The Real BCS Fix
By Joshua Lehman
I suppose I should establish right off the bat that I’m a staunch supporter of the BCS system. I feel it has a lot of advantages that help college football be the ridiculously popular spectator sport it is today. That being said, the system could be improved. And no, the answer is not a playoff.
Playoffs are like a long-term f*ckbuddy — they’re comfortable, for sure, but are they really that great? People often complain that the BCS doesn’t produce a “true” national champion, but I’d argue that playoffs fail in that aspect, as well.
Unless you really thought the New York Giants were the best NFL team last season. Same for the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 2005 Miami Heat.
And it’s indisputable that a playoff cheapens the regular season. Remember how interested you were in the Big XII Championship Game last season? How about the Pitt-West Virginia throwdown?
Now ask yourself this: When’s the last time you cared who won the Big East in hoops? So no, a playoff is not the answer. The adage that the regular season is a playoff is tired, but it’s also true. While there may be debate as to whether the BCS champion is the best team, looking through history you can never definitively say they weren’t. That’s the beauty of the BCS.
The problem with the system proposed by SEC commissioner Mike Slive last week was that it wasn’t a “plus-one” system; it was a four team playoff. Even small conference commissioners weren’t interested in continuing the discussion, because nobody wants to see a four team playoff turn into the free-for-all that is the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Throw in the Big Ten and Pac-10’s allegiance to tradition and the Rose Bowl, and you can kiss Slive’s proposal goodbye.
So what I propose is a true plus-one system. It’s simple, really. The four major bowls revert back to their traditional pairings: Big Ten/Pac 10 Rose Bowl, ACC/Big East Orange Bowl, SEC/at-large Sugar Bowl, Big XII/at-large Fiesta Bowl.
This part of the plan is important, because the Big Ten and Pac-10 love the traditional Rose Bowl pairing. Only six times in 10 years of the BCS have they gotten it, so I’m sure they’d be willing to listen.
As for the two at-large spots, you guarantee one of them to the top small conference school in the country. This fixes the problem that currently exists where smaller programs simply cannot win a National Championship. The other at-large can go to anybody, though Notre Dame or another small-conference school would be the ideal fit. Still with me? Good.
Using the current BCS system, the top two remaining teams after the four major bowls square off one week later at a rotating location for the National Championship Game. This adds a lot to the legitimacy of the game. If a school plays in a perceived “weak” conference, they have to prove themselves against another top squad. If a school plays in what’s considered a “stronger” conference and has a slightly worse record, they can make their case by knocking off another top-tier school.
There is a caveat, though, for the title bout: non-conference champions need not apply. The reason is simple. If you can’t win your conference, how can you be the best team in the country? The beauty of college football is that to be the champion, you have to be the best all year long. The value this adds to the regular season cannot be overemphasized. Granted, it’s not a perfect system. You look at the 2004 controversy with unbeaten Auburn, Oklahoma and USC and none of them would have played each other. But what are the odds that they all win their bowl games against top-notch competition?
More likely, the problem you’d have would be similar to last season: too many one-loss teams to choose from. But that’s where the BCS comes in. If a team loses a game and gets left out of the final game, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Last year, Ohio State and LSU were fortunate, not entitled, to play in that game.
So yeah, it’s not perfect, but few things are (Jessica Alba baking me cookies in a teddy comes to mind). It’s still an improvement over the current system, and it’s something that would have a legitimate chance of happening. Barring a 120-game round robin, I think it’s the best we can get.
Originally Published: Issue 647 - May 7, 2008
 |
Share on Facebook |
