How To Solve The BCS Dilemma

Matt FleckContributor INovember 9, 2008

Let me just start by saying I love college football. I watch it much more than NFL.

Here's an analogy: Every fall, college football is like the feeling i had when i was 16 and just got my first car. NFL is like seeing my car still where I left it.

The annual problem with college football is that every year there seems to be controversy over who should be champion. Right now there is a system in place which uses computers and polls to put two teams into a championship game.

It works, sort of.

I want to see a six team playoff, with the top two ranked teams having a bye the first week. The 3 & 6 and 4 & 5 teams will battle it out the first week. Two wonderful games with three huge games to follow.

Giving the top two BCS rated teams a bye in the first weeks rewards them for a great season. As of right now the games would be #3 Texas vs. #6 USC (SWEET!) and #4 Florida vs. #5 Oklahoma.

Lets say Texas wins and Florida wins. The next week we would have #1 Alabama v #4 Florida (oh look, two SEC teams) and #2 Texas Tech vs #3 Texas (two Big 12 teams). These possible match ups lead perfectly into my next argument:

Throw out the conference championship games. Not even every BCS conference has them currently. Why punish good teams with an extra game, especially if we are going to add possibly 2 extra games to their schedule with a playoff system?

Also the conference championship games often involve rematches of teams that have already played (which is cool, but why not have those rematches in the title playoff instead?)

Add to this the remote possibility of two teams actually playing each other three times (if they split the regular season match up and the conference title game) and then meet each other in a national title playoff game.

(For example, Alabama beats Florida in the regular season, Florida beats Alabama in the SEC title game. Both teams now have one loss and could feasibly make it into the top 6, where above it shows they could be matched up.) I don't think people want to possibly see teams play each other three times, so just throw out the conference title games.

There may be some people who worry about potential professional players having more risk of injury with a playoff system and losing out on huge signing bonuses. A 6 team playoff wouldn't make the season 2 weeks longer. Well not technically.

The four teams in the semifinals of the title playoff would have an extra game, the teams in the final would have 2 extra games. But if they come from conferences that currently have title games it's really only like having one extra game.

In two extra (clear weather) games, how many potential pros could possibly get injured? Even if one did, then he probably wasn't worth the draft pick in the first place.

This year's bowl season starts December 20th and ends with the national championship on January 8th. 3 weeks! i don't know about you, but I'm not especially psyched for the Poinsettia Bowl or the Sheraton Hawaii bowl.

I'd much rather see Texas-USC and Florida-Oklahoma. Same goes for week two of bowl week.

As far as venues go, we do what we do now. Rotate the 3-6 5-4, the two 2nd round matches, and the granddaddy of them all around the traditional "BCS bowl sites". This system would add much more excitement to not only the BCS bowls, which are right now merely good match-ups (save the title game) but to the entire bowl season.

From the jump, we would have great games to watch every week.

I'm all for a playoff system, just with 6 instead of 8. It'd be harder to get into than 8 teams, which doesn't completely compromise the regular season, but yet is not so CBS-football-coverage simple as just taking the top 4 into a playoff.

Also six allows the Boise State's and Utah's of the college world a fair chance to make their way to title (Utah was #6 in 2004), while leaving out BCS bowl under-performers *cough*Hawaii*cough* who were #10 in 2007.