Counterpoint: The BSCS

We presented you with a scenario that involves conference champions (well, some of them, anyway) yesterday. Of course, we know there's "no perfect solution," as the BCS sycophants repeatedly tell us

So I go back to the solution I proposed in December 2007, the arrogantly titled Boiled Sports Championship Series.

To recap, I simply proposed that since everyone thinks the rankings are so critical and, as currently constituted, make the regular season so incredible, that's fine -- we'll keep the rankings. The top six in the BCS go into the playoff -- the rest of the schools out there continue to be invited to play in the meaningless bowls they currently play in. Yes, it'll still be fun for a 6-6 team that eeked in (like we all hoped the Boilers would have). No, it won't diminish these bowls.

We'll also provide first-round byes for the number 1 and 2 teams in the playoff -- thus further ensuring that the regular season means every bit as much as it currently does. So here's what you have... the top six in the BCS are as follows:

1. Alabama
2. Texas
3. Cincinnati
4. TCU
5. Florida
6. Boise State

Yes, Oregon, Ohio State and G-Tech and Iowa miss out. So what? They miss out in the current system, too, and I don't think you can make much of an argument that any of those programs deserve to be in the discussion. They all had their shots at a special season and they all found ways to botch it. The Top 6 did not.

As I said, 'bama and Texas get byes into the semi-finals.

Cinci (3) plays Boise (6) in the Sugar Bowl the weekend of 12/26.

TCU (4) plays Florida (5) in the Fiesta Bowl the weekend of 12/26.

Let's just say for argument that Boise beats Cinci and TCU beats Florida.

The weekend of 1/2/10, Alabama (1) plays (6) Boise State in the Orange Bowl while Texas (2) plays TCU (4) in the Rose Bowl.

And then the following weekend, 1/9/10 (right around when the current national title game is played), the finals occur between the winners of those two semi-final games.

Can you honestly tell me this wouldn't be a better scenario than what we currently have? Is it perfectly fair? Of course not. But who said the goal had to be perfection? I think this would be damn close to "perfection" based on the excitement it would generate.

I tend to agree that 16 teams are far too many. I don't care if BYU (14 in BCS) or West Virginia (16) think they could hang -- it doesn't matter. They aren't close to the top. Nobody would cry about injustice if three-loss teams don't make it.

Yes, I realize this doesn't factor in conference championships -- who cares? Why should that matter? Unless we realign all of college football with 6 or 8 major conferences, there's no way to level the playing field. There are going to be strong conferences and there are going to be weak conferences. So let's just use the rankings system to determine the seeding and then let those guys play it out.

Just take a look at the BCS rankings! This scenario pits the six teams that are clearly the most deserving. Five unbeatens and 1-loss Florida. Everyone after 6 has major flaws on the resume.

Point is, no matter what scenario you like, almost anything is better than the current setup. For those who care about parades and tradition -- why can't those peripheral traditions continue? You rotate who hosts the semi-finals and national title game every year and each bowl remains happy. You're adding 1-2 games to the season for these teams, at most.

It's fun to dream, isn't it? Because that's what this all is -- dreaming.

Wouldn't It Be Neat If These Bowl Games Meant Something?

I know it's a tired discussion, but as I watched OSU figure out yet another way to make the Big Ten look weak to the naysayers, I couldn't help but think it was a great game and that I wished it actually meant something (plus, it gives us a chance to run one of our favorite photos yet again).

But, really, OSU-UT meant nothing last night. Had Texas blown them out then maybe they could make an argument for the AP title. But, again, what's that worth? A bunch of writers saying you're the best? Whoop-dee-doo.

And as much as Thursday night's BCS title game between Oklahoma and Florida has the potential to be fantastic, will the winner of that game be the unquestionably best team in college football? Not even close. Couldn't USC give any of these teams a great game? What about Utah? Haven't they at least earned a chance to show they're for real?

At its simplist, wouldn't it be neat if last night's winner (Texas) were to play USC and Utah got to play the winner of Thursday's game and then those winners played? Wouldn't that kind of sort it out without all that much trouble? We've talked about it before, but a very simple, small playoff of sorts would sort it all out very nicely. Would someone like Texas Tech still be pissed? Sure, maybe. But that's better than it being the current mess where nobody's really happy.

