The solution to the BCS is a playoff tournament

By Jeff Zaginailoff Sports Central Columnist

Football has become America's national pastime, and as such, football is the most widely watched and attended college sport. Intercollegiate football outdates the NFL by 40 years. It is played by enormous universities and tiny private colleges, in all 50 states. It is also a big money-maker.

Revenues from college football make all other college sports possible. Football is the cash cow. Men's basketball breaks even. The rest of the men's sports, and all of the women's programs, are cost centers, supported by football revenue.

Fans and alumni follow their favorite teams very closely, and huge television audiences tune in every week. As training techniques become refined, the athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster.

If not for the fact that the best players leave early for the NFL, it would be safe to say that the skill level and quality of play is the highest it has ever been, and that statement might be true, despite the early defections.

And yet, despite recent efforts to reform it, the process for deciding the national champion in this, the most noteworthy and public of all college sports, is still far from perfected.

Progress has been made, but it could be so much better, simply by leveraging off of existing models.

First, the Bowl Coalition, later, the Bowl Alliance, and now the Bowl Championship "Series" was set up to guarantee a meeting of the two top ranked teams from the end of the regular season. This year's developments proved how deeply flawed the BCS system is.

Recall how USC was bypassed by Ohio State after the games of November 15, a week when USC won 45-0, and OSU survived in overtime. That's because the BCS dropped the "margin of victory" factor, so as to not encourage coaches to run up the score. Fair enough. But a key reason USC lost ground that week was that one component of the BCS rankings is a computer model controlled by the New York Times, which that week had USC (9-1) ranked fifth, behind Florida (8-3) and three other teams.

Then, when Oklahoma lost 35-7, they remained in the BCS picture, and LSU moved up a notch, while USC, having beaten previously 7-4 Oregon State 52-28, somehow fell out of contention, leaving us with the absurd predicament of having the "championship" game contested between the No. 2 and No. 3 ranked teams, while the No. 1 ranked team looks on.

There have been years when there have been other problems, (two of the last three) and there have been years (like last year) when the BCS got lucky, but it's a surprise that there aren't more disasters, since any season in which there are one or three undefeated teams, there will be a problem. Or any year there's one undefeated team and two or more teams with one loss.

The latter example is what this year was shaping up to be, with Oklahoma looking invincible, and USC and LSU both having just the one loss. That scenario means that a third-ranked team will get the shaft. As it turned out this year, the first-ranked team got the shaft. It's a joke.

Even when it "works", and there are two, (and only two) undefeated teams, the BCS system stinks. The worst result of the 1-2 matchup is that it renders every other bowl game a meaningless exhibition.

There are few more interested fans than this writer. It is not uncommon for me to watch three games on a Saturday, and there have been times when I watched four games back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Yet under this format, most seasons I will have no interest in any bowls, except the last one, because it will be the only one of any consequence. I watched very few of the bowls last year, and I didn't miss much. Of the 28 games, only seven had margins of seven points or less, while 10 had margins of 20 points or more.

So I've done a lot of complaining, and owe it to everyone to propose a solution. Here it is:

Imagine a 16-team postseason tournament. Every game will be absolutely crucial.

And although there will be an occasional blowout, even a No. 1 vs. No. 16 matchup figures to be a good game. How about the No. 8 vs. No. 9 game? That would be the game of the week for most Saturdays in the regular season. There would also be six more huge games the first week alone. The games would double in intensity in each round. Any undeserving team whose inclusion is questionable will quickly be bounced, and the worthiest contenders will advance. There will be no hiding out in a soft conference, with a cushy non-conference schedule. Such teams will get a comeuppance when they hit the iron.

The championship will be decided on the field. Nothing is more fair than that. Nobody can squawk about not getting their chance, because everybody except the champion will have dropped a tournament game.

The logistics can be made to work. Typically, the bowls will serve as the tournament sites.

