Dear BCS: Try This Playoff On For Size

There is no perfect playoff system in any of the major sports.

In the 2008 NFL season, the 11-5 New England Patriots and the 9-7 New York Jets were frozen out of the playoffs, while the 8-8 San Diego Chargers were given a spot by way of winning the weak AFC West Division.

In MLB, it has not been uncommon for a team to qualify for the playoffs over teams with better regular season records for the same reason.

As an example, the 84-win Los Angeles Dodgers were a playoff team in 2008, while the New York Mets, Houston Astros, St. Louis Cardinals, and Florida Marlins sat at home for the playoffs with better regular-season winning percentages.

While the NBA has improved its playoff format, winners of divisions may on occasion end up with a higher seed than a team with a better record.

Even with respect to the NCAA basketball tournament (personally my favorite sporting event), there are legitimate arguments to be made by teams left out of the 64-team tournament, seeding issues, and unfair home court advantages.

Despite those issues, no sport takes more heat for its failed system than college football—and rightfully so.

The powers that be in college football are deservedly castigated by the media, the sports-watching public, and the mid-major programs that have no legitimate shot at participation in the current BCS national title format. Even political leaders have jumped into the fray.

The fact that undefeated Boise State and TCU met in a bowl game only intensifies the argument against the current system. The BCS leaders should be ashamed of themselves for pitting those two teams against one another instead of at least giving them a chance to play one of the BCS conference champions.

There are now two Division I football teams without a loss. Is Alabama better than Boise State?

Probably...but I thought Oklahoma was better than Boise State a couple of years ago. It turns out that I wasn't right. 

The number two ranked team beat the number one ranked team in six out of the last eight BCS Championship games. And that is precisely why the champion should be decided on the field of play.

The arguments against a real playoff format in college football just do not pass muster.

Since college football decided to spread the bowl schedule out to Jan. 7, they can no longer make the argument that they are concerned that their “student-athletes” will miss too much class time.

We do not hear the same argument as it applies to the Division I Football Subdivision (FCS), Division II and Division III football players, who by and large are true “student-athletes” with little chance of pursuing a career in the NFL.

Yet the FCS, Division II and III college football have a bona fide playoff formula to declare a National Champion.

And stop with the “we do not want to ruin the tradition of the bowl system” argument.

The major bowls have not suffered one bit since the inception of the BCS, which has eliminated the automatic yearly conference affiliations.

The BCS supporters claim that their way ensures that every football game, not just the final game, becomes that much more important. The argument goes that “every game is a playoff game.”

I think that anyone who sat through playoff games such as Alabama vs. North Texas or Texas vs. Louisiana Monroe would beg to differ.

I know I was glued to my seat to find out the final outcome of the Florida-Charleston Southern game because of the wide-reaching effect it had on the national title picture.

One additional argument against a playoff system is that there are “attendance concerns.”

No one seems to raise those same concerns as it applies to the Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl or the GMAC Bowl.

It is a myth that there would be a lot of empty seats anyway. The amount of interest that would be created by a true national championship would be astounding.

Television revenue would be off the charts.

The real problem is that the big conferences do not want to share.

The BCS recently hired former President George W. Bush’s press secretary Ari Fleischer as their Public Relations director to handle the tough questions surrounding their unfathomable position.

While Fleischer is certainly a master of his craft, no number of carefully crafted responses can provide adequate cover for what can only be described as a clear violation of Federal Anti-Trust Laws.

The hiring of Fleischer only increases the skepticism among sports fans. If your reasoning behind the BCS is on the level, why is it that you need to hire a man who has made a living out of spinning the truth?

The arguments, no matter how artfully articulated by the pro-BCS bunch, are as transparent as glass. The assertions citing length of schedule, tradition, importance of the regular season, and attendance are easily blunted by reality.

The BCS is a “money grab” by the power conferences, pure and simple. If the university presidents at those schools would just come clean and admit to it instead of trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, it might at least be more palatable.

My favorite college football program (The Ohio State University) has benefited from the current system as much as any. However, it does not make it any less unfair.

So what is the solution? How do we satisfy the competing interests of the greedy super power conferences against those of the college football fan and the mid-major programs who want to see something more than a “mythical” national champ?

I have taken the time to put together a more equitable scheme on my own. It is not impenetrable by any means, but it sure beats the current alternative.

It incorporates the current conference alliances of the Bowls and the BCS formula with a genuine playoff in order to get a legitimate, “decide it on the field” National Champion.

This tournament also encourages teams to improve their non-conference strength of schedule and discourages the Nebraska/LSU/Ohio States of the world from opening the season with their riveting early season matchups against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Lastly, because it is set up to maintain current bowl affiliations in the first round of the playoff, there will be little concern about a lack of attendance.

Here we go:

An eight-team playoff which includes the Champions from the six BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Pac-10, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC). Plus, the two teams with the highest ranking according to the current BCS formula (which this year would have included both Boise State and TCU).

Rose Bowl: Pac-10 Champion vs. Big Ten Champion

Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 Champion vs. At-Large

Sugar Bowl: SEC Champion v. At-Large

Orange Bowl: Big East Champion vs. ACC Champion

The second round would pit the Rose Bowl winner against the Fiesta Bowl winner at a site west of the Mississippi, and the Sugar Bowl winner against the Orange Bowl winner in a site east of the Mississippi.

The True National Championship Game would be played at a predetermined site similar to the NFL’s Super Bowl. Whether you are a fan of the teams playing or not, it will be one of the hottest tickets out there.

For those whining that an eight-team playoff is not inclusive enough...tough! If you are not the best team in your conference, you have no right to complain that you should play for a national championship.

Additionally, teams have a second way to qualify: Beat really good teams during the regular season.

For those associated with the bowls who complain that this will ruin the practice of playing their bowls on New Year's Day...you’re kidding me, right?! The BCS ruined my favorite college football watching day years ago when they spread the bowl schedule out for two weeks.

The current system is a sham disguised as a justifiable crowning of a valid champion.

College football fans (outside of the ultimate BCS titleholder) are not buying it.