This is the time of year when people pushing playoffs for major college football like to roll out their flawless plans for how to make college football championships as debate-free as the NFL. I’m against playoffs for major college football, but even so I think I can come up with a better plan than what’s being put forth - typically the “seeded” set of 4, 8, 16, 32 or 64 teams that would fight out a traditional playoff schedule.
And, as a fan of the team that won the BCS title in 2007, I should point out that I was just as against a playoff when LSU finished 11-2 with no title in 2006 as when they finished 12-2 with the BCS title last year.
At the core of my plan are two assumptions:
1) Until you reach Bowl Season, major college football is the most exciting, dramatic and interesting sport there is. That can’t be messed with. Stanford upsetting USC or Kentucky stopping LSU on 4th down in overtime must matter or you lose the greatness of the game.
2) There will never be surety in selecting teams to participate in a championship system. This is not a league like the NFL where you have 32 teams playing 16 games in a roughly equal schedule. There are 120 teams playing 12 or 13 games, including games against teams not among the 120 D-I teams. Selecting 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 or 64 teams to be in a playoff would always be a highly subjective exercise.
So, then, what to do? Just build upon the elimination system already in place for many conferences.
The SEC, ACC, Big 12, MAC and C-USA already use the conference championship game format and every other conference except the Big Ten plays a full round-robin schedule to name a sure champion. Then you have the four “independents” in D-I.
Therefore, after the regular season you’re currently left with 10 undisputed conference champions, likely two Big Ten teams (Ohio State and Michigan, no doubt), Notre Dame and at most three other teams who could legitimately claim a place in the BCS title race (sorry, Georgia). The 120 teams become 16 just through the course of the season.
But I’m sorry, Big Ten. You have to get with the program. You’ve got 11 teams and play 8 conference games. That’s pathetic. If you and Notre Dame want to be in a national championship mix, suck it up and get together. You’ll be 12 teams and have a conference championship game.
Army and Navy, welcome to the Big East and a 10-team, 9-game schedule. Western Kentucky, meet the Sun Belt.
This, however, leaves us with 11 conference champions in the mix. We need an even number. Time to consolidate and shuffle the mid-majors. C-USA, MAC, WAC, Mountain West and Sun Belt are full of hasty cast-offs from failed conferences and illogical associations (such as La. Tech being in the WAC and TCU being in the Mountain West). Figure out how to put the 51 teams into four conferences. The MAC already has 13 teams, so three 13-team conferences and one 12-team conference all with conference title games is a good way to make the mid-major teams earn a shot at the big time. Bye-bye Sun Belt is what I figure, along with re-shuffling to create better regional lineups.
Now we would have 10 teams in the mix. Those would become five through bowl games. And I’m strongly for preserving the bowl traditions.
- Sugar Bowl: SEC v. Big 12
- Rose Bowl: Pac-10 v. Big Ten
- Orange Bowl: ACC v. Big East
- Fiesta Bowl: WAC v. Mountain West
- Cotton Bowl: C-USA v. MAC
All the other bowls would happen as usual. I gave the fifth “qualifying” bowl to the Cotton instead of the Peach because the Peach is a darn good SEC / ACC bowl and nobody cares much about the formerly-significant Cotton.
After the five qualifying bowls (all played on New Year’s Day, by the way - and no other bowls that day), the two teams who won their bowl games and are rated best by the BCS system would play in the BCS Championship Game the second Saturday after New Year’s Day (unless New Year’s Day is a Saturday - then it’s the next week). That game would rotate among the five sites.
And you’ll notice that the bowls would feature consistent conference matchups, not “seeded” matchups that change. You’ll also notice that the Sugar, Rose and Orange match the big boys, while the Fiesta and Cotton put the mid-majors together. That’s because this is not a playoff. If a Boise State that beats BYU in the Fiesta Bowl ends up ranked ahead of a Georgia that beat Texas in the Sugar Bowl or a USC that beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, then so be it. The two teams in the BCS Championship Game would absolutely have earned their spot.
The other three? They would be conference champions and champions of “their bowl”. Both of those things matter quite a lot - just ask the Pac-10 or Big Ten about how much “Rose Bowl Champions” means. Not making the BCS Championship Game - sure, that would suck. But the subjective nature of the current BCS would be reduced tremendously, and rational fans would realize their disappointment is outweighed by keeping all that is good about major college football intact.
New Year’s Day would be an amazing event, as would the BCS Championship Game. And the other bowls would stay as is - and people sure seem to enjoy most of those now.
This system would keep the regular season as is, preserve the significance of the bowls and add a “filter” to the selection of the two “best” teams. You would be selecting two teams from the five who won their conference championships and beat another conference champion in their bowl game instead of the 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 or 64 teams which have … some kind of subjective “good” qualities … and deserve a chance to prove that by tearing apart the best regular season in all of sports.
In the grand scheme of things, this would be only a minor adjustment to the game, and would create new excitement while taking 90% of the bad elements of the BCS off the table. I’d endorse it.