BCS or BS-CS?

With the postseason of college football upon us, like many other sports fans, I will complain about the format of the postseason. The following was originally written on 10/21/11, with some editing done.

I don't want to call this a rant, but this thought process was inspired by reading a Rick Reilly column about how undefeated teams are going to get screwed over by the BCS this season (with 6 unbeatens as of October 21, 2011, and only 2 as of November 29th). I will also preface this by saying I agree with LSU being ranked #1, but I'm not really sold on #2.

For context, I grew up not caring about college football. I started paying a little more attention in high school, with me pretty much being required to pay attention in college working in radio. Like many people, I hate the current championship system. It's corporate greed and elitism at its worst in sports. Many fans are screaming for a playoff, and I'm one of them. How hard could it be? Here's a modest proposal for a system largely based on how the current system works.

• Much of the regular season will remain the same. Maybe shorten it a couple weeks to enable more time for a playoff.
• Any teams that win 6 games will still remain "Bowl eligible" and can play in the Texas Bowl or whatever bowl game wants them.
• The polls and BCS standings can remain intact, with maybe some tweaks if the committee decides they want some. This is important because...
• At the end of the regular season, the Top 16 teams according to the BCS qualify for the National Championship Tournament (sponsored by State Farm or whoever). If any unbeaten team were to fall outside the Top 16, they automatically get in, with the lowest ranked team according to the BCS formula dropping out. This tournament will function as something of a double-elimination tournament like the ones used in junior high or high school Christmas basketball tournaments with a Winner's Bracket and a Loser's Bracket.
• In the Loser's Bracket, it becomes a single-elimination tournament. Winners advance, losers are out (but could still qualify for lower Bowl games if they choose). In the Winner's Bracket, the 8 teams will all play 3 games; no need to win to stay alive.
• The four major Bowl games (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta) will maintain importance as they rotate between the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th (Loser Bracket Champion) place games. This goes back to pre-BCS days when these major games could rotate to decide national titles. Obviously the 2 teams that win out go to the National Championship Game.

Seems like it makes sense, right? I know there are several arguments against a playoff, but I think a lot of them are ridiculous.

Anti-playoff people say that a playoff diminishes the regular season. Keeping the BCS formula around and giving unbeatens an automatic in means the regular season does still matter. You win every game, you get a shot at the national title. For teams like LSU this year, they still get their recognition for winning every game. It gives other teams that may have had off days a chance to redeem themselves. And the mid-majors (a la unbeaten Houston) get a chance to prove themselves. The polls and BCS formula still remain relevant. Who loses here?

Some might argue about the schedule of a playoff, and it taking away from class time or something along those lines. Two obvious problems here. First of all, look at how Division III does it. They do a 32 team, 5 game playoff. No one there complains about missing classes, because student-athletes actually commit to the student part first. It works. Secondly, since when do the football coaches care about their players going to class? Look at graduation rates as they are without a playoff. These football factories only care about money, and a lot of the players are looking NFL or bust.

Teams in the so-called Power Conferences will argue that they lose in this system. How? Because you don't have your elite place where you and only you dwell? We've seen in the past few years that the mid-majors can compete. Last year TCU won the Rose Bowl against Wisconsin. Boise State knocked off Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl just a few years ago, and seems to beat every major program it comes up against in the regular season. Say what you will about the Georgia's of the world, but a win against a power conference team is a win against a power conference team.

For fans of the major powers who argue "Our team is way better than yours, we play in the [insert big conference here], we play a better schedule, you wouldn't survive our schedule." First of all, that's crap. Look at Alabama's non-conference schedule (other than Penn State, weak) or Oklahoma State's non-conference slate (weak). It's hypocritical to criticize Boise State's schedule, yet schedule cupcakes early on. Besides, if you're so confident about your team, you should have no problem letting the non-power conference teams play for the national title. After all, they'll lose in the first round to your SEC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac-12 team apparently.

We can argue strength of schedule all you want, but that makes no difference. The real reason there's no playoff? Money. That's always the answer. The BCS is another greedy corporate entity only looking out for its bottom line. But do they (and the NCAA and its member schools) not realize that a playoff can still be profitable as well? Sponsor the playoff tournament of the Top 16. That's 20 more games you can get TV money for, more ad revenue, more ticket and concession sales... there's money to be made with a playoff too if you think about it a little bit.

Is this system perfect? Of course not, no system is. But I would argue that this system is more fair. You give more teams an opportunity to win a national title like in basketball. For March Madness, theoretically every team has a chance to win the title. You win your conference tournament, you go to the Big Dance. Then it's just 6 or 7 more wins to pay dirt. Yes, SWAC teams usually won't get past the first round, but as far as theory goes, they have a shot. In football, the only way you can make the national title game in the BCS era is to be in a power conference and go unbeaten. Why not share the chances? I'll repeat: if power conferences think they're so great, they should have no problem putting "upstarts" like TCU, Boise State, Utah State, etc. in their place and still win a national title to keep glorifying themselves by winning a national title via a playoff.