Is the BCS a bunch of B.S.?



The BCS isn't the perfect system. Let's accept that. This time of year, particularly this week, the TV, radio and Internet have been filled with critics pointing out the system's flaws. Especially now when it appears for the second straight season that the system will produce a national championship game between an undefeated team (Miami) and then be left to figure out the most deserving of a groups of teams with one loss. Who deserves that second slot most? Florida? Texas? Tennessee? Oregon?

ESPN.com's Richard Billingsley, who helped tweak the BCS formula, writes, "Playoffs have bene debated for years among fans and the media alike...No format has been devised that protects the structure of the bowls and the integrity of the regular season, which is the backbone of college football. Valuable time was passing and nothing was being done to remedy the situation."

Well, have no fear, Richard, we have a solution. It's apparent there needs to be some type of playoff. Eventually, presidents may tire of the clamoring for a playoff and do the sensible thing and approve one. But don't bet on that happening.

So, in our perfect, little BCS world, we present a slightly altered BCS. We still like the current BCS system. We think it rewards teams for playing, and defeating, high-ranked opponents. No cup cake schedules allowed.

We like averaging the two major polls together and we think by throwing out the highest and lowest computer poll rankings, it eliminates any bias toward one team.

But what we're proposing is to play the bowls like they are, then seed the top four teams at the end of all the bowls. Those four teams would meet each other the following weekend. Then, those two winners would meet for a Final Bowl the day before the Super Bowl at the same site where the Super Bowl is played.

Imagine the fan and media attention, particularly for that city, and...oh wait, we forgot, this is still a dream...Oh well, it was fun while we dreamed a little...