Part 1
From sitting with family in front of games to news-clippings and scrapbooks, to published contributor — Billingsley is a success story born out of determination to find the formulas behind what he became such a fan of watching.
Richard Billingsley was born into a college football family wherein his parents and grandparents loved the sport. As he grew, so did his fascination with college football statistics.
In 1960, Billingsley began keeping scrapbooks of stats that he’d clip from newspapers. He would repeat this scrapbook exercise for the next 30 years of his life.
In 1990, 30 years after his first scrapbook was put together, he began the arduous process of entering them into his personal computer. Working a day job, he entered in the stats during the evenings and on the weekends. Four years and 10 sore fingers later, he completed this task.
In 1996, the NCAA published Billingsley’s records in the NCAA record and facts book. This was the first time Billingsley was ever published.
In January of 2001, Michael MacCambridge of ESPN came across Richard’s website (http://www.cfrc.com) and noticed a perfect match. Michael was looking for college football statistics dating back to 1869, while Richard was hoping all his research would culminate into a resource book. The two of them met in Dallas and the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia was born.
“There is no way I can ever thank Michael enough for bringing me on board for this project. I was truly honored to be a major contributor, including the All Time Scores, Poll Progressions, Conference Standings, and my greatest honor, to have my computer rankings listed right next to the AP and Coaches polls as ‘official national champions’ in college football,” Billingsley said. The college football encyclopedia and Richard’s database contain every college football game ever played.
The beginning of the BCS
The BCS began in 1998. It was intended to declare a national ranking system for college football with the No. 1 spot naturally being the consequential champion. The BCS is an 11 conference committee.
The BCS is a system that uses computer generated rankings and human opinions to compile a ranking of teams in Div 1A college football. They were weighted 50/50 in 1998 to form a resulting ranking.
The computer rankings used were by Anderson and Hester, NY Times and Sagarin. The human opinion polls were from the Associated Press and the USAToday coaches poll. The computers ranked all division 1A teams(112 in 1998) while the opinion polls ranked the top 25 teams.
In 1999, the BCS system was altered to include five computer systems. Billingsley’s system was one of the five. The other five computer systems were Richard Dunkel, Anderson & Hester, Kenneth Massey, David Rothman and the Scripps Howard News service (Herman Matthews).
The Scripps Howard News service had a sports writer named Herman Matthews. Matthews was a pioneer in this regard, as he began ranking players all the way back in the 1940s. Herman passed away last summer. Herman Matthews was a standard bearer in modern college football rankings (along with the Dunkel Index). Herman began his system in the 1940s, was published in Football News during the 1960s and later by the Scripps Howard news service.
Peter Wolfe and Wes Colley replaced the New York Times and Richard Dunkel in 2001.
In 2001, the highest and lowest result of the six computer systems were discarded, and the middle four ranks were averaged.
Another change in 2001 was switching from the computer rankings and human polls being 50 percent each to a 33 to 66 percent split respectively. To the commissioner, Billingsley has suggested changing this back to 50/50 every year.
In 2002, margin of victory was no longer included by computers to rank teams. Previously teams were believed to run up the score in an effort to aid their ranking with a more convincing win. In 2002, a win simply became a win.
After being a member of the BCS from 1999-2001, Matthews resigned in 2002 rather than remove margin of victory from his system which he stated would have “compromised his beliefs,” Billingsley points out, “I was the one who spearheaded the removal of margin of victory from the BCS formula in April 2002. It was the only point Herman and I ever disagreed on and in spite of our difference of opinion, we remained good friends until his death in 2008.”
David Rothman also resigned in 2002. He too disagreed with the removal of margin of victory.
In 2005, the Harris Interactive Poll replaced AP as the second opinion poll.
Current makeup:
Human opinions polls: USAToday and Harris Interactive.
Computer rankings: Billingsley, Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Colley, Massey and Wolfe.
The BCS is a common topic, yet one that often has misinformed individuals spouting their opinion on the subject. Billingsley said, “The BCS has changed with the times. We’ve discussed the changes, in addition, the archiving of internet articles is useful in some regards but, without dates on many articles it also leads to poor outdated research when you can’t decipher when an article originated. The BCS could do a better job of promoting the process as well. “
Even with the BCS declaring one winner from a BCS championship game, some further confusion remains as to which team is eventually No. 1. Currently there are 21 sources listed in the NCAA Record and Fact book as determining who the national champion is.
