The BCS is Good for One Thing...

I realize this is going to be a little off-topic from what I usually write about, but I'm a college football fan and wanted to share my opinion of the BCS. A lot of people hate it, a few stand up for it, and everyone talks about it. Originally, I think the BCS really was designed for the purpose of crowning a national champion - now, I think the NCAA sticks with it simply because it generates so much talk and controversy every year. Basically, it's a lot of free advertising.

The BCS will never work. That is, it will never be able to accomplish its goal of crowning a team "national champion". I don't care if you have the only two unbeaten teams in the country playing in the title game - it's still hard to say that the winner is the best team in the country without some form of playoff system. Plus, that rarely happens anyway - we are usually going to get years like this: a one-loss team is playing a two-loss team for the title, while the only unbeaten team could win its bowl game and still not be in consideration as the best team in the country. Ohio State vs. LSU as a national title game is a joke.

There is NO WAY to fix the BCS; it simply needs to go away. In my mind, there are two solutions: go back to the original bowl system or go to a playoff system.

BACK TO TRADITION

I actually wouldn't mind going back to the traditional bowl matchups - was there really more controversy at that time than there is now? I doubt it. Yes, there were "split" national champions (i.e., Michigan and Nebraska in 1997), but is that any different than the split title of 2004 between LSU and USC? I think not. People that decry a playoff system say that they love the tradition of the bowl games - why not go back to it?

A major negative I see to it is that mid-major schools will be left out again - Hawaii would be in a minor bowl, rather than the Sugar Bowl. But like I said, it's not like Hawaii is going to get any national champion love even if they do beat Georgia, so the only major downsides are money and national exposure. In reality, though, it's not like the Sugar Bowl folks really wanted to take Hawaii - I'm sure they'd of rather had Missouri or Florida.

JOIN THE REST OF SPORTS

I do like the bowl tradition; however, I'd much rather see a playoff system put into place. There are lots of opinions as to how to do this; here's mine:

• Put every team in the country into a conference. Yes, that includes you, Notre Dame. Get over it - you stopped being unique a long time ago anyway.
• Get rid of the non-conference games - I realize you'd lose some potential good games (OSU-Texas, UM-Notre Dame, Florida-FSU), but you'd make it up later in the playoffs.
• Jump right into conference games. Play a ten-game schedule to determine the conference champion. No need for a conference championship game - those things are silly anyway. And get rid of divisions (like the SEC East and West) - just have everyone together, and the best record in the end wins the conference. You might have ties, but in a ten-game schedule most teams are going to play each other at least once, so there should be a tiebreaker. And if there isn't...well, so there's a tie. That's not so bad.
  
• Figure out a way to get the top teams from each conference into a 32-team playoff. I'd shoot for a method like this: take the top four teams from the Big XII, Big Ten, PAC 10, and SEC; the top three from the ACC and Big East; and the top two teams from Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Atlantic. Do this based on W-L records - as before, there may need to be some sort of tie-breaking system - hey, put those BCS computers to work!
• Bam! You've got a solid 32-team playoff. The ranking would be done by committee, similar to how NCAA basketball does it. That means that a team would need to win five more games to win the championship; a 15-game season doesn't seem too wild to me - most colleges are pretty close to that anyway (LSU will have played 14 after the season's done). It also means there are 31 "bowl" games to play...sounds pretty reasonable to me (there are 32 bowls this season).
  
• As for teams that didn't make the playoff, why not do a 16-team "NIT"? That gives the middle-tier teams an extra few games to make some money. That'd be another 15 "bowl" games...plenty of money to be made there. My method: take two teams from the Big XII, Big Ten, PAC 10, and SEC; take one each from the ACC, Big East, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Atlantic; and award the final spot based on a vote - give those AP writers something to do!
• Speaking of polls, this would eliminate the need for those pointless AP/USA Today Coaches polls throughout the year. I'm sure they'd still love to do it, but they'd be meaningless (which they pretty much are now anyway).

I realize this wouldn't happen - too much politics and money are involved to make it a reality. But I love the idea, and it gets pretty close to the numbers as they are now - there's usually about 5 or 6 teams from the major conferences that go bowling (my method allows for 6). Most teams are going to play at least 11 games - and if you don't make one of the playoffs your record probably doesn't warrant more games anyway. It also allows the mid-majors to shine and provide a huge level of excitement - can you imagine Florida-Atlantic upsetting USC in the opening round of the playoffs? That's like a 16 beating a 1 seed in the men's basketball tournament, and it doesn't get better than that.

Obviously, tradition goes out the window - and that's a big thing in college football, I know. But seriously: Miami played Nebraska in the Rose Bowl in 2001 - how far away from tradition is that? My favorite thing about my idea is that you also keep the conference titles intact - winning your conference would be just as big of deal as it is now.

What do you think?