Some people -including Texas Tech coach Mike Leach- want a full-scale, March Madness sytle tournament with at least 64 teams. (Of course there are only 119 college football programs that are Division 1-A while there are well over 300 Division 1-A men's basketball teams and the NCAA basketball tournament only includes 64 teams.)
This would probably be a mess. The travel would be difficult and the expenses enormous. Putting on a basketball tournament is much easier logistically than a putting on a football tournament. Preparing for basketball games through the tournament are also much easier. Football requires more planning and takes longer to recover, physically. For these reasons, I believe this plan wouldn't work.
Furthermore, I frankly don't see the need for a tournament to determine the national champion. The goal is to create a system that is fair and really does reward the national championship to the best team. The most blatant failure was in 2004, when Auburn won the SEC with an undefeated record but wasn't selected for the national championship game, because it didn't have the #1 or #2 ranking in the final BCS poll prior to bowl selection. Meaning, that no matter what it did, that it couldn't have gotten into the national championship game. Which is obviously unfair. I don't know how there wasn't a national outcry that demanded the system changed after the season. But there fact of the matter is that most teams wouldn't have a chance to win the national championship. If 64 teams were selected, that would most likely mean several teams from non-BCS conferences like the MAC or Big Sky would be in the tournament, and the fact is those teams aren't going to win. In a basketball tournament, like the NCAA tournament, there is a slight chance a team could win. It would be possible, but not likely. However, in football it would be impossible because the best programs, OSU, USC, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. are some much faster and so much stronger. With good execution a basketball team that isn't that athletic can beat a very talented basketball team, but in football that won't happen for in a tournament.
My idea is to still have your regular bowls which are outrightly selected, with each individual bowl inviting the teams they want, and nothing based on a ranking system like the BCS. However, the BCS series still would be used. The top 14 teams in the final BCS rankings would be invited to engage in a playoff. This way all teams that would have a real legitimate chance to win and deserve a shot would get win - including non-BCS conference teams, like a Boise State or Utah. There would still be some motivation for being #1 or #2. Those teams would get a bye the first round of the playoffs. After the first round, there would be six teams left. After adding the # 1 and #2 teams to the mix and playing the next round there would be four teams left...and then two. They, of course, would play in the national championship game. The games would be played on pre-selected sites. They would also be neutral. So if Arizona State was to play and there was a site at the stadium in Glendale, they would have to play somewhere else. There could still be the same traditional BCS bowls. Round two would feature four games, and the third round would feature two games, of course (because it is eight teams playing then the four left playing for a spot in the championship, for a total of six games) so you could keep the four main games - the Sugar Bowl, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose. Then you could also add two more-perhaps the Cotton Bowl and Citrus.
This system doesn't quite have all the kinks worked out yet, but it is the most reasonable, fair, and best I've seen. (Of course I'm biased since it's my idea.) The main problem right now is that the university presidents are concerned mostly about bowl money - how much they will get from playing and how much they will cost. Money always seems to ruin things. Now fans are being shortchanged. I would be happy with any new playoff system and it's a travesty there won't be one anytime soon.
1 comment:
I like the idea of having first-round byes—I hadn't thought of that. I definitely wouldn't make it more than 14 teams; although usually it does seem like there are a few teams who aren't in the top ten that you could imagine winning the championship.
Post a Comment