weighing in on the college game : football, the BCS, and your mom

I know this is mostly for the NFL, and that's all we predict on here, but I would like to make a statement about college football for a moment. It is football, after all, and it provides 99 % of the people (and often a glimpse of their chances) who will be in the NFL shortly.

Another year of the BCS goes by with tons of controversy. Florida destroyed Ohio State in the title game, so they will win the "national title." But are they really champions? I think this is one of many years when there is no clear-cut champion, just several teams that could make the case. Actually, Florida is the only one who didn't screw it up in the end, but Boise State should get some recognition for being undefeated.

We all know the BCS (Bowl Championship Series, for any newbies) was created to pit the top two teams against each other in a bowl game to decide who the real champion should be. Before that, it was all up to pollsters, and they often made weird choices (and screwed Penn State over multiple times... yes, we're still bitter). Teams were tied in to certain bowls and it was a rag-tag process. But as you probably know, the BCS is always creating controversy when they don't have two obvious teams to fit the title game. Squabbling over who really are the top two never ceases.

Herein lies the ironic part about all critics of the BCS: they complain when the BCS does what it's supposed to do, but say nothing when it's the most obvious match-up in the world. Like last year - any moron could tell you the national title game was USC and Texas. They were ranked 1-2, they were the only teams undefeated in major conferences.... OF COURSE they were going to be in the title game! The BCS wasn't created for situations like that; it was created for the tough ones like this year, when Florida, Michigan and USC (if they hadn't lost late) all made cases for being the team to face Ohio State. It's designed to help decide what to do with teams that have similar cases. But every time that happens, people complain.

Well, I've had enough with the BCS, but I've also had enough with the critics who bash it. I'm not entirely opposed to the old system; I don't like it, but if schools keep voting to have bowls and no playoffs, let them. What I don't want is the current system, which is a bastardized mixture of things. Either you have a playoff system or you don't.

I'd say that the old system is fine because it gives lots of teams the opportunity to finish the season with a win and get cash. Maybe there are too many bowls for anyone to care now, but I'm guessing they all help schools benefit financially in some way. I just think that writers need to stop promoting the current system as one that can produce a true national champion. The only way to do that is to have a plyoff system. How can we decide who teh best team truly is without one? You might be ranked number one, but your alleged "national title" is something that people have voted on. So let it just be that - people can still brag that they went undefeated and were number one.... they just can't call themselves true, unquestioned champions. I don't think this is so bad, but if people want one true winner, they can't do it now.

Now, if the schools all vote and decide they do want playoff,s here a few ideas on how to make that work:

1. Take the top 16 teams and have a playoff system. The teams that don't make it can still go to minor bowls against each other.

2. Take the top 8 teams and have a playoff system. Again, minor bowls for everyone else, kinda like the NIT.

I personally like the 16 team idea. Now, I know that school officials will complain that it will take up too much time from academics and stretch the season out too long.

(wait for it...)

(seizuring...)

(holding back laughter....)

HA! Ummm... come on guys, you're not fooling us. Most of these kids don't really spend much time in the classroom at all. Two or three more games per season is not going to kill them, especially since we now have a six week period between the end of the regualr season and the final bowl games. Just use those free weekends in mid and late December. That's how the pros do it.

And if they're so worried about longer seasons, why have they continually increased the number of games teams can play over the years? It used to be that teams played exactly 10 or 11 games per season, maybe 12 with a bowl. Now most teams have 12 or 13, plus maybe a conference championship at the end. Nebraska and BYU have both hit the 14 game mark this decade. Just go back and set the limit for everyone at 11, and the only teams that will play more than that are the ones in the playoffs. The most anyone can have is 15. You can finish that in one semester.

The top 16 teams will be voted in, but not just by the usual pollsters; we need a committee like the NCAA uses for basketball. The winner of each major conference is guaranteed a spot. Chances are that if they win the conference, they'll already be rated high.

(Update: I'm going to amend this; there have been a few times when a major conference has been so awful that it has not produced any teams in the top 20 or so. This occured in the Pac Ten several times, and the Big East once or twice. You wonder why I'm not impressed with Pete Carroll's renovation at USC - try doing that in the SEC, Petros. Anyway, I think that a major conference winner who doesn't finish in the top 20 in either poll ought to be disqualified. Stanford made the Rose Bowl a few years back at barely 23rd, and honestly, they really didn't deserve to even be there. Bad teams are not to be rewarded. I don't see this happening with 16 spots available, but just in case.)

Much like the BCS now, good teams from smaller conferences are guaranteed a spot if they finish high enough. Boise State would be in it this year, Utah and Louisville would have two years ago, and so forth. Games would be played at all the great bowl sites.

If we did it this year, here's a possible look at who would be in, but note that they wouldn't have had long seasons or conference title games:

1. Ohio State ** (automatic bid for winning conference)
2. Michigan
3. Florida **
4. LSU
5. Wisconsin
6. Louisville **
7. Oklahoma **
8. USC **
9. Boise State (guaranteed a spot by finishing in top 12)
10. Notre Dame (see Boise)
11. Auburn
12. Arkansas
13. West Virginia
14. Wake Forest **
15. Virginia Tech
16. Texas

We could then create a bracket with these teams, assigning them to neutral bowl sites for each game, until the big one in Phoenix. The major bowls could rotate what games they hold each year. That's four rounds of action, plus bowl games for those who didn;t make the top 16. I like it. I think this is the only way to go, if playoffs are institued.

Whatever the presidents of all those schoosl decide in the next few years, one thing is certain: you can have a bunch of bowl games with an unofficial champion, or you can have a real playoff with an official one. You can't have both. If you think the BCS is solving that, it's not. Decide what is best for the schools and players, and let's get one system straight.