The statistical whiz explains, “The BCS has given us the opportunity to match two teams for the BCS national championship. That doesn’t mean the winner is the only team that can claim they’re No. 1. Any team ranked No. 1 (by any recognized ranking or poll) has the right. It’s what’s good about college football and what’s right about it.”
Strength of schedule is a formula wherein if a team plays a better opponent than another team, that first team would then be deemed to have a harder schedule or a schedule with more strength.
The six computer systems are all different. Billingsley thinks of himself as a statistician while the others are mathematicians.Billingsley’s system includes a strength of schedule formula he has come up with over the years. This is soley an earned formula, not a predictive method for computing it. To reiterate, in September, the Billingsley ranking system does not project wins and losses for games in November, only the games that have been played.
“All six computer rankings have unique systems that make them great,” Billingsley said. For me personally, I think what sets my system apart from the other five is my rule of head to head and my method of strength of schedule.. I’m proud of those in my computer ranking system.”
One little known fact Billingsley points out, “College schedules are made 10 years in advance which is a considerable problem. The Oklahoma game against the University of Miami was expected to be a big game but as times change, it wasn’t. Michigan scheduled Utah expecting a creampuff game. Colleges should switch to making their schedules three years ahead, four at most.”
In Richard’s system, strength of schedule is not based on won-loss record but the current rank of the opponent the day of the game. An example would be if Utah is playing 3-0 Michigan and Alabama is playing 3-0 Arkansas State, in most computer systems Arkansas State and Michigan would be worth the same as opponents. In his system, if Michigan was ranked 20th and Arkansas State was ranked 80th, then beating Michigan would be worth about three times as much as Arkansas State. His system is the only one that does this. His system calculates strength of schedule different than the others do.
The BCS has been a very positive influence on the sport overall.
“It’s a very controversial system but sometimes controversy brings about more excitement,” Billingsley said. A lot of the increases in attendance and viewers can be attributed to the BCS.” Much like the BCS, the internet has grown dramatically since 1998, also aiding the popularity of college football. The availability of information helped make college football more exciting.
Billingsley said, “Anytime you can get people (fans) interacting about a sport (chats, blogs and such) that’s the lifeblood of any sport. The internet probably involved a lot more people that weren’t involved before. The internet has a lot to do with it too.”
To better determine his strength of schedule rating for his computer system, Billingsley went about polling the six most prominent coaches in college football: Joe Paterno of Penn State, Darrell Royal of Texas, Frank Broyles of Arkansas, LaVell Edwards of Brigham Young, Barry Switzer of Oklahoma and Paul Bear Bryant of Alabama. During his research, he discovered that each coach felt their team was far better late in the season(in November) than the early part of the season(in September). The coaches felt their teams had time to gel since the players had more experience in their system, they committed fewer mistakes and penalties. As a result, Billingsley weights the later games of more importance than the early games.
Some Strength of Schedule Questions relating to Richard’s computer rankings
If team A beats the No. 1 team in September, but in December that former No. 1 team is now ranked 20th, does that negatively reflect their rating weakening their strength of schedule?
“No, playing No. 1 helps for one week. Mine is a unique rating system amongst the other computer rankings. The rankings are cumulative so the opponent is rated as the No. 1 team and then the other weeks are added to it. It’s not recalculated. Each week has its own merits.”
What if three teams are very, very close since BCS is a two team system?
“It (the result) is two regardless. Two examples would be Nebraska and Oregon in 2001 and USC and Auburn in 2004. “ Does it make a difference if it’s a home game or a road game?
“63.8 percent of home teams won in 2008 compared to 59 percent in the 80s. Teams get more credit for road wins.”
Why the increase?
“The talent is evenly spread out. Very emotional players react to the crowd. When players feel the adrenaline rush they’re more capable than 20 years ago. They’re bigger and faster than 20 years ago. Their athletic ability......they’re better players now. “
The biggest issue seems to be when team A beats team B but team B is ranked higher still. How do you fix that?
