A Modest Proposal

I was hoping my Bulldogs could go into Jordan-Hare and pull the upset over #2 ranked Auburn on Saturday. Unfortunately for me, Cam Newton (the BEST player in the country) ran all over the Bulldogs and led the Tigers to a 49-31 win. Had they pulled the upset, it would have put a huge monkeywrench into the National title picture. As it sits now, if Auburn and Oregon can win out, there is no argument for TCU or Boise St to be in the title game. They simply have no legs to stand on. However, if one or both trip up in the final few weeks, then we will have a situation that no one wants (well, except for those who think it will force a playoff): having to choose between undefeated TCU and Boise St and 1-loss teams like Auburn, Oregon, LSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

This posting is not meant to debate the situation but rather to offer my solution and to give some historical perspective. First, I want to take a few minutes to praise the BCS. That's right - I want to praise the BCS. It's not that I think the BCS is great, but it is light years ahead of where we were prior to the BCS. From the early 20th century until 1997, all bowl games were determined by automatic births. I think there is definitely merit to this system if the goal is simply to reward teams by having them gain an additional game in a warm locale during the holiday season. Teams know where they will be heading based on their conference finish and conferences rivalries develop. I think it works. Unfortunately, as parity grew in the late 1990's, we found ourselves not being to determine the best team in the country because the top teams were no longer found in only 3-4 conferences. The BCS was developed to ensure that the top two teams in the country played each other. You can argue all you want on whether it does that, but the idea behind it was simple.

Now I want to take a look at how the Bowl System would look if we had no BCS. It won't be perfect, since conferences have changed since 1997, but I think it will tell us a lot. The following match-ups are based on current standings.

Rose Bowl: #1 Oregon vs #7 Wisconsin
Sugar Bowl: #2 Auburn vs at-large
Orange Bowl: #23 Virginia Tech vs at-large
Fiesta Bowl: #9 Nebraska vs at-large
Holiday Bowl: #4 Boise St vs #18 Missouri

I don't understand every facet of the old system, but I'm pretty sure that the at-large births would then be taken from the group of LSU, TCU, and Big East Champion Pittsburgh. I assume TCU goes to the Fiesta, LSU goes to the Orange and Pittsburgh goes to the Sugar.

Under this system, determining a national champion would be impossible - certainly the title would be split between Oregon and Auburn if both won their bowl games. So yeah, the BCS isn't perfect but at least it allows for the #1 and #2 ranked teams (determined in a way that many are unhappy with) to play each other.

Moving to the issue of how to fix the system, this has been my plan for several years. Use the BCS to determine the top 8 teams in the country. Keep the Bowl System and allow an 8-team, 7-game playoff to be played at the various bowl games. Quarterfinal games can be played in Miami (Outback), San Diego (Holiday), Dallas (Cotton) and Phoenix (Fiesta). Semi-Finals can then be played in Miami (Orange) and Atlanta (Sugar) and the Final in Pasadena (Rose). Then, keep the rest of the 30+ bowl games to reward teams not in the top 8. It's a hybrid system - one that keeps bowls and adds a playoff. I still cannot be convinced that it wouldn't work.