I have been praying that something like this was going to happen. It began last year when both the AP and the coaches voted USC as No. 1, even though they didn't even play in the championship game.
This year goes one step further. Four unbeaten Division I football teams is the exact scenario that the BCS has never prepared for. Auburn (12-0) is the first SEC team to go undefeated and not play in the title game. Only something of this magnitude can bring us to the brink of a playoff. Only year after year of BCS failure can finally lure those that hang onto this ridiculous system.
In December of last year I wrote a column of my ideas to fix the BCS. This year, in typical BCS fashion, I decided to tweak my ideas a bit. The reasons for needing a playoff have not changed, nor will they. Also the arguments against the playoff will not change, and they can be refuted by the same logic that has been used in the past. Basically, we are traveling in a circle.
There is nothing else in the world (other than maybe communism) that people disagree with more but seemingly can't do anything about. Is there really anyone out there that would be completely against having a playoff to decide the Division I college football national champion?
Notice Division I needs to be specified, because it is the only division in any collegiate sport that does not decide its champion via a playoff system, which tells you the system is inherently flawed.
There has been a lot of complaining about the results of the BCS but nobody seems to want to take the next step to throw something out there to see if it might stick. The few opponents to a playoff system have their reasons why the BCS is still the way to go. The only problem with those reasons is that they all stink.
Fear not friends, I have come up with the solution.
The DRS-asked and answered
The Dave Roloff System (DRS) solves all necessary problems and would lead to something that would rival the greatest tournament of them all -- college basketball.
The BCS need not be abolished, it just needs to be used in different fashion. The top eight teams from the BCS make the tournament, which leads to:
Argument 1: Someone will always have a complaint.
The rebuttal to this is simple. It is better to have the eighth- and ninth-ranked teams bitch than the second- and third-ranked teams. You don't deserve to play for the national championship when you can't crack the top eight.
In my system the bowls would be preserved, crushing the next argument:
Argument 2: The beauty and tradition of college football is all about the bowl games.
I love the bowl games and they can still be played. They will all be played during the week just like now. The top seven bowl games will be picked and rotated year-to-year and played on Saturdays beginning in mid-December in a playoff format.
The top seven bowls would consist of two groups: the four BCS bowls that are always involved in the playoff, and the other three bowls will rotate amongst a group of six. The Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar are the four BCS bowls. The next group of six would be The Cotton, Holiday, CompUSA, Peach, Gator and Alamo Bowls.
All the rest of the bowls would generally be unaffected.
Argument 3: This would take away from the traditional bowl match-ups.
I don't recall Michigan vs. Texas as a traditional Rose Bowl. The bowls already are not getting the traditional match-ups they covet. If it was tradition that they wanted to uphold, California would be playing Michigan, not Texas.
The games would be played on Saturdays beginning with the first round of four games where one game would be played Friday night and the other three games in tripleheader format so all could be seen. The following week would consist of two games and finally the championship game on New Year's Day. The NFL still would be in its regular season, thus not affecting that schedule.
Which brings us to:
Argument 4: Teams would be playing too many games.
Ask Army how many games they played in 2003. They played 13 games and lost them all. That is a schedule that doesn't even involve a conference championship game. Teams are already playing 14- and 15-game schedules. The NCAA could limit teams to 11-game schedules where the max games that could be played is 15 -- and that is by only the two teams who would possibly have to play a conference championship game and then make it to the finals of the playoffs.
Playing through the month of December brings up my favorite argument:
Argument 5: What about the student athletes and their finals?
I am really glad to hear universities are worried about their students while making millions of dollars off of them. These same schools don't seem to mind their basketball teams playing during finals or during the school week for that matter. Do people really think these guys aren't practicing, working out and lifting every day anyway? Also not all schools are on the same schedule or take finals during December. Just ask Minnesota.
The lower bowls would still make their money in this system along with the small schools that go to the smaller bowls (although many studies have shown that most teams lose money when traveling to bowl games, anyway).
ABC would likely pay billions for a contract to televise all of the games -- much like CBS had done with the basketball tournament. The one sure thing is that there would not be a shortage of money to pass around to the conferences of the teams involved. And without being tied to conferences and automatic bids eliminates the Pittsburgh problem and the feeling of an "OPEC like" cartel.
But the argument with the most merit is:
Argument 6: A playoff would cheapen the regular season. A team with two losses can still win the national championship.
This was an argument that was hard to refute until last year. Did losing the Big 12 Championship game mean much to Oklahoma? They got spanked by a Kansas State team that had lost at home to Marshall and it affected them none.
Also there is only one team in the top eight that has two losses, Georgia. In order to give more credence to an 11-0 Boise State team, all two loss teams should be eliminated regardless of rank. This would make Boise State the No. 8 seed bumping Virginia Tech to No. 7.
Being in the top eight is no simple task and, just like the NFL, seeding would be very important. Regular season games might lose a touch of importance, but when a team as good as Louisville does not make the top eight, you know that making the playoff is not a small task.
This format should not be difficult to pull off. It would be even more entertaining than March Madness. It would be a huge money making machine, not to mention you would actually be able to crown a champion without political lobbying or begging, as in the case of Texas coach Mack Brown.
This just makes sense. It makes so much sense that every other collegiate or pro sport decides its champion via some sort of playoff. Why not big-time college football?
The questions have been asked and answered. Those in power need to get this done. There just doesn't seem to be anything holding it back. The BCS was step one, the DRS is the final step.
Who in their right mind could disagree? We'll likely hear soon.