And maybe the place to start is to stop arguing about whether the bowl system or a playoff system is better. Can't we just say: "Girls, you're both pretty. Let's do some kind of combo."

Again, keep all your meaningless Mineke Car Care Bowls for the 6-5 Notre Dames of the world. Have fun, guys. You're "champions," in your own special way. But let the big boys actually sort this out, using the existing BCS bowls as the playoffs. It's not all that hard and it wouldn't diminish the regular season at all.

But let's even, for sake of argument, say it slightly diminishes the regular season -- isn't that worth it for the amazing matchups and pretty much undisputed champion you'd wind up with?

I think so.

-------------------------------------

And to plug in our formula from last year, using the (really simple, even-a-caveman-can-do-it) Boiled Sports Championship Series model, you'd have the following six teams included (based on BCS rank):

1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC
6. Utah

See, your Cinderella has a shot, because Utah is in there. And we all know they beat Alabama, though in our system they wouldn't play first. OK and Fla get byes and Texas plays Utah while Bama and USC battle.

I'll assume USC beats Bama and we'll pretend Utah upsets Texas. Then the Utes get Oklahoma and the Trojans get Florida. Who wouldn't love a USC-Florida matchup? Then the winners of those two games meet for the national title.

Wouldn't there be a hell of a lot less arguing?

Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese Thinks You're Stupid

Since one of our frequent visitors, Matt, provided a link to an SI article purportedly as evidence as to why a playoff system wouldn't work in college football, I took the time to read it. Hey, our readers take the time to read our drivel so why not see what they want us to see?

Well, I'm glad I read it. Because you want to talk about drivel... What we have here is some angry old men who like lining their pockets with BCS money. (Oh, the current deal with Fox is four years and $320 million dollars. That's $80 million a year Fox has paid to broadcast the BCS bowl games. Don't tell me it's not about money, because that's the only f-cking thing it's about. Not tradition, not academics... money. Understand that.)

But let's look at some specific things in the article...

Any discussion about the future of college football's postseason must start with the requisite disclaimer that "the one thing [all] of us are in agreement on is there isn't going to be a playoff," said Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese.

Yes. "All of us." All of us being, you know, the five conferences that control the BCS and have guaranteed slots. "All of us" does not include:

50 or 60 other D-1 programs, plus a few hundred million college football fans, alumni and students, who all pour money into the beast that is college football.

Such sentiments routinely frustrate the large segment of the public that clamors for a playoff and can't comprehend why Division I-A football remains the nation's only major sport -- and only NCAA football division -- which refuses to implement a full-scale tournament to determine its champion.

Hmm, yes. It is hard to comprehend... unless you simply stop trying to find the logic-based reasons and come to grips with the fact that it's about money and nothing else. But what say you, Big East Commish Mike Tranghese?

"Whenever my [league's] presidents have asked me about the positives and negatives of a playoff, I tell them the two positives are [more] money and people will stop yelling and screaming," said Tranghese. "And the negative is that the value and meaning of the regular season will be diminished. Playoff proponents who say that's not true -- that's just pure stupidity."

Take note, aspiring debaters: whenever you don't like well-reasoned and fair questions/arguments from other people (including people who pay your salary), just tell them they're stupid. Also permissible names: ninny, poo-poo head, fart nose and booger-eater.

Tranghese points to Pittsburgh's upset of West Virginia the final night of the regular season, a riveting game that severely impacted the national-championship picture. "If there had been a playoff, who would have watched that game?" he said. "It would have no meaning. West Virginia would already be in the playoff.

Except that under the "system" that most people would settle for, it wouldn't be like a 64-team field, Mikey. It would be like a 4 or 6 team field and so the desperation to stay in the top 4 or 6 would still be there. And the #2 team losing to an awful Pitt team would STILL be devastating to their chances (for example, under the system we proposed here, WVU would have been out of the playoff -- not hard to comprehend). And also... even if it were true that it would diminish the regular season (which is simply would not)... and I'll say this really slow for those who have trouble sounding out words... the current system diminishes the postseason! Doesn't anybody get that? Sure, the regular season is awesome and builds and builds and builds to this magnificent crescendo.... and then peters out with meaningless bowl games and significant doubt about who is the best and who might beat who. Wow, how magical. How "traditional." But at least everyone gets to their finals on time.

