It’s time college football gave the fans what they want: a
playoff system
Brainstorming for this column started in 1998.
That was the year you and I started inquiring about the new postseason model that was going to Super Bowlize FBS college football, which in those days was called Division I.
I remember the first time I read those three letters, B-C-S. I was poring over an article in Athlon’s annual college football preview elaborating on the soon-to-be instated Bowl Championship Series.
The BCS — it was easier to read than explain.
Truth be told, I was sold on this seemingly utopian system. It looked great on paper, the idea of having the two best teams — as ranked by a computer — duke it out on the last day of the college football season.
“Won’t it be great?” I asked my father, who went to UCLA for business school.
“I’d still rather see the Bruins play in Pasadena on New Year’s Day.”
“But this is bigger! This is No. 1 versus No. 2. This is the Fiesta Bowl.”
“It’s not the Rose Bowl.”
Nuts to tradition.
That was the mindset for me and every other once-BCS advocate who, like the Joads in the Grapes of Wrath, believed there was something better out there — something more refined than leaving national titles to be decided by pollsters. Couldn’t the teams just do that on the field?
The UCLA Bruins came close to playing in the Fiesta Bowl in 1998-99, but were upset by Edgerrin James and the University of Miami in their last game. UCLA settled for a traditional Pacific-10-Big Ten Conference matchup with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
My dad hardly watched. It was the Rose Bowl, yes, but it wasn’t your parents’ Rose Bowl.
Three days later, No. 1 Tennessee beat No. 2 Florida State 23-16 in a Fiesta Bowl that was anything but the Super Bowl I pegged it for before the season. It was an awful game, but it was still No. 1 against No. 2. The computer decided the teams; the teams decided the title. That’s all that matters right?
I’m still asking that question today — now 10 years into the BCS Era — and I’m certainly not alone.
You can make your arguments for and against the current FBS postseason model, but you cannot question the truth that’s come to light: There is no perfect system.
Swapping tradition for change, the FBS could impose a tried-and-true playoff system, such as the one used in pro football. But the FBS has 119 teams. How many would advance to this lengthy gridiron tournament — which would keep student athletes out of the classroom longer and cost a pretty penny for fans to attend?
That’s where the plus-one idea makes its case. The FBS could have the Oklahoma-Florida winner play another game — but which would they face, Utah or USC? The Utes are undefeated, but the Trojans are ranked higher in every major poll. And what if No. 3 Texas beat Ohio State by a convincing margin? The FBS would have four legitimate teams pleading their case.
Hold that thought.
What if there was a postseason formula that could tweak the current system without adding too many games to the season? Gilroy Dispatch sports editor Josh Koehn and I penned a three-step idea.
It’s slightly original. It’s compromise. It’s simple.
Step 1: Shorten the regular season by one nonconference game. Eliminating one cream puff, such as an FCS opponent, off the schedule isn’t going to upset the balance of power. The FBS recently added one game to the schedule, but coaches have been sluggish to take on more challenging teams.
Step 2: Keep the bowls (all 34 of them) intact and add two more BCS games.
Step 3: Take the four winners of the traditional major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and send them to the two new BCS games, which will serve as semifinal contests for the BCS National Championship.
While this idea sinks in, consider the following:
- Under this system, the season would be one game longer than usual for only two teams.
-
The new bowls would add excitement and legitimacy to the BCS while keeping tradition and opening doors to new sponsors.
-
The BCS contingent would be cut from 12 teams to eight, but those eight teams would play for all the marbles. The playoff field can include the six major conference champions, plus the remaining two highest ranked teams in the BCS poll — think Utah, Boise State, Notre Dame.
This system is not controversy proof, but it leaves as much room for debate as any college tournament. There will always been snubs. Major college football is the only NCAA sport that does not use a playoff system to determine its national champion.
Ponder the first-round matchups you’d see this January: Florida-Cincinnati, USC-Penn State, Virginia Tech-Oklahoma, Alabama-Texas. Those would appease the traditionalists — like my dad — who back sending the Pac-10 and Big Ten champions to the Rose Bowl, the Atlantic Coast Conference and Big 12 winners to the Orange Bowl, the Southeastern Conference and Big East champion to the Sugar Bowl and the best remaining teams to the Fiesta Bowl.
Everyone outside of Utah would be satisfied.
Of course, some approve of the current system in place — and for good reason. The BCS had produced masterpieces such as the 2007 Boise State-Oklahoma (Fiesta Bowl), 2006 Texas-USC (Rose Bowl), 2003 Ohio State-Miami (Fiesta Bowl) and 2000 Michigan-Alabama (Orange Bowl). Without the BCS, those instant classics wouldn’t have happened.
BCS officials have tried to please both sides in recent years, restoring the conventional matchups of each major bowl and adding a fifth game — the BCS National Championship Game — to open the money pot to mid-major teams.
It’s still not enough.
Who’s to say the absolute, best team will be decided Thursday after No. 1 Oklahoma and No. 2 Florida — both one-loss teams — meet in the BCS title game?
What about Utah, which completed an undefeated season with a convincing win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?
What about Southern California (12-1), which clobbered Penn State in the Rose Bowl?
The Utes and Trojans can still win a national championship this year, pending The Associated Press ranks them above Oklahoma and Florida in the final poll. The same thing happened in 2003-04 when undefeated Louisiana State and USC split the BCS and AP titles, having never played each other. As with this year, we will never know which team was best.
The debate over what’s best for college football is as defined as Tim Tebow’s jaw line: tradition or innovation?
