Throw the BCS out the window

NCAA officials and conference executives are meeting in Nashville, Tennessee this week, and, of course, one of the topics of discussion is the Bowl Championship Series.

According to the Associated Press, the leaders of the BCS are looking at proposals for new formats, with the hopes that one of the new formats may provide some resolution to the current mess of system that is in place. The commissioners of the six BCS conferences will meet in February.

Chances are, not much good will come out of that meeting in February. Until the commissioners of the six power conferences decide to take their heads out of the collective sand, college football will continue to wallow in the muck that it has created with the current system.

In 1997, when Nebraska and Michigan split the "national championship," the BCS was supposed to be the white knight riding in to save the day. There will be no more split titles, no more controversy, because the BCS is here.

Instead, over its six year history, the BCS has created more controversy, more jokes, more confusion, and now, a split "national championship." The reason for the quotes is because the Division I-A football championship is not awarded by the NCAA. It is the only title, across all of the divisions, which the NCAA does not award.

Many people, media and fans alike, have called for a playoff system. The university presidents of the six power conferences do not want a playoff system, Mike Tranghese, outgoing head of the BCS says, because "Every one of us is selfish. We're going to do what we want to do to protect our conference."

Tranghese went on to add that the presidents feel that a playoff system would negatively affect graduation rates, and would impact the rest of the bowl system. Yet he also wants to state that it is not a decision based on money.

It is difficult to fathom that college presidents care about graduation rates for players in a fall sport, yet they do not seem to think about how the men's and women's basketball players are doing during their journeys. Football players, while they work hard during the week, play primarily on Friday or Saturday. Basketball players play at a minimum twice a week when school is in session, often playing on the road and traveling long distances. They have to worry about class attendance issues when going to tournaments while school is in session. Most of the playoff models would occur during the Christmas holiday break, when classes are not in session.

No matter how much the six BCS conferences and the NCAA try to deny it, it is about money, plain and simple.

Because if it wasn't about money, then the perfect way to decide the national championship is starting them right in the face, and we will call for it right here. It is a model based on the National Football League.

Currently there are 117 Division I-A schools playing in 11 conferences, with four teams currently independent. The proportion will stay the same next year, as UConn joins the Big East and Army returning to independent status from membership in Conference USA.

Using some sort of formula akin to the RPI in college basketball (in conjunction with the human polls) you may make up a field of twelve teams. The twelve teams are chosen from the eleven conference champions, plus the independent team with the best overall record. The formula would be used to seed the twelve teams, with the top four seeds receiving byes. The other eight teams would line it up and play.

Championships are meant to be decided on the field, with all parties potentially having a seat at the table. That is why college basketball, in my mind, will always trump college football. Until there is a playoff, college football is incomplete.

We will develop this playoff system over the course of the college off-season, depending on what comes out of some of the meetings in the next couple of months. For now, I urge you to think about this: What kinds of elements should go into the formula used for seeding teams? We have the human polls, but what else?

E-mail dfsingleton78@journalist.com with you thoughts.