Crazy season
by Dan Bennett, Guest Writer
Just in case you missed it, last year's college football season was kind of crazy.
When 1-AA Appalachian State upset fifth ranked Michigan in Ann Arbor on the first Saturday of the season, you could almost feel that a bizarre season was already in the works. And the season that followed did not disappointment: several teams that reached the top two positions in the country were beaten by inferior opponents, a sophomore won the Heisman Trophy, and Navy beat Notre Dame for the first time in 44 years.
Louisiana State, a team with two losses on its record, eventually emerged from the field to beat Ohio State in the national title game and capture the Bowl Championship Series national championship trophy. However, many pundits working the radio and newspapers claimed that the national championship game proved nothing more than that LSU was better than OSU. In fact, one ESPN radio host refused to call it the national title game at all and instead referred to it as "The Last Game of the Season."
Since when did college football's national championship become so devalued in the eyes of so many media members and fans? The answer is three letters long: B-C-S. This season, more than any other, proved the necessity of a playoff system in D-1 college football. After all, when five teams have a legitimate rhetorical claim to the national championship, what other system could resolve the dispute better than a playoff?
Kansas finished the season 12-1 after dismissing Virginia Tech, a team which was heavily favored in the Orange Bowl. Georgia was playing better than any team in the nation down the stretch, and if it wasn't for a misstep against Tennessee on the last week of the season, the Bulldogs would have met LSU in the SEC championship game. Instead, they settled for dismantling undefeated Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. USC lost two games by a combined eight points, and throttled Illinois in the Rose Bowl. West Virginia lost twice this season, but defeated Oklahoma soundly in the Fiesta Bowl.
With the resumes of these teams (heck, throw Missouri in there, too), does it make any sense not to have a playoff?
Some would argue against a playoff based on the extra amount of games it would create for the players. To remedy this, how about LSU doesn't play Louisiana Tech and Middle Tennessee? Eliminate the cream puff games, and a playoff wouldn't add any extra games to the schedule.
Here's how a potential playoff format could work: the BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar) would host the top eight teams in the country based on the BCS rankings. Then, the winners of those games would meet in two additional bowls, while the winners of those two bowls would emerge to play in the BCS National Championship Extravaganza (I suppose the name can be discussed later).
To win the title, a team would need only to play three games in addition to the regular season, so prolonging the season no longer stands as a viable argument against such a system. Also, can you imagine the revenue which would be created from having a playoff system like this? It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that a college football playoff, properly designed, would be bigger than March Madness.
And while there would be room for disputes about which teams get a spot in the four BCS games, it would be difficult for a team outside of the top eight to argue for a viable chance to play in the national championship.
Admittedly, any playoff system is bound to be imperfect. But hey, it looks a lot better than the alternative, which is what we are stuck with now.