The BCS: It Ain't So Bad

Since everyone and their president-elect is weighing in on this subject, it can't hurt the blogosphere to pack in one more post about the BCS system. I used to think it was a crock of shite, being highly in favor of a playoff. Now I'm not so sure, and here are some reasons why...

1) The BCS gives us something to talk/debate/argue/stick a fork in each other's throat about.

I know you've heard this before, most likely from your least favorite televised sports analyst. (Without the BCS I'm convinced some of those guys wouldn't have a job.) But you've got to hand it to them, it's true. A guilty pleasure of any sports fan is debating the quality of one team over another and who is over/under ranked. The reason this point of the NCAA football season is so interesting is because we can't wait to see who can keep themselves in pristine position for the biggest of bowl games. All season long every team shares this one goal and attempts to persuade the masses they are indeed the best football has to offer. People won't be anxiously tuning into the OU-TX Tech game tomorrow night to find out who will snag the #3 seed and who will drop to the #7 seed. Saturday will have major championship implications. It adds more drama, it opens things up for discussion, it makes conference debates more intriguing knowing only two can represent, it brings me to my next point...

2) Hearing about who got snubbed at #3 is far more interesting than who was unfairly left out at #9 (or #17 or #33).

Look at NCAA basketball: is there anything more annoying come March Madness than having to hear all the whining from those half dozen 19-11 teams about having to unjustly sit out of The Dance? There will ALWAYS be a handful of "deserving" teams that will be the odd men out once the dust settles. I'd rather participate in a debate about the top two teams in the country than compare a one-loss WAC team, a two-loss Big Ten team, and the loser of the ACC championship that's "still darn good." Widening the net may actually increase controversial subjectivity, shifting the scope from number of losses to the less quantifiable dispute of comparing losses. This makes losses suddenly seem less important, resulting in...

3) A playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season.

The college football regular season is the most interesting in all of sports. In professional sports, teams make a push to barely make the playoffs knowing anything can happen post-season. Who has the ambition to monitor the volatile NCAA basketball polls when it doesn't mean diddly-squat as to who is going to win The Tourney? Every Saturday the football games have *real* impact to the title race. Every Sunday we check ESPN.com for the new standings knowing they can make or break the season. Think about how many great games this season wouldn't have been near as spectacular knowing both teams were going to the playoffs regardless of the outcome. A playoff would steal a bit of pride from the underdogs, the magnitude of the Standfords beating the USC's would take a hit. There is a bit of truth to whoever said the NCAA has a 15-week playoff. Not to mention, expanding the season would cause a dilemma...

4) The schedule doesn't allow for a lengthy playoff format.

I recently heard a football coach voice support for a 32-team playoff. I wonder if he realized he was proposing a 31% increase in yearly games played for the finalists, in addition to extending the season three weeks. For those who often forget, these are students playing football. I know, it may not always seem like it, but the football schedule indeed fits around the class schedule. The regular season ends the week before finals begin and the two-week bowl season falls between the week after finals end and the week before the next semester begins. A more sensible 8-team playoff still extends the season two weeks because I imagine all the non-BCS bowls would still be played. The only solution would be to kick the bowl season off with the first round and fill in the smaller bowls between first-second rounds and second-NC, making the BCS bowls anticlimactic.

Now I'm not completely sold on the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" methodology -- there are solutions that meet in the middle. Here is my proposal:

Format: Four-team playoff
Stipulation 1: Undefeated teams receive an automatic berth.
Placement 1: Current BCS rankings still exist and strictly determine seeding.
Contingency 1: If less than four undefeated teams, remaining berths are open.
Stipulation 2: Eligible teams for open berths must be conference champions.
Placement 2: Highest ranked eligible team in current BCS fills open berth(s).

Seth, I've come around. Three years ago I would have argued Boise State didn't belong in the national title picture. With four teams given the chance, I say unblemished records voice the loudest claim. If the season ended today, allow Ball St, Boise St, or Utah have a shot at TT and Alabama. (I realize we currently have 5 undefeated teams, but it is extremely rare to have more than four undefeateds by year end.) A two-round playoff -- one that utilizes the current BCS formulas -- avoids the problems created by all of the above bullets. My format would also eliminate some of the biggest complaints about the current system: a mid-major undefeated team never gets a shot, teams that haven't even won their own conference get into the NC game, et cetera.

I'd like to know what others think about this proposal...or the BCS in general. (Overall, I really don't think think it's a terrible system.) I'd like to hear how an advanced, objective playoff format would work, but don't just show up with statements like "let them settle in on the field", "a playoff is more fair", or "computers shouldn't be involved when deciding national champions". Those arguments have been beat to death.

So it goes.