“That’s my biggest gripe as well. I see it often in polls. My system has a head to head rule which makes this happen less. There are exceptions to the rule which does prove there’s a reason for it.”
Mississippi ranked lower than Texas Tech after they beat them in a bowl game?
“That’s an excellent example. During the entire season, Texas lost to just Oklahoma and Mississippi. Mississippi lost four times, four times.”
Why wasn’t Utah No. 1?
“Utah was No. 1 in four computer polls, it was the human polls that skewed things as such for Utah.”
Why didn’t Utah get to play for a national championship?
“With the 50th ranked schedule, playing Alabama was as high as Utah could get. What’s to say Oklahoma and Florida wouldn’t have gone undefeated had they played a 50th ranked schedule?”
BCS changes over the years
I’m honored to be a part of it. The BCS has been a work in progress of sorts. People have to understand it was a unique approach to combine human polls and computer rankings to try and create a format to bring the No. 1 and No. 2 teams together. It’s a very difficult thing to do. Because of that, there’s been significant changes in the formula. We saw margin of victory removed. We saw the format streamlined removing and separating strength of schedule for computers. For the most part changes that have been made have been what I consider positive change.
There is a couple I disagree with.
In 2005, they diminished the role of the computer rankings from 50 percent to 33 percent; by doing so, they diminished the role of strength of schedule by 17 percent. They made the decision to drop the highest and lowest rankings of the computer rankings and I think that was a mistake. I believe the BCS is already saying it has the six best by narrowing the possible computer rankings it could use from greater than 100 to just six. If it’s the six best and one says a team is No. 1 then that team deserves to be No. 1.
In regards to the low number, no one wants to hurt anyone’s chances with their rankings. Keeping the high number though, would have been a better choice.
Further changes to the BCS
In addition to the 50-33 percent switch and the high number, Billingsley would like to see the deadline for voting on the human polls delayed from Sunday at 11am until Monday at 11am.
“We ask coaches and sports writers to make important decisions, decisions that impact the game and millions of dollars (when it’s not the best time to do so),” Billingsley said, “maybe on a red eye flight. Maybe when they’re tired and worn out they might not even have all the info they need then. They should have all day Sunday to research and gather information to make sound decisions. Give them a proper amount of time,” Billingsley said.
He would like the BCS to allow the release of the rankings to be Monday too.
“Sunday is an NFL day, let them have it. Release the polls Monday afternoon and let them talk in the media Monday night. It would be a smarter way to market the BCS,” he said.
Part 3
Recently, President Barack Obama and several Congressman have spoken of correcting the BCS. They seem to believe there is not a clear cut national champion and Americans must have such a result to a sports season.
Richard doesn’t believe “the national championship issue is even an issue.”
Richard opens the NCAA record and fact book and points to the list of national champions listed there since 1869, then he states “one of former Texas Coach Darrel Royals favorite sayings was ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ The national champions are listed in the NCAA official record book. Where’s the problem?”
In 2003, the BCS was brought before Congress for an antitrust violation. The result, there was no violation.
In 2009, Richard thinks things are quite similar to 2003 and has a message for Congress. “If Congress wants to decide, let them vote to see who is No. 1. Let them have their own poll and put it in the NCAA record book with the others. There was no violation then, there will be none this time.”
The proposed “solution” before congress is for a four game playoff system.
Richard is not in favor of this. That would push the college football season to 16 games, the exact total the NFL teams play in the regular season. “This is not a pro league, wouldn’t they suffer the same brutal injuries as NFL players do then? If college players played four more games they would miss final exams which would adversely affect their education. So few college players ever play in the NFL, kids earning an education should be paramount to anything suiting our (fans) needs.”
The proposed solution would also include 300 teams from division 1 thru three of college football making the field too large to manage into a tournament format.
The proposed playoff system solution would involve the best team from each conference. Billingsley points out, “This would mean that in 2008, Texas, Texas Tech, Alabama and Oklahoma State wouldn’t be eligible; four of the better teams in the nation in 2008.”
“Going back to the issue of the playoffs has given me the opportunity to take a firm stand against college football playoffs. The reason is because I recognize clearly that college football is such a unique sport with unique players. People trying to make a playoff system are trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn’t support the sport.”
