David Stern, in spite of deserving prolonged anal abuse for treachery and debauchery in how he backstabbed the cities of Seattle and Vancouver BC, actually stumbled upon a concept that college sports would be wise to emulate.
Years ago, the NBA went to a regional play system split into the Eastern and Western Conferences, but instead of splitting the regions into a dual American vs. National League like professional baseball and football did, professional basketball went with only one-single league concept.
East vs. West.
If your city was in the east, you played against all the other teams in the east. More than you would against teams across the country in the west.
The advantage the NBA consequently fell into, was a regional style of play where the eastern teams played the game differently than the western teams.
For the past two decades, the Eastern Conference has brought a more slowed-down half court philosophy while the West is more wide-open. Almost like a miniature World Cup format of soccer, where different regions of the world play the same game differently.
It’s precisely what gives the “world sport” of soccer a unique place in competition.
Ball-play in Brazil looks distinctly different than the same game played in England, or South Africa, or Korea. And yet, technically, it’s the same sport on the same-sized field.
Each region of the world gets the opportunity to test their style of play against the other regions, based upon a distinctly original and unique theory on how best to win soccer games.
College football, if designed right, could do the same thing. And in today’s world of dopey polls and outraged fans to settle championships, there may be no better time to redesign conferences and playoffs like there is right now.
We hear the same thing every single year, and we’ve been hearing it for almost five decades now. Crowned champions got the reward more from college politics than play on the field.
This year TCU and until last week, Boise State, confounded the so-called sports experts by winning. And winning so frequently that it made a mockery of the sophisticated system that is the BCS.
Experts argue that small schools should not win. That they cannot win. And yet they did win.
So the system as we know it needs an overhaul, and as college sport dabbles dangerously closer and closer to their professional big brothers in terms of profits and stadium retrofits, it becomes all the more obvious that something is amiss.
The system needs fixed, it has needed fixed for longer than most of us have been alive, but nothing seems to be getting done.
We keep using the same flawed arguments for maintaining the status quo, using a formula that the majority of fans detest. And the system we use emulates one dependent on child labor. Or at least unpaid teenage labor.
So it’s time to change all of that, and thus my dubious six-point proposal for how to do that.
This is not scientific, nor does it compare the financial formulas of revenue generation and how to best exploit the masses.
Six proposals to change the system, so that the lowest of the low have as much chance at success as the pompous stuck-up elites.
Part II of this article can be found at: