Change of Pace

Well, this blog started as an ode to my extreme distaste for John Canzano... I will ALWAYS speak my mind regarding his inaccurate columns and ridiculous commentary when needed. However, I have decided that I want to also comment about many things other than a moron who has no place in journalism.

So, tonight, I stick with sports. Utah may have made the best case yet that the BCS system is still broken. In 2004 the team went undefeated in the regular season and became the first "BCS Buster." Most sports fans do not need this history lesson, but it is relevant to the discussion.

While the team got into the BCS, they were set up with a no win situation. If they lost, BCS proponents would be able to say that they did not belong... but, because they were playing a Pitt team that was nowhere near the caliber of the best teams in the country, winning would only be viewed with "well, Pitt wasn't that good." This is exactly what happened.

This year, in their infinite wisdom, the BCS tried to set up Utah again... pitting them against Alabama ina virtual home game for the Crimson Tide, everyone outside of Utah expected the rout. Everyone wanted to, once and for all, show the world that the non-BCS schools just cannot hang with the "real" big-boys.

Then Utah went out and dominated Alabama. The BCS cannot hide it's warts any longer. While I am certainly not going to definitively state that Utah is the best team in the country, they deserve a shot at the NC. It is time for a modified playoff system.

I know what most of the complaints are, but mine is modified to an 8 team playoff where winning your conference is more important than scoring lots of "style" points.

There are 6 BCS conferences, conference champs get an automatic bid tot he playoffs. The 7th bid goes to the highest rated non-BCS conference champion (this year that would be Utah). The other 4 conference champions (this year, Sun Belt, Conf-USA, Mt. West and Mid American) play each other in a 2 game "play-in" for the final BCS spot.

In order to keep the lower tier bowls involved (and likely create more interest) these lower tier bowls are used for these play-in games. As an example, this year, the Motor City Bowl could have hosted the MAC Champ v. The Sun Belt Champ on Dec 13th (Buffalo v Troy) while the Poinsettia Bowl could have hosted the Mt. West v C-USA (Boise State v. E. Carolina) The winners face each other at a "home" site to be determined by the BCS (highest rated of these two winners team plays a home play-in game).

This gets us our 8 teams. Each of the traditional New Year's Day Bowl games hosts their traditional match-ups where possible... so this year that would mean

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v At large
Rose: USC V. Penn State
Sugar Bowl: Florida v At Large
Orange Bowl: Va Tech v Cincinnati

The winners of these would meet the following Saturday with a HOME team... the BCS #'s would dictate who gets the home games. These would be the national semifinals. Finally, the following week would be the National Championship game at a rotating site... but not necessarily tied to the four main ones... it could even be tied to the Super Bowl site.

Now, this solves nearly every problem mentioned by those who claim that the system we have is fine. First, there can be no arguments of who deserved it more. In order to get in you MUST win your conference... if you don't, you have no reason to complain.

Second, this does NOT extend the season by much more than it already is... in my system, the National Semi-Finals would be on Saturday, January 10 and the NC game would be January 17th. This years game is on the 8th... so it would only add 9 days...

Third, the traditional bowls would STILL get theirs... AND they would be able to get back to more traditional match-ups ALL ON NEW YEAR'S DAY.

Fourth, the National Semifinals on campus... talk about your SERIOUS MONEY... those who think that the current system generates more money... have no clue how much money would be generated by on campus semifinals.

Fifth, the lower tier bowls would still get very attractive match-ups... think about it, in my scenario, look whose still out there for bowl games, only the likes of Texas, Ohio State and Alabama.... not bad for the second tier bowls to get those teams!

Sixth, this would IMPROVE early season Out Of Conference (OOC) games. Why? Well, if you know that losing to a quality team will not knock you out of the National Championship race, wouldn't you be more willing to schedule the tougher teams? After all, playing tougher teams early will get you more prepared for your conference schedule... thereby ENABLING you to have a better shot at a national title.

Seventh, Notre Dame haters, this means that, if Notre Dame wants access, they HAVE to join a conference... no more independents! (I am sure whichever conference they joined would allow them to maintain their own TV contract)

Are there other ideas? Sure, but most of them call for nearly scrapping the entire Bowl system, I know that is not going to happen... so why ask for something you KNOW you cannot get? Let's try to push something that has a chance... in order to get what we the fans want (a playoff), we MUST recognize that we have to keep those things in tact that the current system holds dear to it's heart, the Bowls and the BCS.

Finally, the ONLY way to take debate of who "deserves" to be in a playoff, you must make the entrants contingent upon being conference champions... Do I think Troy is a "better" team than Alabama? Nope. But Troy won their conference and Alabama did not.

Win your conference and you're in. Lose and go to a lower tier bowl... I also think, by the way, that this would RAISE the stature of some of those lower tier bowls.

Now, let's see if somehow this little blog can get discovered and that the powers in college football see the light. Otherwise, we might just as well go back to the pre-BCS system and just let people "vote" for a National Champ. Until then, the national championship will still likely be decided by who scores the most style points to get to the game (that's you Oklahoma).