“College football is not the NFL, it’s not the NBA. Major College football is not small school college football.”
“Yes, it can be done but why should it be done? Just because the NFL and basketball and small college do it, doesn’t mean it’s right for major college football.”
“Players in the NFL are paid millions to go on the field to perform their job in order to have playoffs. We are asking 18,19,20 year-old young men to go on the field an extra 3-4 games and do it for nothing, but the glory of the fan to say this is the best team.”
“You can have it in basketball because they can play 3-4 games a week.
“You can’t even do two games a week in college football. Small colleges do play home and home series moving 10,000 people to do it, but in major college football you have to consider bowl games at neutral sites and trying to move 80-90,000 out for the 3-4 extra games per year.
Richard would like to meet President Obama and have the opportunity to discuss the BCS with him. He’s confident he can convince him that a playoff system is not needed in college football. If he had to concede one thing to Congress, it would be a “plus one” playoff system. However, he is firmly against a college football playoff.
“I’m tired of people trying to make it seem like it’s not a unique amateur sport. There’s nothing wrong with college football today and the (tv and attendance)stats bear that out. There’s nothing wrong so why fix it?”
“BCS has given us the opportunity to match two for the BCS national championship. That doesn’t mean the winner is the only team that can claim they’re #1. Any team ranked #1 (by any recognized ranking or poll)has the right. It’s what’s good about college football and what’s right about it.”
Q&A
College coaches struggling in the pros, thoughts?
It’s very different. College coaches need to relate to young people, that’s why Switzer was so successful. He knew how to relate to young people and that was to his advantage. In the NFL, their(the players) innocence is gone. They’re dealing with adults not playing a game but working a job. They still have to relate to players but the NFL is a business. Players are almost property.
Has so many underclassmen leaving school early to play in the NFL lessenned the talent pool in college football?
Yes. It all began when Herschel Walker sued the NFL to become eligible for the draft as a junior and has gone downhill ever since. It’s a shame, these kids need to understand that an education is most important.
From sitting with family in front of games to news-clippings and scrapbooks, to published contributor — Billingsley is a success story born out of determination to find the formulas behind what he became such a fan of watching.
Richard Billingsley was born into a college football family wherein his parents and grandparents loved the sport. As he grew, so did his fascination with college football statistics.
In 1960, Billingsley began keeping scrapbooks of stats that he’d clip from newspapers. He would repeat this scrapbook exercise for the next 30 years of his life.
In 1990, 30 years after his first scrapbook was put together, he began the arduous process of entering them into his personal computer. Working a day job, he entered in the stats during the evenings and on the weekends. Four years and 10 sore fingers later, he completed this task.
In 1996, the NCAA published Billingsley’s records in the NCAA record and facts book. This was the first time Billingsley was ever published.
In January of 2001, Michael MacCambridge of ESPN came across Richard’s website (http://www.cfrc.com) and noticed a perfect match. Michael was looking for college football statistics dating back to 1869, while Richard was hoping all his research would culminate into a resource book. The two of them met in Dallas and the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia was born.
“There is no way I can ever thank Michael enough for bringing me on board for this project. I was truly honored to be a major contributor, including the All Time Scores, Poll Progressions, Conference Standings, and my greatest honor, to have my computer rankings listed right next to the AP and Coaches polls as ‘official national champions’ in college football,” Billingsley said. The college football encyclopedia and Richard’s database contain every college football game ever played.
The beginning of the BCS
The BCS began in 1998. It was intended to declare a national ranking system for college football with the No. 1 spot naturally being the consequential champion. The BCS is an 11 conference committee.
The BCS is a system that uses computer generated rankings and human opinions to compile a ranking of teams in Div 1A college football. They were weighted 50/50 in 1998 to form a resulting ranking.
The computer rankings used were by Anderson and Hester, NY Times and Sagarin. The human opinion polls were from the Associated Press and the USAToday coaches poll. The computers ranked all division 1A teams(112 in 1998) while the opinion polls ranked the top 25 teams.
