BCS Debate Part II:

In yesterday's post, I discussed the historical reasons for why the BCS is a system built for failure. Today, a look at one of the possible solutions: go back to the old system.

The "old system" according to me can be defined as a world with very few bowl games pitting conference champions against each other with some polls saying this team or that team is "the best." It's a national championship in the sense that "high school national champions" are champs: some people who are supposed to know something said they were. This system encourages rivalry games (Big Ten v. Pac-10, etc.) and tradition, as well as accentuating conference play. Bowl games would be rare experiences for any but a "dynasty" team, and would put the focus on those regional rivalries instead of the more national focus of today's system. I like this system more than what we have, mostly because it is sings TRADITION like a fat Russian and doesn't pretend that the "national championship" is what really matters. The rivalry games matter and that's where the focus is.

Having said that, this system is gone forever. There's too much money to be had, and it's likely that we will continue to see the expansion of mediocre bowls, not a contraction. It still doesn't solve the problem of a long lay-off, but then it doesn't need to because the really important conference games are over before the bowl game is played.

Even though it's gone, I prefer old school honesty to BCS pretension.

Stay tuned tomorrow for another possible solution...

The Great BCS Debate...Part I

Here at 40:20 we don't enter into many debates, but I think it's time to change that. I'm throwing down the gauntlet on the BCS as a total wackjob and that there are only three solutions that are viable. In this first post, why the BCS system is a sham.

If you haven't been paying attention in previous years (i.e. Auburn), let me point you to two games this year which showed why the BCS system is a joke: Ohio State v. Florida and Michigan v. U.S.C. I don't want to talk about the whole Florida/Michigan controversy which supposedly has been put to rest, that's focusing on the smoke and not the fire. Ohio State played in that game after 51 days off. 51 days! That's almost two months! No other professional sport (except maybe boxing or horse racing, which are quite different) asks a team to remain at the top of their game and the peak of their performance for two months without a contest. NFL announcers every single year ponder whether wild card teams will have an advantage over Division champs who had only a single week off, and every year we're told that it factored in somehow when that division champ loses (see Baltimore this year). For anyone who watched those two games, there was one thing that was abundantly clear about both Michigan and Ohio State - they didn't show up. I could have told you Michigan wouldn't show up because they never show up to a bowl game or a California game, and certainly not to a California Bowl game, but Ohio State was a surprise. Tressel is too good a coach for that, and I think the system is to blame for the lop-sided wins that characterized the bowl season this year.

The heart of the matter for me is that the current system is built on a bowl structure that was never meant to produce a true national champion. Sure, there have been polled national champions for the past 100 years, but what teams really cared about were the rivalries, the conference games, and the bowls reflected that. The old bowl system was, well, collegial, and is ill-suited to produce a "true" national champion because that's not what it was made for. If your goal is to crown a national champ, you need a different system.

Part II Tomorrow...