My BCS Solution

All of the debate and commotion over the BCS results has gotten me thinking about what I would do if the system was up to me. Unfortunately, its not, and this idea will probably never catch on, but at least I'm making an effort and doing my part as a college football fan to brainstorm a solution.

It should be known that up until now I have never been a proponent of the playoff system. I love the bowls, and to be truly honest, as an OU fan the current system has favored the Sooners quite well in recent years. The Big 12 tie-breaker in 2008 was a prime example, and getting to the national title in 2003 without even winning our conference (sound familiar Bama?) definitely increased my enthusiasm for the system.

However, in lieu of recent voting trends and the television networks increasing infatuation with certain conferences, I have decided to sway in my opinion on how it all should work. So here it is...

First, I believe the current computer rankings, based on the strength of schedule and human voting, should stay exactly the same. It is an imperfect method, but it is the best we have with so many teams.

Second, I do believe there should be a 12 team playoff. The automatic qualifying conferences would still have their benefits (although I believe the Big East AQ (automatic qualifying) really needs to be looked at), and this would also give the Boise crazies (and other non-AQ schools) at least a chance to flex their cute statue-of-Liberty muscles.

How this would work and how the teams would be seeded is where it gets a little bit tricky. I would not just throw out the top 12 and seed them as such, but would instead seed them in a the following way:

After the final BCS standings are announced, the top 12 would not necessarily be in the playoffs (you will soon see that unfortunately, Va. Tech and Baylor would be left out because they had a least two losses and did not win their conference). However, that does not necessarily mean that the 2nd ranked team will be the #2 seed, the 6th rank team will be the #6 seed, etc.

Conference champions from AQ schools have first priority for seeding over other schools who did not win their conference. For example, if we look at the current BCS standings from this season, because Oklahoma State won their conference while Alabama (who did not even PLAY in there conference title game), they would actually be the #2 seed instead of Alabama. Likewise, using the current standings, Oregon would be the #3 seed because they are the next highest ranked conference champion.

Some may say, "But oohhh you can't let a Pac-10 team with 2 losses pass a 1-loss SEC team for the better seed!" Um, yeah I can. It's my system. Win your conference and you won't have that issue...

I would love a set-up like this because it actually rewards AQ conference champions. It would actually give teams an incentive to play for their conference titles. If Georgia would have beaten LSU in Atlanta, UGA would have received a higher seed in the playoffs than the Tigers (in my system). Win your conference. It's what every team's goal should be before every season. If you have a huge debate on why a team should be seeded higher or lower, your team can settle the debate in the playoffs (if you make it).

Another note: In the case of ties for conference champions, the team with the higher BCS ranking gets the nod for the seeding.

So here are the final BCS standings from this past season:

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
7. Boise State
8. Kansas State
9. South Carolina
10. Wisconsin
11. Virginia Tech
12. Baylor

Here would be the seeding of my 2011 playoffs (1-6 being conference champions, 7-12 being the highest BCS rankings left after conference champions):

1. LSU (SEC Champions)
2. Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champions)
3. Oregon (Pac-12 Campions)
4. Wisconsin (Big 10 Champions)

5. Clemson (ACC Champions)
6. West Virginia (Big East Champions)
7. Alabama (#2 in BCS)
8. Stanford (#4 in BCS)
9. Arkansas (#6 in BCS)
10. Boise State (#7 in BCS)
11. Kansas State (#8 in BCS)
12. South Carolina (#9 in BCS)

In this system, seeds 1-4 would get an automatic bye-week in the playoffs. During the bye-week, seeds 5-12 play to get the bracket down to 8 teams for the next week. This way, you can still use the traditional championship bowls (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose) to host the "round of 8" games (which can easily be played over the course of 2 days if the Bowls are worried about television incentives). There would need to be a National Semi-Final game, which I'm sure some NFL stadium would love to host (Jerryworld?).

Finally, you could even have an "off" week between the semi-final game and the "BCS Playoffs National Championship Game", which would allow the game to be played in and with the same "first week of January" mentality.

You can see for yourself what the playoff match-ups would be (endearing, I know) and obviously the worthy non-AQ schools would get their fair shot at the big guns if this system were in place.

As a former opponent of a playoff system, I would be very interested in seeing how much the BCS Playoffs system would add to the college football tradition.

Feel free to poke holes in this idea if you want, but remember there is no way to develop a perfect system.