Proposition For Ammending The BCS
The Bowl Championship Series is just like American health care: it's screwed up and needs fixing but no one knows how to fix it. So, I decided I would offer my proposition for amending the BCS.
Most people will agree that the BCS rankings are very accurate for the top teams in the country. As for the 1 and 2 spots, those will always be debated. But it is true that the top programs, whether Big-Six or not, are represented in the rankings. So, let's keep the rankings.
Taking from the BCS rankings (a name change may be called for) a 16-team playoff will be set up. The top 16 teams in the BCS rankings will be seeded by spot no matter the conference.
No automatic tie-ins. There is no guarantee that every Big-Six will have a team in the playoff. However, there is no limit to how many from each conference. If the SEC or Pac-10 have five teams in the top 16 BCS rankings then five teams from the conference are in the playoff. This allows the 'mid-major' teams an opportunity to be in the playoff.
It's simple: win, beat good teams, get ranked, get in.
The exact scheduling would of course be worked out by NCAA and TV officials, but the basic schedule would be four rounds to provide America with it's college football champion.
For those who would say that this would take too long and put too much on the scholar athletes, I must say this: If the playoff starts two weeks after conference championships (which is when the bowl games start), then the national championship will actually fall on the same day in the playoff system as the bowl system.
Also, these athletes are one-sport athletes (multi-sport is a rarity nowadays) and thus, are accustom med to life during the season. They will still be practicing for the bowl game during this period anyway, the only difference is a game each week for four weeks instead of one game at the end (if said team continues winning).
In summary, the overall BCS rankings work, there isn't much debate that those teams in the top 16 spots should be there (yes, there will be debate for the last few spots but the system holds). One seed plays 16th seed, two plays 15, etc.
The winners continue playing until one team is left standing. Conference does not play a factor (except in strength of schedule but the system takes all of this in account), a team will not get a BCS spot simply because of conference affiliation. It is an open pool, and every team can shoot for it.
This system will see just how well the 'mid-majors' like Boise State, Cincinnati, and TCU stack up against Alabama, Texas, and Florida. The bowl system only shows selected match-ups not the teams that win out.
Finally, the "should have been there" talk will be almost completely eliminated because this system is fair: if you win, then you have a shot, if you lose, then you weren't the best.
Thus, the 'mid-major' schools should like this system because it opens the door, and the Big-Six schools should like the system because after all, each fan believes his team is the best and capable of winning no matter the system.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?