In 1999, the BCS system was altered to include five computer systems. Billingsley’s system was one of the five. The other five computer systems were Richard Dunkel, Anderson & Hester, Kenneth Massey, David Rothman and the Scripps Howard News service (Herman Matthews).
The Scripps Howard News service had a sports writer named Herman Matthews. Matthews was a pioneer in this regard, as he began ranking players all the way back in the 1940s. Herman passed away last summer. Herman Matthews was a standard bearer in modern college football rankings (along with the Dunkel Index). Herman began his system in the 1940s, was published in Football News during the 1960s and later by the Scripps Howard news service.
Peter Wolfe and Wes Colley replaced the New York Times and Richard Dunkel in 2001.
In 2001, the highest and lowest result of the six computer systems were discarded, and the middle four ranks were averaged.
Another change in 2001 was switching from the computer rankings and human polls being 50 percent each to a 33 to 66 percent split respectively. To the commissioner, Billingsley has suggested changing this back to 50/50 every year.
In 2002, margin of victory was no longer included by computers to rank teams. Previously teams were believed to run up the score in an effort to aid their ranking with a more convincing win. In 2002, a win simply became a win.
After being a member of the BCS from 1999-2001, Matthews resigned in 2002 rather than remove margin of victory from his system which he stated would have “compromised his beliefs,” Billingsley points out, “I was the one who spearheaded the removal of margin of victory from the BCS formula in April 2002. It was the only point Herman and I ever disagreed on and in spite of our difference of opinion, we remained good friends until his death in 2008.”
David Rothman also resigned in 2002. He too disagreed with the removal of margin of victory.
In 2005, the Harris Interactive Poll replaced AP as the second opinion poll.
Current makeup:
Human opinions polls: USAToday and Harris Interactive.
Computer rankings: Billingsley, Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Colley, Massey and Wolfe.
The BCS is a common topic, yet one that often has misinformed individuals spouting their opinion on the subject. Billingsley said, “The BCS has changed with the times. We’ve discussed the changes, in addition, the archiving of internet articles is useful in some regards but, without dates on many articles it also leads to poor outdated research when you can’t decipher when an article originated. The BCS could do a better job of promoting the process as well. “
Even with the BCS declaring one winner from a BCS championship game, some further confusion remains as to which team is eventually No. 1. Currently there are 21 sources listed in the NCAA Record and Fact book as determining who the national champion is.
The statistical whiz explains, “The BCS has given us the opportunity to match two teams for the BCS national championship. That doesn’t mean the winner is the only team that can claim they’re No. 1. Any team ranked No. 1 (by any recognized ranking or poll) has the right. It’s what’s good about college football and what’s right about it.”
Strength of schedule is a formula wherein if a team plays a better opponent than another team, that first team would then be deemed to have a harder schedule or a schedule with more strength.
The six computer systems are all different. Billingsley thinks of himself as a statistician while the others are mathematicians.Billingsley’s system includes a strength of schedule formula he has come up with over the years. This is soley an earned formula, not a predictive method for computing it. To reiterate, in September, the Billingsley ranking system does not project wins and losses for games in November, only the games that have been played.
“All six computer rankings have unique systems that make them great,” Billingsley said. For me personally, I think what sets my system apart from the other five is my rule of head to head and my method of strength of schedule.. I’m proud of those in my computer ranking system.”
One little known fact Billingsley points out, “College schedules are made 10 years in advance which is a considerable problem. The Oklahoma game against the University of Miami was expected to be a big game but as times change, it wasn’t. Michigan scheduled Utah expecting a creampuff game. Colleges should switch to making their schedules three years ahead, four at most.”
In Richard’s system, strength of schedule is not based on won-loss record but the current rank of the opponent the day of the game. An example would be if Utah is playing 3-0 Michigan and Alabama is playing 3-0 Arkansas State, in most computer systems Arkansas State and Michigan would be worth the same as opponents. In his system, if Michigan was ranked 20th and Arkansas State was ranked 80th, then beating Michigan would be worth about three times as much as Arkansas State. His system is the only one that does this. His system calculates strength of schedule different than the others do.
The BCS has been a very positive influence on the sport overall.
