A Simple Fix For The BCS

The Bowl Championship Series is a big mess, but it pays the bills.

The objections to the BCS come from two sides. From the top, teams feel like they are unjustly excluded from participating in the championship.

From the bottom, teams feel they are unfairly excluded from participating in BCS games because they don't have the 'pedigree' of other major teams.

The powers that be come up with all sorts of excuses for not wanting a playoff. So we'll just go for a simple modification to greatly improve the BCS on both ends.

But first, we need to look at some of the 'problems' from last season.

The Texas problem.  One loss Texas beat conference rival Oklahoma, yet was ranked lower in the polls, and didn't qualify for the Big-12 championship game, and got left out of the BCS championship.  We'll leave this one to the Big-12 to resolve.

The Utah problem.  Utah was undefeated, with plenty of respectable victories, yet they had no chance to play for the championship.

The USC problem.  USC was easily the dominant team at the end of the season.  However, there early season loss to a respectable conference team kept them out of the championship.

The Boise State problem.  A solid, undefeated top-10 team had no chance of playing in a big bowl, while two and three loss teams got the chance.

The New Years problem.  New Years Day was once about major college bowl games.  Now with the BCS, its mostly a day of meaningless 'also-ran' bowls.

The solution is to add one more BCS bowl game (the Cotton bowl), while still keeping the number of teams the same.  The top four teams will then meet in New Years Day bowl games, with the winner of each game playing one week later in the national championship game.

To keep the regular season meaningful, the top four must all be from different conferences ("Independents" like Navy and Notre Dame would be considered together as one conference).  This would keep conference competition meaningful (and allow the conference championships to serve as a de facto 'round one' of the 'playoff').

For the other BCS game spots, the first two spots would be 'automatic' spots by the next highest ranking conference champions not in the top four.  This would eliminate the whole idea of "BCS conferences", but should produce a somewhat similar outcome.  (If the "Big-6" are that big, they should easily fill the 6 automatic qualifying spots.  If they have an off year, then the most deserving team from another conference should get a spot.)

The remaining at-large spots would be filled in a manner somewhat similar today.  First would be teams in the top four that did not qualify due to the presence of other conference teams.  Afterwards, conference champions in the top 16 from conferences not already represented would get a nod.  Then champions in the top 20, any team in the top 16, and so on down if needed.

For at large teams, there would also be caveats as today that only a maximum of two teams from one conference could play in BCS bowls. Also, a minimum of nine wins would be required (with an added requirement that these be against bowl-division teams.)

This new BCS arrangement would keep not extend the season (The championship game would be the same day it is now.)  It would also enhance the position of the bowls (There would now be three meaningful bowls instead of one).  It would make the regular season even and conference races more important, and ensure only high quality teams make it to BCS bowls.  

On the monetary side, the extra bowl would provide a hefty dose of additional revenue.  For the top two teams, a double BCS payout would be received (also making it likely that a top conference could play in a total of three games);  'non-big six' teams would also have greater access to the BCS bowls.  

The only big change on the revenue side would be the end of guaranteed payout to big six schools.  Since they may not get a spot, they would not be guaranteed the big payout.  The 'mid-major' payout could be given to all schools that choose to participate, with the big payouts only going to those leagues that actually participate.

For most big six leagues this wouldn't change much, since they would still continue to go to BCS bowls.  However, it would intensify the competition at the lower levels, with conferences entering the 'big leagues' based on current season results rather than history.

One final concern is the number of games played.  Two teams would have to play one additional game.  Were it a Pac-10 team, they would end up playing 14 games in a season. Were it a Big-12 champion who happened to travel to play at Hawaii, they could end up with 16 games. 

The simple fix if it is a huge concern would be to cut one game off the regular season for leagues with championship games, while removing the bonus game for teams that travel to Hawaii.  Or we could simply call the bluff and let them play an extra game.

If this arrangement were in place in the 2008 season.
No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 6 Utah
No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC
(No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama ineligible since there is already a conference representative)

Next, the top two teams from conferences not in the top four:
No. 8 Penn States
No. 9 Boise State

Then the at large.  Here the requirement is that the team has at least nine wins vs. bowl division teams and only two teams total per conference can be represented in the BCS.
First priority goes to teams in the top four that didn't qualify due to other conference representatives (while retaining the limit of only two teams per conference.)

No. 3 Texas
No. 4 Alabama

Next, conference champions in the top 16:
No. 12 Cincinnati

Next, any team in the top 12:
Ohio State or TCU would be eligible.  

This would have filled the slate, so there would be no need to go deeper in the ratings. The bowls would end up quite similar to how they were in the 'real' system (except that Boise State would appear instead of Virginia Tech.)  The key difference is that USC and Utah both have a legitimate chance at the championship.

How would things have turned out?  Perhaps we would have ended up with Utah and USC in the championship game. Perhaps Boise State would have taken care of business in another BCS bowl. Perhaps Alabama would have looked more competitive.

We don't know what would have happened.

Maybe in the future we will.