But Tranghese isn't done.

"The BCS has created what I call cross-watching," said Tranghese. "An LSU fan had interest in that game, an Ohio State fan had interest in that game. Most of that would go away if we had a football playoff -- that is one thing I'm certain of."

Oh, so the goal of the BCS is not to pit the best teams versus one another to decide a clear-cut national champ? Glad you admitted that out in the open. What you're saying is that the goal of the BCS is to make Ohio State fans care about the West Virginia-Pitt game. I see. Well, then congratulations, sir, mission accomplished.

Guess what, though.... people who love college football would still have been watching. People don't turn off the TV and stop watching because a team is in a playoff. Do you think people stop watching the Red Sox once they clinch a playoff spot? Do Dallas Maverick fans say to their wives, "Naw, let's go shoe shopping tonight, hon, the Mavs already locked up the two-seed in the West. I don't need to watch."

And you know what else? The BCS may have created "cross-watching" but a real playoff system would create even more "real-watching"!

Mike Silve, SEC and BCS prez chimes in:

"Whether you like the BCS or don't like the BCS, no matter how cynical you may be, you have to agree it has contributed to the popularity of college football, particularly in the regular season," said Slive. "Years ago, when Hawaii played Boise State, it was of interest solely to those communities. It's now of interest to everyone."

What? You mean, because Hawaii and Boise State both had an outside shot at a BCS slot? Or because they were both good? And what did Boise State's BCS bowl game victory give them last year? They were perfect, 13-0. They got nothing. And even if Hawaii had beaten Georgia this year, what would have have meant? Nothing. LSU would still be your national champ. Yeah, the BCS is awesome.

The other common argument against a playoff -- the one regarding academics -- tends to draw more rolled eyes from the public. University presidents have repeatedly stressed their opposition to any postseason arrangement that would interfere with first-semester finals (usually held in mid-December) or would carry the season into a second semester (usually starting in mid-January).

Yes, consider my eyes rolled so hard that my eyeballs scratched on my eyebrows. This is quite possibly the stupidest and most insulting argument made against a playoff. And Tranghese is back:

"Don't insult my intelligence," said Tranghese. "Don't compare I-AA football to I-A football. Appalachian State-Delaware, that's a great game, but they are not operating in the limelight that I-A is. For anyone to think there could be a I-A playoff during exams -- the press demands, the television demands, they're just huge. People criticize us for low graduation rates -- then those same people want us to play playoffs during exams."

I'm not sure it's possible to insult your intelligence, Mike. So the reason D-1A cannot play playoff games and D-1AA can is because of... the limelight? Really? That's pretty thin.

And again, and I don't know how else to say this, nobody is suggesting we play playoff games during exams. I'd really like to know how many schools hold their first semester final exams between Christmas Day and the second week of January. Truly, please email me at BoiledSports@gmail.com and let me know if your school held exams at this time. I will then send you a personalized letter expressing my regret that you no doubt had to study on Christmas morning while your sibling opened presents and played with Tonka trucks from Santa. This is effing asinine!

And let me ask something else. Is this the only time these "students" are missing exams? What about the heart of the college football season, in mid-October, when midterms are usually held? What about that? Don't they sometimes miss those? Don't they work around them? Don't they have a cheerleader do their homework in between fluffing sessions?

Football players can play and practice from August through early December as well as all through the Spring.... but heavens no! Not during December!!

The article goes on to talk about the lilkihood of a "plus-one" system, which is almost stupider than having no playoff.... which means it's likely going to be the "solution." How would one more game have helped this year, though? Who would you put LSU up against? Georgia? USC? WVU? How would you determine it? What would it settle? And what about those years when there is a clear-cut, undefeated, above-the-rest team? They'd play another game against a random one-or-two-loss team? This will not solve anything.

