This is a two-part proposal to revamp the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), along with benefits and solutions, involving the bowl setup and ranking system.
This is a proposal to eliminate the divisiveness the BCS label has created, make the major bowls more exciting and add general fairness to the entire ranking system.
What I propose is this:
1. A fair and comprehensive ranking system by expansion.
2. Eliminating divisiveness by ridding the BCS label on schools and conferences and keeping it with the major bowls where it belongs.
3. Mandate the Top Ten as being an automatic qualifier for a major bowl if a team finishes in the Top Ten. The Top Ten would then play each other in a non-tiered playoff system.
5. Two different major bowls would host the number one team each year, instead of only once every four years.
6. Each major bowl would host a Top Five team playing against a Top Ten (6-10) team every year.
7. A final, BCS poll to be released after the bowl season, which does not happen now and only adds confusion and more divisiveness.
8. The NCAA nees to recognize the BCS champion as the NCAA champion.
THE TOP TEN
Create a fifth major bowl then mandate the Top Ten as something for every team to shoot for with real meaning. Open up the top ten to any team that makes the Top Ten ranking, automatically earning a major bowl bid.
With this one rule, divisiveness among the schools and conferences, politics in choosing teams for a major bowl bid and the BCS label are wiped out. This of course, would eliminate the auto-qualifying status that the six major conferences have now but the rhetorical quesiton for the mighty six is this: If the NCAA/BCS could find a way to financially compensate a major conference who doesn't have a Top Ten qualifier in a given year, would this be good enough? It's a good question because what schools really want, at least the non-"BCS" schools, is money and attention. A fair chance to finish in the Top Ten gives them that. To achieve a national championship, that's another question and as we see, all college and universities are not created equal--this isn't the NFL.
Another problem created is the BCS label on all the schools which separates the others not in the power six: The MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, WAC and Mountain West. I think this change would actually take heat off the BCS and NCAA, which has a habit of sitting back and not getting involved in what really counts for college football. This label is a big part of the problem because it’s turning conferences and schools against each other.
The major bowls are the only entity that needs to be called BCS, which would turn all five major bowls into a true Bowl Championship Series where every major bowl means something.
This is how it should be done: The Top Ten would play each other but not in the traditionally tiered playoff system, as in #10 vs #1 and #9 vs #2, etc. This would lead to a need for multiple games after the major bowls are played.
The NCAA, as well as the BCS, do not want that and rightfully so. Too many games would be overkill. Instead, this is what could be and needs to be done:
#10 vs #5
#9 vs #4
#8 vs #3
#7 vs #2
#6 vs #1
The top five would play the second five in the order they finish. This system allows just one game to be played after the major bowls. Sure, there would be questions if #6 beat #1 and did not play in the national championship game by not finishing in the top two but as of now, they, or #3 for that matter, have no chance at all. This, at least, gives these other schools in the Top Ten one more chance to play into that championship game.
The point here is that the farther a team is from #1 (#10 through #6), the more help they would need to reach the top two; the closer to #1 (#5 through #1), the less help a team would need. This is just one more much needed series of games to weed the teams out and, as mentioned, one more chance for #3 through #10 that don't have one now.
BREAK
RANKING SYSTEM
What the BCS has done has set up a system to allow a lesser-known team to possibly sneak into the top ten based on “sympathy” votes, considering that two-thirds of the BCS poll is opinion-influenced (coaches and writers). My idea is, if you have 120 teams in division I-A, then why not 120 coaches voting? Then have 120 writers voting in the AP (if they come back into the fold). Then create a broadcasters poll of 120 with all the broadcasting teams from the major networks and the smaller ones that cover college football spread out around the country. This creates 360 voters which basically eliminates any voter's influence with an agenda or wharped sense of logic.
Along with three voter's polls of 120 each and the same system of computer polls, include some kind of point-scale system (The TSR system is an example of what could be applied)
that high schools use and seem to work out very well.
The point-scale system would act as a strength of schedule angle which the BCS forbids. This is complete nonsense considering there is no playoff system, and which I am not advocating. But to not have a playoff system and no strength of schedule applied to the rankings is probably why we still see the same marquee schools with bloated rankings year in and year out.
The fact is, if there is not going to be any playoff system then the ranking system must be something that everyone respects and is fair and accurate as possible, not something that is thrown out and changed every few years to satisfy some group that may manipulate the process.
I would also suggest starting this new ranking system at the beginning of the season because with this many voters and a new angle of adding strength of schedule to the computer polls (which the BCS apparently doesn't allow) and a point-scale system, this would allow the rankings to even out and become more accurate as the season progresses. The point is, who cares who is ranked at the beginning of the season (within reason)? As the season progresses, the more points built up the more accurate the system will become.