The smaller bowls can have the early rounds, and the larger bowls, the late rounds. Obviously, this can be rotated, put out to bid, and even opened up to other competition.

My suggestion:

First-round games

Sun Tangerine Holiday Liberty Alamo Independence Hawaii Music City

Second-round games

Fiesta Cotton Peach Gator

Third-round games

Orange Sugar

Championship

Rose

Football's unique week-long layoff between games would create enormous promotion, hype, speculation, conversation, etc. Office pools for the football tournament would be more popular than pools for the basketball Final Four are now, because more people watch football. The championship week, and the game itself, would be events on par with the World Series and the Super Bowl.

Now let's play devil's advocate and entertain potential objections to the plan:

1. "What if a team has a great 12-0 season and loses their first playoff? What if a team with an imperfect record gets hot, and runs the table?"

The answer to both questions is so what? The 12-0 squad may have beaten up on a weak schedule.

They would probably have had a high-seed, and nobody but themselves to blame for choking.

As for the cinderella, only 16 teams qualify, so they had to be either a conference champ, or a top-16 outfit -- in either case, a legitimate contender. This will not be diluted to 64 teams as per basketball. Besides, upsets are a thrilling aspect of tournaments.

2. "What if a team has a rematch, especially with a team it has already beaten in its conference?"

So what? This happens in other tournaments, and will be less likely here, due to there being fewer entries. Several conferences can enter two teams, but only one or two will ever enter three teams.

Besides, there are rematches now:

1978 Oklahoma/Nebraska 1994 Florida/Florida State 1997 Florida/Florida State 2003 Miami/Florida State

3. "It's too much. Too many extra games, too much time. It makes the players pros, practically."

The players are pros now. Listen next time one is interviewed, and ask yourself, is this guy a student, a student athlete, or an athlete? Nine times out of 10, the answer will obviously be the latter. Fewer and fewer graduate, and more and more leave early. That's up to them.

As for too much football, what do you suppose teams do between Thanksgiving and New Year now?

Study rocket science all day? No, they practice. As for studying time and physical endurance issues, the real student athletes in divisions 1AA, 2, and 3 currently participate in exactly such a tournament.

Some people advocate a four-team playoff, or a maximum of eight. Sixteen is almost never mentioned. And yet sixteen is done today (in the other divisions). The model exists. One needn't look far...

After all, the first-round is equivalent to going to a bowl game (one postseason game). Only the eight survivors will play any more games than are played now. Only four will play two extra games each. And only two will play that last additional game. Seven additional games by eight teams.

In the entire country.

By the way, Kansas State this year played the now-standard 12 regular season game, a kickoff "classic," and a conference championship game, and is headed to a bowl game. By my math, that's 15 games. I have been calling for this playoff format for years now, and originally envisioned a team playing 11 regular season games, no conference championship, and, at most, four playoff games (round of 16, round of right, final four, championship). That's 15 games, and some people said it would never happen because 15 was too many.

Using 2003's calendar, the timing would be something like this:

Dec 6 First-round Dec 13 Quarterfinals Dec 20 Semifinals Jan 1 Championship

Some years (like this one), this means that Army/Navy and the conference championships need to have been concluded. This can easily be accommodated. Or the schedule could use Saturdays, December 13, 20, 27, and January 3.

Moving on, here's the proposal. This year's teams will be used as examples.

1) Conference champions, as determined by each conference, will get automatic bids. The conferences in 1-A are: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East (for now), Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC, Conference USA, Mid-American, WAC, and Sunbelt. I know some people will beef about the lesser conferences, but how can they be participants in division 1-A and not be eligible for its championship? Either they are eligible, or they have to be moved down to 1-AA.

2) The remaining bids are awarded on an at-large basis. This could be settled by the AP poll ranking, or by a selection committee, as per basketball, or even by the BCS standings used now. (The use of the poll or BCS here is not hypocritical because we are trying to settle a national championship here, and a team that has neither won its conference, nor managed a spot higher than No. 16, is just whining. If you're that good, why'd you lose multiple regular season games?)