HOWEVER, the one way a "plus-one" would work -- at least better than the current setup -- is the one proposed later in the article:

A seeded plus-one is exactly like it sounds -- the top four teams at the end of the regular season would meet each other (No. 1 playing No. 4, No. 2 playing No. 3) in two of the BCS bowls. (Because the BCS wants to remain at 10 berths, a fifth non-title game -- either a newly created one or an existing one like the Capital One or Cotton -- would likely need to be added.) The winners would advance to the championship game, which, conveniently, is already being played about a week after New Year's.

I still think this doesn't properly reward the #1 and #2 teams the way my proposed system would (thus lending credence to the argument about devaluing the regular season) but it's a hell of a lot better than the current debacle.

And on the subject of the "tradition" of the Big Ten-Pac Ten Rose Bowl:

That said, a seeded plus-one is sure to be met with considerable resistance from the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl. The Pasadena game -- which has a relationship with the two conferences dating back to 1946 -- has lost at least one league's champion to another site six of the past seven seasons. There was no Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup in four of the five seasons from 2001-05.

Hey, I'm all for tradition and I love the Big Ten and being affiliated with it. But why do we match up against the Pac Ten? This isn't 1953. It's not relevant anymore. And since the system has already been bastardized and the true B10-P10 matchup rarely happens anymore anyway, why not just move towards something that makes more sense and helps college football anyway?

Can you fathom the excitement of a playoff system -- or "plus-1" mini-tourney -- on this country? After an awesome regular season, seeing the four best team (or six or eight or whatever) battle it out over a couple of weeks... it's hard to imagine how massive that would be. It would rival the NFL playoffs. And that league seems to be having some amount of success, despite having a playoff system, wouldn't you agree?

Of course, then there are arguments about fan support and people showing up to games.

The Rose Bowl's Dorger, on the other hand -- whose game allocates nearly twice as many tickets to the participating schools (62,000) as the other BCS games (35,000) -- is more worried about potential ramifications.

"If [the Rose Bowl] is a semifinal game, I don't know how much [fan] support there would be," said Dorger. "If I'm hosting the championship game, and I don't know who the teams are until a week ahead of time, that's a terribly difficult task."

Yes, just like the Super Bowl. We don't know who is going to be in that until two weeks beforehand and it's always just a complete disaster, isn't it? Nobody goes, it's hard to get people to use tickets... they're probably just giving them away outside the building. Good point, Rose Bowl. Good point, indeed. Oh, also? You're booger-heads.

The Boiled Sports Championship Series

Hey, I have a wild idea -- how about making the Bowl Championship Series an actual, you know, SERIES? I know, I know, this is crazy talk I'm spouting here. But it is called a "series" and it's really anything but. And yes, I know we need to get used to the idea that universities and the old, crotchety men who control the bowl games are not interested in a playoff.... BUT, it's fun to talk about this time of year. And I think one of the main reasons it's fun for me to talk about is that it's just so damn simple and logical to come up with any number of better scenarios to close out the college football season than the way they currently do that it's laughable.

First, the arguments against a playoff or bracket-type tourney need to go away. This argument that the players are in school and all that crap is downright insulting to the rest of us. College basketball players miss tons of school since many of their games are played on weeknights and then nearly all conferences have a conference tourney in early March followed by the famous gigantic nationwide tourney for the rest of March and into April. Yet they all seem to get by.

And let's not forget that college football players travel all season long. And they play spring ball. So to suggest a few more games in late December or early January -- when nearly every single school in the nation is on break -- would hurt these guys academically is disingenuous at best and a giant F you to the fans with working brains at worst.

How about the idea that they shouldn't play so many games since they're only in college and aren't professionals. This is similar to the argument too many OTs are "dangerous." Please. Where was the concern over additional games when D-1 schools were allowed to add a 12th regular season game a few years back? Where's the concern about those conferences that have a conference championship game?

