Let's just focus on the fact that fans are fed up, the current system is a crapshoot at best, and there are plenty of functional alternatives if all interested parties would just sit down and focus on what's best for the sport! (Yes, I know that "what's best for the sport" may not be what's best for all of the constituents. But a fan can dream, right? I mean, I can hope that one day we won't have to deal with all the politicking and bickering, and we'll be able to settle everything on the field? God, I hope so....)
With that said, here are some of the issues my system tries to address:
1) Too many games. I agree that college football can't go the way of the NFL, with teams playing nearly twenty games, counting preseason and post-season.
2) Fan travel. One can't expect most fans to be able to travel with their team for 4 rounds (or more) of road games in hopes of playing for a championship.
3) Room for the "little man." Not unlike major league baseball, the non-BCS teams have no chance to win a title each year. That is a FACT. Utah, BYU and Boise State might as well be the Pittsburgh Pirates.
4) Maintaining the importance of the regular season. No, I don't want the regular season cheapened, per se, either. However, I'm not letting every damn team into a bowl game, much less the playoffs. Furthermore, I'm rewarding the top teams for finishing near the top.
5) Get the freaking coaches out of the system! My system removes the obvious conflict of interest in coaches voting in the BCS.
Without further ado, here is my "system." I call it the "This is a Hell of a Lot Better than the Current System" System.
In my plan, the playoff takes in the top twelve teams. How are those twelve teams decided? Fantastic question! Like the NCAA tournament committee, I would create a committee of people who watch games all year long, meet during the season to practice seeding, evaluating, etc. Rather than coaches voting, who rarely watch teams other than their own or opponents, this committee will be devoted to watching non-stop football and making the final call on which teams make the field, and which will be delegated to the traditional bowl field.
What criteria will they consult? Well, just like basketball, it will be critical to look at strength of schedule, non-conference and conference schedule, injury situations, strength of conference, conference championships, etc.
Compiling their data, the committee will pick the top twelve teams, no questions asked. If a team wins a conference championship? Well, congratulations! But don't tell me that should guarantee a team anything. I'm not going to claim that a Virginia Tech or Cincinnati team is better than a Texas, Ole Miss or USC just because VT won the conference championship and those others did not.
As an amendment to the current situation, I call for ALL conferences to abort their conference championship games. They accomplish little, often force a team to beat an opponent twice, and often just destroy championship hopes for teams in the current system. Then, all conferences should abolish the "divisions" in the conferences, and play a systematic rotating schedule. Want to keep alive the rivalries like Texas-OU, OSU-Michigan, and Florida-Georgia? That's fine. That can be done if both teams prefer it. Finally, trim the schedule down to 11 games. This will help in the long run by cutting one more game from the loaded schedule the dear Athletic directors claim to worry about, DESPITE the fact that they added a 12th game for everyone several years ago.
Now, once the top twelve teams are selected, regardless of conference, the top 4 teams will be rewarded with a first round bye. This is their reward for for finishing in the top 4, and also an incentive for teams to try to go undefeated, or lose as few games as possible, in the regular season. The other 8 teams? Well, the 5-8 seeds will play HOME games against the 9-12 seeds. For example, the 5 seed hosts the 12, 6 hosts the 11, etc. This rewards the next four teams with another home gate, even though they have to win potentially an extra game. Also, this helps keep people from having to travel too much. The games will easily sell out, and I'm sure there will be sufficient interest in road fans trying to make road trips to some unique university stadiums with a aura of "sudden death" importance in the air.
In the next round, the four winning teams will face the four bye teams. The matchups will be re-seeded so that the top team plays the lowest seeded team, etc. Like the current BCS games, these games will take place at 4 of the 5 BCS game sites. (I say 5 because I think the Cotton Bowl should regain top 5 prestige again with it moving to a state of the art stadium that can be insulated from bad weather in the winter.) For instance, the four second round games would potentially take place at the Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. These would be tremendous matchups between top teams, and this would also be a fantastic trip for fans to make! These first two rounds would be played after a one week break from the regular season. Some may say that two weeks off after the regular season is a bit of a long layoff for the bye teams. However, I think it's much better than the current 38 day layoff the title teams might have. After these two rounds, the last four teams would break for two weeks for a holiday break and final exams.
The last four teams would commence in a "Final Four" event like in NCAA basketball. All four teams would meet in the 5th BCS site. For example, all four teams would meet at the Rose Bowl to settle the championship. The semifinal games would take place on a Saturday after the break, and then the championship game would take place on the following Saturday at the same site. This would also help with travel because people could make a week-long trip to one destination to catch the semi's and final game. Who wouldn't love the week-long hoopla similar to the Super Bowl or college basketball final four? It would fit easily into the current BCS bowl system, without a doubt. The money to be made would be ridiculously great for all parties involved. Fans wouldn't have to travel to 4 different sites. Rarely would a team play any more than 13 or 14 games, which is quite comparable to the current situation. Best of all, the best team would be decided on the field.
What about the other bowls, you ask? To me, it's obvious there are WAY too many. If we drop back down to 11 games, I'd cut the rest of the bowl field down to 20 bowls. This is 25 total sites, counting the 5 playoff sites. That would work out to a total of 52 bowl teams. I think that is a substantial cut from the 68 bowl teams now. I'm tired of seeing mediocrity rewarded! By slicing the bowl/ playoff teams to 52, I would think we'd see more 7-4 teams making the final cut, rather than the downright silly amount of 6-6 teams that go on to lose and finish their season 6-7 after the bowl. Huh??
So, I know this is long and a bit wordy, but what do you think? What do you like? What potential flaws do you see? I tried to troubleshoot and think of specific issues and details, but let me know if you think I forgot anything....I'm excited to hear some feedback!
Posts