3) The actual seeding can also be done by the AP poll, BCS, or selection committee.

This year's tournament would look like this:

Automatic bids:

Florida State [ACC] Michigan [Big 10] Kansas State [Big 12] Miami (Fla) [Big East] Southern Mississippi [Conference USA] Miami (Ohio) [Mid-American] Utah [Mountain West] USC [Pac-10] LSU [SEC] North Texas [Sun Belt] Boise State [WAC]

At-large bids:

Oklahoma Texas Tennessee Ohio State Georgia

There will always be a few tough choices to be made. For one thing, there are fewer "Major Independent" teams than ever before (four), but Notre Dame is one of them. They were only 5-7 this year, but had they done better, say 10-2, they would have to fight for an at-large bid. Of course, this is solved quite simply if the Irish joining a conference, and the obvious match is with the Big 10.

Anybody left out of this championship tournament will have failed during the regular season to take care of business to a degree sufficient to guarantee their inclusion. Win all of your games, and you're guaranteed to make it. Win all but one, and you will almost always qualify. Too much to ask? Hey, you're claiming to be national champion, so quit whining.

The following are the hard-luck excludees from the pool:

Purdue (9-3) lost to Michigan, Ohio State (OT), and Bowling Green. Third in conference. No go.

Iowa (9-3) lost to Michigan State, Ohio State, and Purdue. That's quality competition, but Iowa is fourth in its conference.

Washington State (9-3) and Mississippi (9-3). Both controlled their own destiny, but lost crucial showdowns, in-conference, late in the season.

Florida had four losses. Get real.

Texas Christian was 12-1, but they are in a second-tier conference, and blew it all by losing their biggest game of the year, at Southern Mississippi, who, as a result, won that conference, and is included.

The reader might argue that one of these teams (or someone else) should have Texas's slot, or Ohio State's, or Georgia's, or that three teams each from the Big 12 and SEC are too many, but I'm not going to.

Note that none of the above excludees won its conference, and that, of course, comes about by having lost at least one (or more) key conference games. Sorry.

Don't gripe to me about being the best in the nation if you're not even the best in your conference.

I do not want this proposal expanded beyond 16 teams, which leaves only five at-large bids, and the competition there is fierce. Perhaps arguments can be made for this near-miss team vs. that seeded team, and somebody will feel deprived of a chance to compete. To that, I simply say that no undefeated team will ever be deprived of a seed, nor any conference champion.

And so, the tournament would look like this:

Seed/Name/Ranking

1 Southern California (1) 16 North Texas (-)

8 Kansas State (8) 9 Florida State (9)

5 Texas (5) 12 Miami (OH) (18)

4 Michigan (4) 13 Boise State (18)

3 Oklahoma (3) 14 Utah (25)

6 Tennessee (6) 11 Georgia (11)

7 Ohio State (7) 10 Miami [Fla] (10)

2 Louisiana State (2) 15 Southern Mississippi (-)

Possible outcomes:

No surprise: USC 41, North Texas 13. Shootout: Kansas State 37, Florida State 33. Shocking upset: Miami (OH) 17, Texas 14. Near upset: Michigan 23, Boise State 20 Blowout: Oklahoma 44, Utah 6 Payback: Tennessee 30, Georgia 16 Rematch: Ohio State 31, Miami (FL) 24 Good game for a half: LSU 38, So Miss 20

Quarterfinals:

Thriller: USC 27, Kansas State 24. End of the line: Michigan 28, Miami (OH) 10 Triple OT: Oklahoma 44, Tennessee 41 Typical: Ohio State, 16 LSU 13

Semifinals:

End of argument: Michigan 27, USC 17 Dud: Oklahoma 37, Ohio State 11

Championship:

Oklahoma 24, Michigan 23

Hey, it could happen.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.