Speaking of which, one of the other idiotic arguments that are always brought up is that you can't ask a school's fans and alumni to travel to multiple playoff games. Why not, exactly? They play 4-6 road games a year and fans travel to those. And the aforementioned conference championships put teams into "playoff" type games far from home already once.... and then you add a bowl game, so you're already asking the fans to travel many times. What's a couple more? Do people really think that Ohio State fans or LSU fans or Oklahoma fans or Michigan fans or USC fans wouldn't travel to multiple playoff games? Really? Of course not... nobody really believes that the fans wouldn't be there. It's idiotic and, again, insulting to suggest that. People go to the effing Music City Bowl; they'll come to playoff games.

So what do I propose? Well, I propose what I've proposed to anyone who will listen for several years now. A small playoff, consisting of the top 6 teams in the country. Feel free to continue to use the BCS formula to determine this listing. And feel free to keep all the crappy bowl games that currently exist. Sure, they won't mean anything but, guess what -- they don't mean anything now, either!

Your top-6 BCS ranked teams are as follows:

1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Va Tech
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Mizzou

Sure, we've eliminated teams like USC, Kansas, WVU and Hawaii. But you can make easy cases to exclude them just like the cases made to exclude them from the title game: USC lost to a 41-point dog at home, Kansas played the 109th schedule in the nation, WVU just lost to Dave Wannstadt, and Hawaii plays in a joke conference.

Another supposed ill of a playoff is that it would make the regular season not mean as much. I beg to differ. Notice that Michigan is still gone? And USC? And one-loss Kansas? I'd say those teams would find their regular season games just as critical as they do under the current system, wouldn't you agree?

And if you're going to complain that "perfect" Hawaii doesn't get a shot under my system, then you're right. But they get no shot under the current system, either. And let them play four or five tough nonconference games and then their cupcake conference and maybe their strength of schedule will get them into the top 6.

In addition, one more way to make the regular season continue to "matter" and those to keep those top 2 spots just as coveted as they are now, would be to give teams #1 and 2 a bye in the first round of the Boiled Sports Championship Series (BSCS).

First up, for argument's sake, is #3 Va Tech versus #6 Mizzou. And let's just say that's played in the Sugar Bowl. That same weekend is #4 Oklahoma versus #5 Georgia in, for example, the Fiesta Bowl.

Now, even in this college football season where there has been so much upheaval and no clear above-the-cut teams, imagine the possibilities here. First of all, Oklahoma versus UGA would be an awesome matchup that a lot of people would love to see. It'd be like the current BCS Orange Bowl except that, after it's over, the winner would be moving on to another huge game.

So now we've got two winners from the first weekend of the BSCS. Let's say, just for fun, that it's Oklahoma and Mizzou. Well, now we bring OSU and LSU into the fray and continue with highest seed playing lowest seed, and so forth.

The National Semi-Finals would be #1 Ohio State versus #6 Mizzou in the Rose Bowl, while #2 LSU and #4 Oklahoma would tangle in the Fiesta Bowl.

And then what might happen? Could Mizzou's dream season continue and perhaps put them into a National Championship against the one team able to beat them (twice) this year, Oklahoma? Or maybe OSU and LSU would wind up against one another for the title anyway. Who knows?

What we do know is that this would make for an impossible-to-dispute national champ and it would take all of three weekends. Looking at this year's calendar, how about 12/22, 12/29 and 1/5? Or 12/29, 1/5 and 1/12? It's right in the same wheelhouse as the current bowl dates and the most your team would play is three total games, or two more than they're currently playing.

Now, obviously, there are those who would love a system like this to be expanded to two dozen teams or things like that. But I've got no problem with keeping it exclusive. I do agree that one of college football's wonderful things is how critical the regular season games are. Expanding this playoff field much bigger would indeed minimize that importance.

Beyond these six teams, as I said, the other bowls that litter the landscape of college football could very easily continue to be played without upsetting anything or anyone. Those 7-5 teams out there would still love some postseason football and the bowls would love the cash. It's a perfect match.

As for the BCS bowls, you just keep rotating them as to who has the first round, semi-finals, etc., just like they currently rotate the national title game. It's really not that hard. Hell, I was able to come up with this and I think about boobs most of the day.

Your thoughts are welcome in the comments.