Blowing up College Football (Part 1)

I told you a couple of days ago that you were in for a three part post this week. This is part one. old on tight.

I don't know if you noticed, but there is some furor over the way the college football season ends. Some people get pretty worked up about it. The clamor for a tournament is reaching a crescendo, and I find it interesting that both sides are pessimistic. Those in favor of a tournament seem to think that the Pac-10, Big Ten and Big East will never cave. I, in the let's not get too far ahead of our selves, camp, believe that we are already on the slippery slope to a playoff system. Frankly, I thought it was time for a couple of people on the opposite ends of the debate, namely Steve and I, to make some concessions and work out a tournament. So we did that the other night, and after I proposed the idea, it's turned into an almost continuous conversation. We're literally giddy about this. Believe it or not, Steve is getting married in May. Somewhat more believable, I'm single.
It's my understanding that most people in favor of a tournament are that way because they want see the national title earned on the field. I can live with that. For the most part, I think the problem is the fixation on the national title. These are kids playing 4 years in college and, as the commercials tell us, most will be going professional in something other than sports. I think, for the several mediocre to good teams out there, a bowl game is a fitting reward, and a fitting finale to a life of organized sports. Thats the main reason I vote to keep the bowls.
But we can have bowls and a tournament. My major gripe with a tournament is the same as many have with the BCS. It seems rather arbitrary. How would you pick 4 teams to be in a tournament? Are you telling me, for example, that, say, 2 loss Georgia deserved to be considered for a shot at the title, despite not winning their conference? Preposterous. If the complaint is that the title is not won on the field, then we should ensure that it will be won on the field. That leads us to the tournament.
There are 11 conferences in college football right now. The only fair way to have a tournament is to award seeded spots in the tournament to all 11 conference champions. This goes to eliminate almost every complaint in the bowl selection process, in my eyes. Ohio State and the SEC had weak non conference schedules? Well, they'll prove which team is superior at the end of the year. On the field. The Big Ten and Pac 10 get to preserve the sanctity of their conference. Teams are still playing for their conference title first and foremost. It's the only way they can win the National Title. And if they win the conference before the season is over? Well, there is still seeding to play for. And we can force seed the Pac 10 and Big Ten into the 4-5 seeds and have them play in the Rose Bowl every year, if that makes them happy.
The Big Ten will have the biggest problem, of course, with their awkward number of teams. Some year, as Steve pointed out, we could see Purdue and Michigan, for example, be the elite teams of the Big Ten, and Purdue beats Michigan to go undefeated. Then, you have Minnesota, uncommonly strong this year, also go undefeated, while having Purdue and Michigan be the two teams left off the schedule. By Big Ten tiebreaking rules, Minnesota, the team with the longest Big Ten championship drought, would win the conference. A scenario like this would likely lead to one inevitable conclusion, particularly in conjunction with Notre Dame getting left out by not being a member of a conference. Notre Dame would likely join the Big Ten, giving the Big Ten twelve teams and a championship game.
Or, the Big Ten would stick with tradition. that's their prerogative.
Steve also worried about the potential for early blowouts. What's the big deal? In the basketball tournament, we have automatic bids as well, and it's not Florida's fault that Jackson State and the SWAC are miserable. The advantage to the football tournament is that there are 5 teams with a first round bye, if we seed it like the Big Ten basketball tournament, meaning the three first round games will be more evenly matched, any blowout will be lessened, and 8 of the best teams in the country will be playing.
I don't have it all logistically worked out, but I imagine the first three games would be played at BCS bowl sites in New Orleans, Phoenix and Miami, with the winner moving on to a New Years Day game, being in one of those cities. The next two rounds are murky, but for fairness, I think the the host city for the championship should rotate between the conferences.
The BCS rankings would still be used, of course, for seeding. Using those rankings, followed by other poll rankings, then by overall record, here are the pairings for the tournament Steve and I whipped up.
First round


#8 BYU
#9 Central Florida

#6 West Virginia
#11 Central Michigan

#7 Hawaii
#10 Florida Atlantic

After watching Hawaii and Georgia, I think it would alert the world that, in fact, Hawaii was no good after FAU dismantled the warriors.

Round 2 (remember the forced seeding

#1 LSU
BYU/UCF winner

#4 Ohio State
#5 USC

#3 Oklahoma
West Virginia/Central Michigan winner

#2 Virginia Tech
Hawaii/Florida Atlantic winner

That sets up for some pretty good matchups, if you ask me. The ACC can't win in the BCS. Maybe if they were offered a layup like Hawaii, Virginia Tech could change their fortunes. In the end, though, we would get what we wanted. The best teams playing on the national stage. What would be wrong with that? I dare say nothing.
The only gripe, of course, would continue to be that Central Michigan, for example, is given a shot at the title, whereas a team like Missouri is not. That's just the way the conferences are laid out. There are, admittedly, weaker conferences out there, and over time powerhouses would likely emerge from said conferences. Even so, it's a hard sell. If only there was a quicker fix.... (to be continued)