The Short Stop

The BCS is B.S. Everyone knows it, and something has to change. How can there be no less than four teams every season claiming their right to play for the title?

This season, I will agree that the best team won the championship, because Florida seemed unbeatable in the final month of the season, but how can an undefeated Utah team who took Alabama apart in the Sugar Bowl not get at least a chance to prove themselves?

Two other teams who finished with one loss, Texas and USC, also played like the best teams in the country down the stretch. In fact, Texas was Oklahoma’s only loss, and the Longhorns only defeat came on a ridiculous touchdown by the best receiver in the country. I maintain that Texas deserved a shot at Florida more than Oklahoma did.

The only thing that makes sense is to set up some sort of playoff, no matter the format, so that the eventual national champion has to prove itself in a series of games, not just one matchup decided by voters and computers to be the “best”.

Here are my issues with just putting two teams on a field and claiming the winner to be the champion:

1. It gives smaller conference schools no chance, because an SEC or Big 12 school will always get the benefit of the doubt based on reputation. There is no room for crazy upsets, such as in the March Madness tournament.

2. In a one-game situation, teams have a month or so to prepare for their opponents, and are away from the field for too long. This often means sloppy games with uncharacteristic play from both teams.

3. The winner of this title game often appears unimpressive, as compared to another bowl winner (see Florida vs. Utah this season). How can we know unless the champion at least plays a few of the other top teams in a row?

So here is my proposal, as far as I’ve gotten with it. Take the top eight teams in the country, based on the current computer-based system, and bracket them the tradiational way: 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. This would change the debate from who’s #2 to who’s #8 and would thus be less pressure on that decision and would always include each major conference champion, a key component of my proposal.

With 68 teams currently playing in bowls, this would leave 60 teams and 30 “regular” bowls. Play these as normal. Schedule the first round of playoffs around the second week of bowls, so the teams are back on the field relatively quickly after conference games. Follow me so far? Good.

Here’s where it gets fun: the “Big Four” bowls (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, and Rose). I simply cannot figure out how to distribute these four games between seven playoff games. The best way I can think of:

Have the games serve as the first round matchups, similar to the current system. This makes a lot of sense, but the bowl sponsors would prefer that their games be the final game for the teams playing, not a first-round playoff game. Get the Big Four to buy in, and we have a great system for deciding a national champion.

Additional stipulations include adding conference championship games to each major conference that does not currently have one, and removing one of those garbage games from the schedules. This puts a full season at 11 regular season games, 12 after conference championships, and 15 after a national title game.

This could work, people. I hope the NCAA moves toward something along these lines in the next couple of years, but I may be hoping for a while.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Jan 23 2009. Filed under Sports. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry