There has been a lot of griping about Texas\' exclusion from the BCS National Title Game in favor of Oklahoma this past week (including from yours truly) and it is with much trepidation that I have decided that the BCS needs revamping. rnrnNow, I\'m a well-established defender of the BCS. I love the idea of the #1 v. #2 matchup to establish a National Champion. I love how vital the regular season is every single week. The margin of error to even get to the big game is so slim and it is fantastic. College presidents have it absolutely correct when they say that college football has the best regular season in all of sports. However, college football hasn\'t played along in recent years and allowed a consensus top pairing since the 2005 USC-Texas game. Despite the fact that the BCS probably has gotten things correct in most years, there has been a lot of understandable criticism and I\'m starting to change my tune. Thus, I present to you the \'Variable\' BCS system.rnrnMy biggest reason to preserve the BCS is because I can\'t get the images of the 2005 USC-Texas and 2002 OSU-Miami games out of my head. How would a playoff have helped in a season where the best teams were clearly defined by the regular season? Can anyone honestly look me in the eye and tell me that a playoff would have made either of those years better? Thus, my proposal: rnrn1) In years where there are two and only two unbeaten BCS conference teams that sit 1-2 atop the rankings, the BCS as we know it today is preserved and we have a major championship game like we see it today. A good example would be 2002 or 2005. rnrn2) In years where there is a controversy with a group of 1 loss teams or three major unbeatens (2004), a plus one system will be invoked. The semifinal games will take place in two of the existing BCS bowls, with the final to take place a week later.rnrnDuring this process, the BCS will expand to include a 5th bowl: The Cotton Bowl in Dallas at the Cowboys\' new palace will be the 5th venue. Thus, you will still have a minimum of 3 BCS games which don\'t affect the National Title chase and reward the conference champions. In years with two clear unbeatens, you would have all 5 BCS games take place like usual which allows the major TV contracts to have a measure of certainty and allows for clear financial planning, a major factor for everyone involved. In this scenario, the National Title Game would take turns rotating among the 5 BCS bowls as an extra game like it is right now and would take place a week after New Year\'s Day, just like the current system.rnrnFurthermore, the maximum inclusion of teams from one conference would be upped to 3 teams per conference, one conference per year only, to allow for years where a dominant conference has a number of worthy teams, like this year\'s Big XII (#2 Texas, #3 Oklahoma, #7 Texas Tech) or the 2006 Big Ten (#1 OSU, #3 Michigan, #6 Wisconsin). This would allow things to be \'played out on the field\' and the top 4 teams, regardless of conference affiliation, would be placed into the 4 team field. rnrnFor example this year, we would have a variable system invoked and our matchups would be:rn1) Florida v. 4) USCrn2) Oklahoma v. 3) TexasrnThat way, the national title race can be resolved in years of controversy while years of clarity would be preserved. Take a look back at the ten years of the BCS and you will find that the BCS would have looked like this under a variable system:rn1998 Variable Year- Three 1 Loss Teamsrn1) Tennessee (unbeaten) v. 4) Kansas Statern2) FSU v. 3) Ohio Staternrn1999 NORMAL YEAR - FLORIDA STATE WON CONSENSUS TITLErn1) Florida State v. 2) Virginia Tech rnrn2000 Variable Year - Three 1 Loss Teamsrn1) Oklahoma (unbeaten) v. 4) Washingtonrn2) Florida State v. 3) Miamirnrn2001 Variable Year - Three 1 Loss Teamsrn1) Miami (unbeaten) v. 4) Coloradorn2) Nebraska v. 3) Oregonrnrn2002 NORMAL YEAR - OHIO STATE WON CONSENSUS TITLErn1) Miami v. 2) Ohio State rnrn2003 Variable Year - Four 1 Loss Teamsrn1) Oklahoma v. 4) Michiganrn2) LSU v. 3) USCrnrn2004 Variable Year - Three Unbeaten Teamsrn1) USC v. 4) Texas (1 Loss)rn2) Oklahoma v. 3) Auburnrnrn2005 NORMAL YEAR - TEXAS WON CONSENSUS TITLErn1) USC v. 2)Texas rnrn2006 Variable Year - Two 1 Loss Teamsrn1) Ohio State (unbeaten) v. 4) LSU (2 Losses)rn2) Florida (1 Loss) v. 3) Michigan (1 Loss)rnrn2007 Variable Year - Three 2 Loss Teamsrn1) Ohio State (1 loss) v. 4) Georgiarn2) LSU v. 3) OklahomarnrnIn the ten years of the BCS, the \'Variable\' would come into play 7 times, meaning that the unbeaten scenario occurred frequently enough that the variation is required. If two teams run through the regular season unbeaten and have clearly established themselves as the best by beating the best in BCS conferences, I think it would be a travesty to force a playoff upon them, a situation which prevents me from embracing a yearly plus-one. The \'Variable\' would likely solve most complaints about the system while still preserving the value and excitement of the regular season. In fact, the uncertainty of whether we would have a variable or normal year would also come into play, creating even more drama in the season\'s final weeks. rnrnA variable system is a strong compromise which fulfills all of the fiscal requirements without putting undue stress on a team by playing a large playoff system. It placates the playoff proponents by providing a playoff structure in years where one is needed while simultaneously calming the traditionalists like myself who don\'t believe in rewarding two loss teams with a shot at the National Title and devaluing major rivalry games. This falls well within the existing bowl framework and would probably even be deemed acceptable to college presidents. If you are upset with the BCS, I urge you to get behind my \'Variable\' idea because it is the best of both the worlds and is the system which is most likely to pass muster at the feet of the conference commissioners.
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
