BCS Busted...Again

Once again, we've come to the end of the college football season, and the national championship is once again up for grabs. For the past decade or so, the Bowl Alliance and its successor, the Bowl Championship Series (BC$), have used three different opinion polls and numerous computer ranking systems to achieve its stated goal of setting up a true national championship game. Last year was a classic example of how the system should work. The two best teams, USC and Texas, met in the title game and played a classic, down-to-the-wire thriller. It was a wonder to behold. It was also, unfortunately, an exception to the way the BCS normally works...or more properly, doesn't work.

It's about time that everyone admitted that the BCS doesn't—and can't—really do what it claims to do.

In some cases, like in 2004, there have been too many good teams. Auburn won the SEC, arguably the toughest conference in college football year in and year out, with an undefeated record. Unfortunately, they started the year ranked 17th and were never able to catch up to USC and Oklahoma in the polls. So they missed out on the championship game. We never got to see how good they really were.

This year is the opposite case: there aren't enough good teams. There are only two undefeated teams in major college football: Ohio State and Boise State. However, since BSU plays in a mid-major (i.e., a non-BC$) conference, they can't really be considered a legitimate candidate for the title game. So Ohio State's opponent will be one a one-loss team. Three candidates presented themselves: USC, Michigan, and Florida, ranked in that order. All USC had to do to get a berth in their third consecutive title game was to beat arch-rival UCLA in their season finale. Win and they're in.

Heaven forbid it should be so easy.

USC choked. The Michigan Wolverines, the next highest-ranked team, were idle, having suffered their one and only defeat in the season finale against Ohio State the previous week. The Florida Gators, meanwhile, won a tight contest with Arkansas in the SEC championship game. It was generally accepted that Florida would have to blow out its last two opponents, including Arkansas, to jump ahead of Michigan in the BCS standings. But when the dust had cleared and the final rankings were out, the human pollsters had chosen conference champion Florida over Big 10 runner-up Michigan, and the Byzantine BC$ rankings system gave Florida the edge for the title game by one one-hundredth of a point over Michigan. Meanwhile the Wolverines, by all accounts a more talented and overall better team than the Gators, were relegated to the Rose Bowl against USC. Not a bad gig, to be sure, but not the national championship game and not the rematch with Ohio State that Michigan fans wanted and probably deserved.

Let the analysis and the debates begin. Again.

There is, of course, a simple way to prevent all of this controversy: Institute a playoff system.

There is a great deal of resistance to this idea in major college football, especially among coaches and administrators in the BC$ schools. It would make the season too long, they say, and have a negative effect on their student-athletes. This is an interesting argument, considering that Division I-AA, Division II, Division III, and the NAIA all use a playoff system to decide their national championships in football. The real issue, I suspect, is that a playoff system would cut into the lucrative payouts (averaging $10-$15 million per team) these schools currently enjoy with the BC$ arrangement. Prestige is probably an issue too. No offense, but who really wants to play Boise State if you can get a shot at someone like, say, Nebraska instead?

A playoff system would work. It is doable, and if I were in charge, here's how I would do it.

First of all, I agree that 12 games plus a playoff system is probably too much. For those who end up in the championship game, it's the equivalent of an NFL regular season. So I'd cut the regular season from 12 games back to were it stood before this year: 11 games, plus conference championships in conferences like the SEC, ACC, Big XII, MAC, and CUSA.

Second, I'd keep the existing bowl system intact as much as possible. There's a lot of tradition in college football, and there's no reason to do away with it completely. After selecting the tournament participants, fill in the bowl games with the rest of the field. Make it sort of a football equivalent to college basketball's NIT.

Third, I'd invite a field of 16 teams to the tournament, with the following conditions:
  A) All 11 conference champions get an automatic bid;
  B) The next five highest rated teams in the BC$ standings get an invitation, as long as they have at least 8 wins.
  C) No conference should have more than two teams in the tournament.

Fourth, I'd seed the teams from 1 to 16 as follows:
  A) The top eight seeds would go to the eight highest rated conference champions in order of ranking. An independent school like Notre Dame or Navy could also be included in the top eight seeds if they're ranked among the top seven conference champions.
  B) The remaining conference champions and the at-large teams would be seeded 9-16 based on BC$ ranking, then on record.

The top eight seeds would host the first round of playoff games. Translation: If you want to play at home in the playoffs, you need to win your conference.

The first round of the playoffs would be held in the middle of December, allowing teams time for their student-athletes to finish the fall semester. The second round would be held the following week, with the highest ranked remaining teams hosting.

The semifinal round of the playoffs would be held on or near New Year's Day. These two games would be played at two of the four sites now hosting BC$ bowl games. The winners of these two games would play for the national title a week later at a third BC$ bowl site. The two losers would play for third place the day before at the fourth BC$ site.

Complicated? Not really. Here's how my playoff system would work this year. First, the seeding:

1. Ohio State (Big 10 #1, 12-0; BCS #1)
2. Florida (SEC #1, 12-1; BCS #2)
3. Southern Cal (Pac-10 #1, 10-2; BCS #5)
4. Louisville (Big East #1, 11-1; BCS #6)
5. Boise State (WAC #1, 12-0; BCS #8)
6. Oklahoma (Big 12 #1, 11-2; BCS #10)
7. Notre Dame (Ind., 10-2; BCS #11)
8. Wake Forest (ACC #1, 11-2; BCS #14)
9. Michigan (Big 10 #2, 11-1; BCS #3)
10. Louisiana State (SEC #2, 10-2; BCS #4)
11. West Virginia (Big East #2, 10-2; BCS #14)
12. Virginia Tech (ACC #2, 10-2; BCS #15)
13. Brigham Young (MWC #1, 10-2; BCS #20)
14. Houston (C-USA #1, 10-3)
15. Central Michigan (MAC #1, 9-4)
16. Troy (Sun Belt #1, 7-5)

Admittedly this arrangement leaves out teams like Wisconsin (11-1), Auburn (10-2), Arkansas (10-3), and Rutgers (10-2). C'est la vie. If you want to play for the national championship, try winning your conference first. This isn't March Madness.

Anyhow, here's how I see this year's tournament going in a perfect world:

December 16th
Troy (7-5) at Ohio State (12-0)
Central Michigan(9-4) at Florida (12-1)
Houston (10-3) at USC (10-2)
BYU (10-2) at Louisville (11-1)
Virginia Tech (10-2) at Boise State (12-0)
West Virginia (10-2) at Oklahoma (11-2)
LSU (10-2) at Notre Dame (10-2)
Michigan (11-1) at Wake Forest (11-2)

December 23rd
Michigan (12-1) at Ohio State (13-0)
Notre Dame (11-2) at Florida (13-1)
Oklahoma (12-2) at USC (11-2)
BYU (11-2) at Boise State (13-0)

January 1st, 2007
Rose Bowl: Boise State (14-0) vs. Michigan (13-1)
Orange Bowl: USC (12-2) vs. Florida (14-1)

January 7th, 2007
Sugar Bowl: Boise State (14-1) vs. Florida (14-2)

January 8th, 2007
National Championship Game
Fiesta Bowl: USC (13-2) vs. Michigan (14-1)

Any questions?