Dealing With the BCS? Fix it, Don't Nix It
It seems every week there's a new article. College Football needs a playoff! Every fan has his own brilliant idea. We hear that it's the only fair way and it's the ultimate national championship, but before we nix the BCS, let's try to fix it.
The problem with the BCS is its inability to create good match-ups. Ohio State blowouts by Florida in 2006 and LSU in 2007, along with the horrendous Miami-Nebraska game of 2001 or the USC-Oklahoma game in 2003, are perfect examples.
The BCS has also failed to provide consistent kick with the other bowls too. Georgia beats Hawaii 41-10 in one of the most embarrassing performances in a bowl game in the modern era. The USC vs. Illinois game was a horrible Rose Bowl match-up.
But the answer is not to start from scratch with a whole new system. In a playoff, there would be many more mundane match-ups than we sit through today. The reason that the lower bowl match-ups are often poor games is the conference tie-in policy.
The Sugar Bowl is reserved for the SEC Champion and a BCS-eligible at-large team. This has consistently provided bad games because of the SEC's superiority and the fact that they never have to play a conference champion (see LSU over Notre Dame, 2006).
The BCS should have conference tie-ins to the BCS, but not to individual games. The committee should sort out the teams in the BCS pool for the best match-ups. This past year, for instance, Hawaii and Illinois, being the two weakest teams, would have faced each other and so on.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?