BCS Quick Fix: How To Add Meaning To the Big 12 Title Game

Brian NelsonCorrespondent INovember 10, 2009

NORMAN, OK - SEPTEMBER 27:  Running back DeMarco Murray #7 of the Oklahoma Sooners is tackled by Jerry Hughes #98 of the TCU Horned Frogs at Memorial Stadium on September 27, 2008 in Norman, Oklahoma.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

I know this proposal seems crazy, because it would never be accepted, no matter how reasonable it sounds or how easy it is to implement. 

But just consider the practicality of a simple solution that would help make BCS better, more exciting and more legit without compromising school schedules, bowl alliances, the Big Six or any of that other non sense used to justify the current system.

All this proposal will do is make the system more efficient, reducing waste and adding relevance where it currently doesn’t exist.

It’s like the plus one but easily accepted. No need to get the Big Ten or the Pac Ten on board.

Instead of having another meaningless Big 12 Conference Champion Game, we implement a regional championship that matches the Big 12 South winner with the highest ranked team between the Big 12 North or the MWC.  

It’s that simple.

This would allow the MWC conference champion to play for all the marbles, make the Big 12 winner earn their place in the National Championship game, and actually, for the first time in a long time, make the Big 12 Championship a meaningful and compelling matchup.

And it even makes sense geographically. The top four teams (Utah, BYU, TCU and Air Force) all fall close to or well within Big 12 boundaries.  

Who wouldn’t kill to see Texas vs. TCU battle it out for a shot at the crystal? Austin vs. Dallas. Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley against Jerry Hughes and the nation’s most bruising defense.

Instead, we’ll have to settle for Texas vs. Nebraska or Kansas State.


Are those teams even ranked?

Wouldn’t you at least like to see Texas play SOMEBODY before they inherited a berth in the National Championship Game? Isn’t that actually fairer to the Florida/Alabama winner?

Think about it.

How sweet would Oklahoma vs. Utah have been last year?

All we did was make a simple realignment and instantly the BCS became more fair, more exhilarating and more profitable while actually adding meaning to the Big 12 Conference Championship Game.

When was the last time this game was even remotely entertaining? Or featured a game that wasn’t decided by halftime (or should I say kickoff)?

You’d have to go all the way back to 2001 when Nebraska and Colorado were both top ten teams.  Those were terrific teams. But those days are long gone.

Right now, you might expect something more like 2004, when an undefeated Oklahoma team drubbed Colorado 42-3.

How thrilling.

Under the new system you would’ve seen have seen undefeated Oklahoma led by Adrian Peterson matchup against Urban Meyer, Alex Smith and the undefeated Utah Utes?

Or how about 2005, when Texas beat Colorado 70-3. Instead, fans could’ve been watching Vince Young face a 10-1 TCU, a team that had already beaten Oklahoma in Norman.

I know.

Nebraska fans would be upset. They’d dabble on and on about tradition, entitlement and week in and week out scheduling and how the system would be unfair.

That’s just typical BCS, Harvey Perlman talk.

It’s actually just the opposite. Isn’t less reasonable that a team like Utah has to go undefeated playing at Oregon, at TCU and at BYU just to get a sniff to a venue they are already 2-0 in, with two blowout victories?

While the Big 12 North champion, a division that is 1-4 overall in the BCS and hasn’t won a BCS Bowl since 1999, just has to go 5-3 or 6-2 in a mediocre conference to get the opportunity to go to the BCS.

We all know it would NEVER be considered. But doesn’t it make more sense. The BCS would have nothing to lose.

All it would do is add legitimacy, revenue and excitement to the college football while providing greater access to the “non-BCS” threats.