thereupon the winner gets 4x more.

Non-participating players, barring legitimate injuries, would, by definition, too not participate in the revenue share.

Since bowl opt-outs originated from the dis-incentivized nature, particularly the deterring terminology, of non-playoff games, it’s incumbent upon college football, or at least those of us who want to restore college football bowl games to their pre-playoff statures, to re-incentivize players with a new motivation mechanism — the introduction of player compensation, stemming from the Supreme Court’s unanimous striking down of the NCAA’s amateur model, provides such a timely apparatus.

With the traditional allures decaying, it’s clear that bowl games will not regain the ground, both interest and participation, already lost without a reoriented incentive regime.

This proposal would incentivize a player, through the entirety of the regular season, to reach the best bowl game possible (as more prestigious bowls would demand greater sponsorship and advertising revenue), to promote the bowl game in which he plays (thus too promoting the sport as a whole), and to both compete in and win the bowl game (which is in his direct best financial interest).

Needless to say, players taking an active role in promoting and creating compelling bottom-up narratives as to why their bowl games are greatly meaningful, as opposed to inculcating the players from the top-down that their bowl games are meaningless and subsequently bemoaning the lack of star participation, would represent a stark contrast and would greatly benefit the sport.

Many are fearful of the new era of college sports that Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) has ushered in. However, sports television ratings are driven by player familiarity and storyline awareness. For me, sustained amateurism was itself never sustainable. I instead see the prospect of players promoting both themselves and the sport, earning due compensation in the process, as an exciting new paradigm.

Currently there is a justifiably increasing tendency for momentum to subside towards the end of the season, as the playoff picture narrows and as alternative, non-playoff bowl games have become less appealing. The proposed bowl game revenue sharing model would counterbalance this later-season tapering by re-injecting spirit and ambition into the bowl games, a crescendo of the indispensable regular season, preceding just the…

College Football Playoff

The invitational CFP would follow bowl season. Equipped with an additional data point (the bowl season), a select CFP committee, similar to the existing, would subjectively select the top four teams in college football, with expansion deemed not just unnecessary, but counterproductive.

Currently, the CFP commandeers a couple of the most prestigious bowls, rendering all other non-playoff bowls axiomatically less important. By running the CFP subsequent to the bowls, rather than concurrent, HK3 restores the integrity and value of the bowl system.

No longer irrelevant, the bowl system thus becomes part of the process to determine the playoff, the gateway which further informs the selection committee in the evaluation process with greater conviction, thus preempting the need for an expanded playoff. It would do the heavy lifting that an extended postseason would strive to achieve, but within the confines of what uniquely embodies college football.

Most frequently, yet not assured, three of the four spots would be allocated to the T1 bowl champions, leaving one additional spot, be it to a T2 champion or T1 loser (T3 champion is also possible yet highly unlikely). Therefore, the lack of automatic qualifications preserves two college football relics: subjectivity and debate.

Below are two scheduling alternatives for the CFP, both of which explicitly dovetail NFL scheduling, both of which achieve a much-needed scheduling alteration — shifting the championship game away from Monday, a night which far fewer people are inclined to go out/get together/stay up late…Like many others, as someone who has, on far too many unnecessary occasions, been bleary-eyed on a cold January Tuesday, I, of the highest order magnitude, believe the Monday night National Championship needs to be retired without delay.

• Semifinal games to be held Friday night of the NFL’s Wild Card weekend. The CFP Championship game to then be held the following Friday night (of the NFL’s Divisional round).
• The CFP Championship game to be held eight days prior to Super Bowl Sunday, on what is typically a vacant football weekend, save Sunday’s nonthreatening Pro Bowl. The Semifinal games to be held seven days prior to the Championship game, on Saturday of the NFL Conference Championship weekend (both AFC/NFC games held on Sunday).

Prior to the NFL’s elongation of its regular season, which has pushed the Super Bowl back a week, my preference would have been for the latter alternative which has the added benefit of adhering to the Saturday college football norm, but as it would now result in an even longer break in the college football postseason, and far later finish than the status quo, I currently lean towards the former.

Semifinal games are proposed to be held on campus, hosted by the higher seeded teams, though considerable pushback is expected to said proposal. On-campus semifinal games is by far the greatest remedy for the stale nature of the existing CFP. (Not pondered in HK3 is if there should be a specific minimum weather standard [temperature and/or conditions] for on-campus outdoor semifinals).

If we are to have a playoff system, there is little doubt that the majority of it should exist in the natural environment of the sport, in its unique venues, as opposed to lethargic NFL stadiums in nonsensical cities. On-campus semifinal games would also enable the creation of special bowl games, such as the following examples:

The intensity and insanity of on-campus semifinal games simply could not be rivaled by pre-determined NFL stadiums. The championship game can however remain in a predetermined neutral location, though consideration should too be exerted here.

Pertaining to its size, the bottom line remains that there is no need to triple the size of the playoff. That which threatens the regular season, threatens college football itself.

If the expanded playoff is an effort to demonopolize and to generate greater parity, such efforts fail to understand that it is far more likely that matters related to NIL will dictate and/or redistribute power within the sport.

College football has always featured dominating powers, and will always continue to do so. The issue is that college football veered away from it truly is, in favor of something that it never was.

G6 Playoff

In addition to the CFP, there exists an opportunity to institute a Group of 6 Playoff (G6P), with four participating teams drawn exclusively from the Group of 6 conferences.

Important to note, while the G6P is exclusive to the G6, the CFP is not exclusive to the P6; a G6 team can be invited to the College Football Playoff. In such case, the G6 school would have the right to accept the CFP invitation prior to, and in lieu of, G6P seeding.

Conclusion

College football finds itself at a pivotal and existential inflection point. Sweeping change is afoot, begetting further unfettered change.

And most unsettling is that there is a great enabling void, further reinforcing this fait accompli.

In such an absence, piecemeal changes will prevail. Teams will shift conferences in a chaotic mad scramble, each pursuing their own self interest, gobbled up by conferences acting in their best interests. Meanwhile, television networks will advocate for nonstop expansion as part of their self-interest.

The end result will be undoubtedly unrecognizable and, in all likelihood, undesirable.

College football greatly needs a comprehensive and carefully considered proposal which synergistically integrates a conference realignment structure, regular season scheduling protocol and revised postseason format.

Without such a unifying alternative vision for the sport, college football might soon succumb to a devastating sequence of unilateral changes, each disjointedly directed by conflicting self-interest.

The HK3 proposal represents an alternative to the lack of alternatives.