The new system would work as a giant funnel, wide open at the beginning of the season. At the end of the season is a narrow passageway for just two teams to slip through for the national championship game. And the game would be played at the same time it is now. Just move all the major bowl games back to New Year's Day.
THE BENEFITS
MONEY: The proceeds from the national championship game; gate receipts and television money would be enormous.
Also, instead of limiting conferences to no more than two receiving a BCS bid, have no limit. This way the a major conference that doesn't earn a major bid in one year could make up for it down the road. This is a way for major conferences to not only make more money than they're making now, but at the same time, it's an opportunity to share it with the others. For instance, getting one bid, a conference keeps that money; earn two bids, they keep one and three-fourths; earn three bids, they keep two and a half of the share and so on. The money they don't keep is spread out to the other conferences that did not earn a major bowl bid. This could mean more major bowl appearances and more money for those conferences.
This is the tradeoff: When one of those “non-BCS” teams finishes in the top ten, not top six, they must be awarded a major bowl bid-no politics, no choosing, no mandatory finish in the top six.
This is the fairness part of the deal. If the major conferences, or any conference, is going to be allowed to place as many teams in major bowls as they can when finishing in the top ten, then the BCS must also allow anyone with a Top Ten ranking to earn a major bowl bid. But at least the bar would be set the same for everyone and no more divisiveness created with a BCS label on schools and conferences.
MAJOR BOWLS: Two different major bowls will host the #1 team EVERY YEAR. One bowl will host #1 vs #6 and another will host #1 vs #2 for the national championship.
What this does is not only not hurt the major bowls, it will enhance them all to an unprecedented level of excitement. The system now has one important bowl (#1 vs #2) while the three other major bowls are worthless in importance and do not create the attention they would in this new system.
SOLUTIONS TO SOME PROBLEMS
The coaches do not rank teams that are ineligible for bowl games because of probation. Since this new system requires all teams to be ranked (because of the point-system), the offering to the coaches would be to rank every team but when the probation team’s season is over, they would be dropped from the rankings and every team behind them moves up one spot.
This means no bragging rights to recruits if the probation-team would have finished high. The consequence is that they get no recognition at the end of the season.
THE ROSE BOWL: This one is usually the stickler in negotiations concerning major bowl arrangements. But there's a way to appease the guys in Pasadena who want to keep their Pac-10 v. Big Ten matchup.When each conference has a representative finishing in the Top Ten, they would play in the Rose Bowl (just rearrange the order of the bowl lineup), when there's only one representative between the two conferences then the Rose would have to follow the arrangement above (#10 v # 5, etc.). This would not happen as often as it does now and I'm sure, make the Rose Bowl committee a happier bunch. And at the same time, still giving other schools a chance of a lifetime to play in the famed Rose Bowl.
Another point to consider is the extra attention the corporate sponsors of the bowls playing in the championship game would receive. Not to mention the conferences that the two teams are representing would absorb.
THE FINAL POLL: There needs to be one final poll released after the major bowls are played. All fans would like to see where their team finishes. Plus, this would put a stamp on the #1 team, as opposed to leaving everyone hanging at the end of the year, arguing over all the separate polls because the BCS releases nothing after early December. We know why they do that--to only set up a national championship game--but it doesn't settle things.
Another aspect, or perk to think about is that many of the minor bowls--with SOS involved in the new system--would affect schools playing in the major bowls for the final rankings. So, the more bowl teams a school has beaten, obviously, the better.
RECOGNIZING THE CHAMPION: The NCAA needs to recognize the winner of the championship game as the NCAA Champion. They need to do this to legitimize the BCS if they want it to work. If they don't do this, they leave everyone hanging at the end of the year as the individual polls accumulate too much power.
The final point being that with 12 regular season games, conference championships and the major bowls, there is no need for a playoff system.
These three rounds of games, regular season, conference championship games and major bowls, act as a weeding-out process, and a playoff system within itself.
This is what makes college football so special and unique is the utmost importance in the regular season games. No other sport puts as much emphasis on its regular season as does college football. A playoff system would ruin that. It would be overkill.
A fair and accurate ranking system that is comprehensive to go along with this new top ten setup, would do a lot more justice than the current opinion-heavy system that is always shrouded in politics.
In conclusion, things need to change because the unrest among the fans, who mainly pay the bills, is not going away. This new system isn't designed to rid college football of arguments, on the contrary. Arguments are healthy but the vitriol coming from the fans and even the mainstream media's distaste for everything BCS, should be disturbing to the people who are running college football.
Schools are pouring tens of millions of dollars into their programs and they do care where they're ranked, where they'll end up at the end of the season and how much money they may make, or lose (the bloated minor bowl system where 6-6 teams are going to bowls and setting them up for failure by asking disenchanted fans to buy tickets and travel). All everyone wants is something that is fair--at least we think it's everyone. But it appears when all is said and done, the wrong people are running college football.