“It’s a very controversial system but sometimes controversy brings about more excitement,” Billingsley said. A lot of the increases in attendance and viewers can be attributed to the BCS.” Much like the BCS, the internet has grown dramatically since 1998, also aiding the popularity of college football. The availability of information helped make college football more exciting.
Billingsley said, “Anytime you can get people (fans) interacting about a sport (chats, blogs and such) that’s the lifeblood of any sport. The internet probably involved a lot more people that weren’t involved before. The internet has a lot to do with it too.”
To better determine his strength of schedule rating for his computer system, Billingsley went about polling the six most prominent coaches in college football: Joe Paterno of Penn State, Darrell Royal of Texas, Frank Broyles of Arkansas, LaVell Edwards of Brigham Young, Barry Switzer of Oklahoma and Paul Bear Bryant of Alabama. During his research, he discovered that each coach felt their team was far better late in the season(in November) than the early part of the season(in September). The coaches felt their teams had time to gel since the players had more experience in their system, they committed fewer mistakes and penalties. As a result, Billingsley weights the later games of more importance than the early games.
Some Strength of Schedule Questions relating to Richard’s computer rankings
If team A beats the No. 1 team in September, but in December that former No. 1 team is now ranked 20th, does that negatively reflect their rating weakening their strength of schedule?
“No, playing No. 1 helps for one week. Mine is a unique rating system amongst the other computer rankings. The rankings are cumulative so the opponent is rated as the No. 1 team and then the other weeks are added to it. It’s not recalculated. Each week has its own merits.”
What if three teams are very, very close since BCS is a two team system?
“It (the result) is two regardless. Two examples would be Nebraska and Oregon in 2001 and USC and Auburn in 2004. “ Does it make a difference if it’s a home game or a road game?
“63.8 percent of home teams won in 2008 compared to 59 percent in the 80s. Teams get more credit for road wins.”
Why the increase?
“The talent is evenly spread out. Very emotional players react to the crowd. When players feel the adrenaline rush they’re more capable than 20 years ago. They’re bigger and faster than 20 years ago. Their athletic ability......they’re better players now. “
The biggest issue seems to be when team A beats team B but team B is ranked higher still. How do you fix that?
“That’s my biggest gripe as well. I see it often in polls. My system has a head to head rule which makes this happen less. There are exceptions to the rule which does prove there’s a reason for it.”
Mississippi ranked lower than Texas Tech after they beat them in a bowl game?
“That’s an excellent example. During the entire season, Texas lost to just Oklahoma and Mississippi. Mississippi lost four times, four times.”
Why wasn’t Utah No. 1?
“Utah was No. 1 in four computer polls, it was the human polls that skewed things as such for Utah.”
Why didn’t Utah get to play for a national championship?
“With the 50th ranked schedule, playing Alabama was as high as Utah could get. What’s to say Oklahoma and Florida wouldn’t have gone undefeated had they played a 50th ranked schedule?”
BCS changes over the years
I’m honored to be a part of it. The BCS has been a work in progress of sorts. People have to understand it was a unique approach to combine human polls and computer rankings to try and create a format to bring the No. 1 and No. 2 teams together. It’s a very difficult thing to do. Because of that, there’s been significant changes in the formula. We saw margin of victory removed. We saw the format streamlined removing and separating strength of schedule for computers. For the most part changes that have been made have been what I consider positive change.
There is a couple I disagree with.
In 2005, they diminished the role of the computer rankings from 50 percent to 33 percent; by doing so, they diminished the role of strength of schedule by 17 percent. They made the decision to drop the highest and lowest rankings of the computer rankings and I think that was a mistake. I believe the BCS is already saying it has the six best by narrowing the possible computer rankings it could use from greater than 100 to just six. If it’s the six best and one says a team is No. 1 then that team deserves to be No. 1.
In regards to the low number, no one wants to hurt anyone’s chances with their rankings. Keeping the high number though, would have been a better choice.
Further changes to the BCS
In addition to the 50-33 percent switch and the high number, Billingsley would like to see the deadline for voting on the human polls delayed from Sunday at 11am until Monday at 11am.
