Spring Break
BCS Needs An Overhaul
Mike Mauro
Issue date: 12/7/07 Section: Sports
No matter how good these match-ups would have been, it would have paled in comparison to the type of popularity that a playoff system would have. Many playoff types have been discussed, whether it be the top four, six, eight, etc. Any of those systems would be better than what is currently in place.
This may sound like it would disrupt to many things that college football has in lace but it really wouldn't.
The best system would be a six-team playoff while still keeping everyone happy. First, you take the top six teams in the BCS and give the No. 1 and 2 teams a first-round bye. Also, any undefeated team would be an automatic qualifier to the top six to keep the hope of mid-majors like Hawaii or Boise State alive. This would maintain the significance of the BCS rankings, and the excitement of the regular season, because teams will still be fighting for the top two spots. Then you face No. 3 vs. 6 and No. 4 vs. 5 in the first round and the lowest advancing seed goes on to play the No. 1 team and so on. This would not extend the length of the regular season too much and all the university presidents would be prevented from feeding us the crap that their "student athletes" would miss too much school, even though these are the weeks they are off for winter break.
Even with a playoff system, you can keep all of the current bowl games to satisfy the rest of the small schools, and disappointing big schools, from being shut out of postseason play. Then, each game in the playoffs would be designated as a different BCS bowl because five games would be played. Say, the Orange and Sugar Bowl in the first round, then the Rose and Fiesta in the second, all culminating in the BCS Championship Game. Then you rotate these each year like they do in the current system to keep everyone happy.
It really isn't as difficult as the conference commissioners and presidents want you to believe. They think they will lose bowl money from this move, but in actuality the excitement will generate more revenue and sponsors would be bidding to have their name attached to the game.
It's time for college football to settle their national championship on the field. No more politics or fan bases determining who gets to play for the distinction of best team in the country. This year we may very well have a two-loss champion who did nothing to really distinguish themselves from the rest of the two-loss teams or an undefeated Hawaii team. Just imagine what could have been this season if there was a playoff - Missouri vs. Virginia Tech and Oklahoma vs. Georgia in the first-round, with LSU and Ohio State waiting in the wings, now who wouldn't want to see that scenario played out on the field?
Mike Mauro's college football
column runs every Friday. He can be
reached at Michael.Mauro@UConn.edu.
This may sound like it would disrupt to many things that college football has in lace but it really wouldn't.
The best system would be a six-team playoff while still keeping everyone happy. First, you take the top six teams in the BCS and give the No. 1 and 2 teams a first-round bye. Also, any undefeated team would be an automatic qualifier to the top six to keep the hope of mid-majors like Hawaii or Boise State alive. This would maintain the significance of the BCS rankings, and the excitement of the regular season, because teams will still be fighting for the top two spots. Then you face No. 3 vs. 6 and No. 4 vs. 5 in the first round and the lowest advancing seed goes on to play the No. 1 team and so on. This would not extend the length of the regular season too much and all the university presidents would be prevented from feeding us the crap that their "student athletes" would miss too much school, even though these are the weeks they are off for winter break.
Even with a playoff system, you can keep all of the current bowl games to satisfy the rest of the small schools, and disappointing big schools, from being shut out of postseason play. Then, each game in the playoffs would be designated as a different BCS bowl because five games would be played. Say, the Orange and Sugar Bowl in the first round, then the Rose and Fiesta in the second, all culminating in the BCS Championship Game. Then you rotate these each year like they do in the current system to keep everyone happy.
It really isn't as difficult as the conference commissioners and presidents want you to believe. They think they will lose bowl money from this move, but in actuality the excitement will generate more revenue and sponsors would be bidding to have their name attached to the game.
It's time for college football to settle their national championship on the field. No more politics or fan bases determining who gets to play for the distinction of best team in the country. This year we may very well have a two-loss champion who did nothing to really distinguish themselves from the rest of the two-loss teams or an undefeated Hawaii team. Just imagine what could have been this season if there was a playoff - Missouri vs. Virginia Tech and Oklahoma vs. Georgia in the first-round, with LSU and Ohio State waiting in the wings, now who wouldn't want to see that scenario played out on the field?
Mike Mauro's college football
column runs every Friday. He can be
reached at Michael.Mauro@UConn.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Smitty
posted 12/07/07 @ 11:47 AM EST
The Rose Bowl could not have picked Georgia. Please at least have some knowledge of the BCS rules before you write an article bashing them. Georgia was locked into the Sugar Bowl. (Continued…)
tatheg1
posted 12/08/07 @ 7:31 AM EST
UGA wasn't locked into the Sugar Bowl. Only the SEC champion is an automatic pick. LSU won the Conferance, but was picked for the Bowl Championship game leaving the Sugar open to whom ever it wanted to ask. (Continued…)
warriornation
posted 12/21/07 @ 10:25 PM EST
you say undefeated teams would be included in the top 6 and then your schedule of games you don't include Hawaii?
Post a Comment