Who's No. 2 -- College Football's BCS and its faults

The world that is College Football is in disarray and no one has a definitive answer to the question of who is No. 2 in the land.

Admittedly, this parody provides excitement, but ultimately raises questions about the validity of the BCS equation, which was designed to remedy the question of who is the best team in the land.

Up to this point in time, the primary question is answered: Oklahoma stands head and shoulders above the rest of its competition.

However, there is still much football to be played and if the Sooners falter, more questions will arise.

In theory, the long season, which is capped by conference championship games, weeds out the best of the best. But, what happens when it doesn't?

Conceivably, the SEC champion could have three losses, yet would still muster a BCS bid. It might very well come down to a vote by the conference's athletic directors as to which team represents the eastern side of the conference.

A vote, though, seems to be the only acceptable way of answering the question of who is the most deserving of the chance to fend for a title.

Let us examine the list of teams that could possibly vie for the opportunity.

Oklahoma sits undefeated with convincing wins over Texas and Oklahoma State, so the battle for No. 1 in NCAA football is decidedly unquestioned. But, considering the current BCS format, they still have to play the No. 2 team in the national championship game, assuming, of course that they win their remaining games. The question now is not who's No. 1, but who's No. 2.

A decided No. 2 in both the ESPN/USA Today and AP polls is USC, but they were beaten by a mediocre Cal team. Granted they are just coming off a win over a good Washington State team, but is this enough to overcome their defeat at the hands of mighty Cal? I would say no.

Our next option for the No. 2 team in the land is Florida State, which is No. 3 in both polls. Their lone defeat came at the hands of No. 4 Miami, who we will get to in a second. Still there are mitigating circumstances explaining their loss to the 'Canes. The game was played in a veritable deluge, thus weakening Chris Rix's ability to throw the ball effectively. Still, a win is a win is a win and Florida State lost.

Our next consideration has to be Miami, a team coming off of an impressive 39 game regular season winning streak. Nonetheless, their recent failure against Virginia Tech has dropped them to only tangential consideration in the National Championship hunt.

Then we have Virginia Tech, a team whose last two performances merit comparisons to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. How can a team that beat then No. 2 Miami have had such a blaring stumble against West Virginia in Morgantown. Of course, the typical range of answers includes: they were looking ahead to Miami, they were playing on the road, etc.

We also must consider the other once-beaten's -- LSU and Ohio State.

Impressive as the Buckeyes last two years have been, their loss to Wisconsin has them slightly behind LSU, Virginia Tech, Florida State and USC in the ESPN/USA Today poll.

LSU's weaker schedule has them at the bottom of the list among BCS contenders, but if they win out, including a win in the SEC championship game, they have a shot. In order for them to realize this shot though, they will have to have the help of one, or some, of the teams in front of them losing... again.

Perhaps we should examine one possible scenario. I would say probable, but that word no longer exists in the vocabulary of those of us following the College Football season.

Consider this: USC and Oklahoma win out in convincing fashion and all of the other once-defeated teams win out, but less impressively. USC goes to the Sugar Bowl to play Oklahoma and gets crushed. Florida State wins their bowl game convincingly and so forth.

Will there be questions about USC's selection to play in the title game? Of course there will. There were questions in 2001, when Nebraska never stood a chance to the juggernaut that was Miami. But, at least in this scenario, you have a winner.

What if Nebraska beats Oklahoma in the final game of year. Possible? Why not? Does the team that all of the experts consider tops still play for the prize? More than likely they do not, and the door is wide open to the possible contenders, all of whom are currently though to contain lesser football playing mortals.

For those of you ready to get really wild with the hypotheticals, try this one.

Oklahoma loses to Nebraska and loses the Big 12 title game, Miami loses to Tennessee or Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech loses to Pittsburgh, LSU loses to Ole Miss, Florida State loses to Florida, Ohio State loses to Michigan and USC loses to UCLA or Oregon State. Everyone of these teams would have to losses. True, it is unlikely, but not impossible by a long shot.

Then, what if the sleeper team, TCU, wins out to go undefeated. Granted, they play a soft schedule, but undefeated in a world of teams with two losses is a big deal. How awful would it be if this happens and TCU does not get a chance to play for the national title?

I argue that with the uncertainties surrounding College Football, there must be a better way of deciding who plays for the national title and is finally crowned king of the mountain. There is, and always has been, the argument for some sort of playoff system pitting the best of the best against each other, a more objective way of answering the question of who is No. 1, and for our purposes, who is No. 2.

The BCS, with all of its shortcomings, is still a fairer determinant than simply relying on the opinions of selected coaches and writers, but it remains inadequate.

Naysayer's point to the fact that a playoff system requires teams to play too many games and that it takes Bowl money out of the teams' pocket.

These objections could be easily remedied, however if you take the top 14 teams, seven from the east and seven from the west.

Give the two top teams a bye and have a 13 game playoff. Reduce any team's schedule to include 10 regular season games and then add one game for the conference championship for an automatic bid to the playoff and have the top 14 teams square off in a winner take all post season. This way the regular season games and rankings still matter in the respect that regular season rankings dictate the seed received in the tournament, thus rewarding the good play and punishing the bad.

Teams that start off the year slowly and improve as the year progresses are rewarded and teams that play consistently all year are equally rewarded.

* The corporate sponsors are happy in that each bowl game has more meaning and intensity and thus more viewership.

* Fans are rewarded by getting to see their team play even more meaningful games.

* Fans reward the city hosting the playoff games with their dollars.

* Conferences are rewarded by getting a cut of the television and ticket sales revenue -- individual teams are rewarded accordingly.

This scenario gives everyone involved more to play for, more to watch and more to gain. Think about it. Everyone makes more money and gets more exposure by playing more nationally televised games, thus increasing the incentive for a real Bowl Championship Series. Teams like TCU benefit from exposure and are given a chance at prize they covet, and if they are truly a second tier division one football program they won't win, but at least they get the chance.

With a Bowl tournament more money is generated to all involved parties, a true national champion is crowned by a more objective scheme and we no longer have the problem of defining who is No. 2.