“We ask coaches and sports writers to make important decisions, decisions that impact the game and millions of dollars (when it’s not the best time to do so),” Billingsley said, “maybe on a red eye flight. Maybe when they’re tired and worn out they might not even have all the info they need then. They should have all day Sunday to research and gather information to make sound decisions. Give them a proper amount of time,” Billingsley said.
He would like the BCS to allow the release of the rankings to be Monday too.
“Sunday is an NFL day, let them have it. Release the polls Monday afternoon and let them talk in the media Monday night. It would be a smarter way to market the BCS,” he said.
Part 3
Recently, President Barack Obama and several Congressman have spoken of correcting the BCS. They seem to believe there is not a clear cut national champion and Americans must have such a result to a sports season.
Richard doesn’t believe “the national championship issue is even an issue.”
Richard opens the NCAA record and fact book and points to the list of national champions listed there since 1869, then he states “one of former Texas Coach Darrel Royals favorite sayings was ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ The national champions are listed in the NCAA official record book. Where’s the problem?”
In 2003, the BCS was brought before Congress for an antitrust violation. The result, there was no violation.
In 2009, Richard thinks things are quite similar to 2003 and has a message for Congress. “If Congress wants to decide, let them vote to see who is No. 1. Let them have their own poll and put it in the NCAA record book with the others. There was no violation then, there will be none this time.”
The proposed “solution” before congress is for a four game playoff system.
Richard is not in favor of this. That would push the college football season to 16 games, the exact total the NFL teams play in the regular season. “This is not a pro league, wouldn’t they suffer the same brutal injuries as NFL players do then? If college players played four more games they would miss final exams which would adversely affect their education. So few college players ever play in the NFL, kids earning an education should be paramount to anything suiting our (fans) needs.”
The proposed solution would also include 300 teams from division 1 thru three of college football making the field too large to manage into a tournament format.
The proposed playoff system solution would involve the best team from each conference. Billingsley points out, “This would mean that in 2008, Texas, Texas Tech, Alabama and Oklahoma State wouldn’t be eligible; four of the better teams in the nation in 2008.”
“Going back to the issue of the playoffs has given me the opportunity to take a firm stand against college football playoffs. The reason is because I recognize clearly that college football is such a unique sport with unique players. People trying to make a playoff system are trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn’t support the sport.”
“College football is not the NFL, it’s not the NBA. Major College football is not small school college football.”
“Yes, it can be done but why should it be done? Just because the NFL and basketball and small college do it, doesn’t mean it’s right for major college football.”
“Players in the NFL are paid millions to go on the field to perform their job in order to have playoffs. We are asking 18,19,20 year-old young men to go on the field an extra 3-4 games and do it for nothing, but the glory of the fan to say this is the best team.”
“You can have it in basketball because they can play 3-4 games a week.
“You can’t even do two games a week in college football. Small colleges do play home and home series moving 10,000 people to do it, but in major college football you have to consider bowl games at neutral sites and trying to move 80-90,000 out for the 3-4 extra games per year.
Richard would like to meet President Obama and have the opportunity to discuss the BCS with him. He’s confident he can convince him that a playoff system is not needed in college football. If he had to concede one thing to Congress, it would be a “plus one” playoff system. However, he is firmly against a college football playoff.
“I’m tired of people trying to make it seem like it’s not a unique amateur sport. There’s nothing wrong with college football today and the (tv and attendance)stats bear that out. There’s nothing wrong so why fix it?”
“BCS has given us the opportunity to match two for the BCS national championship. That doesn’t mean the winner is the only team that can claim they’re #1. Any team ranked #1 (by any recognized ranking or poll)has the right. It’s what’s good about college football and what’s right about it.”
Q&A
College coaches struggling in the pros, thoughts?
It’s very different. College coaches need to relate to young people, that’s why Switzer was so successful. He knew how to relate to young people and that was to his advantage. In the NFL, their(the players) innocence is gone. They’re dealing with adults not playing a game but working a job. They still have to relate to players but the NFL is a business. Players are almost property.
Has so many underclassmen leaving school early to play in the NFL lessenned the talent pool in college football?
Yes. It all began when Herschel Walker sued the NFL to become eligible for the draft as a junior and has gone downhill ever since. It’s a shame, these kids need to understand that an education is most important.
