I know I’m in the minority here, but I’m actually someone who supports the BCS. Sure, my ideal college football postseason would be a four-team playoff between the top four teams based on an average of the polls, but that is unlikely. People always want more and more teams to be involved in the postseason, and my four-team playoff would quickly become 16 teams, and eventually 32 if we’re not careful. Anyway, Mark Cuban made some waves when he said he wants to develop a college football playoff system that will oppose the BCS.
Cuban’s idea is to have a 12 or 16 team playoff where homefield advantage for the higher seeded teams helps keep the regular season relevant. He wants to offer schools money to play in his playoff each year and is willing to mustang up the cash that makes the BCS so enticing for school presidents. I’m against a 12 or 16 team playoff for a number of reasons.
A national championship should not be available for 12 or 16 teams, just like 68 teams shouldn’t be invited to March Madness. Regular season games will lose more significance compared to the way it is now where every single game matters. Playoff games should be on a neutral field, not home for schools. Do you know how many controversies will be created over seedings if the difference between 4 and 5 is a home and road playoff game?
In my four-team playoff, there would be rotating pairs of bowls that host the semifinals and finals. For instance, the Rose Bowl and Holiday Bowl would be a pair where each hosts a semifinal game and the championship game is at the Rose Bowl. That way travel is cut down for each team’s fans and the team’s have similar arrangements.
I would like to recognize the BCS as one of the best ideas in sports because it helped advance college football. If you recall, the BCS was created to allow teams to play in a championship game that ordinarily would not have had a chance to meet based on prior ties.
Remember 1990 when Colorado and Georgia Tech split the polls and were ranked 1-2 but couldn’t meet in a bowl game? Or how about 1991 when Miami and Washington were both 11-0, ranked 1-2 in the polls the last month of the year, but could not play because of ties to the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl? They said they would play on the lawn at the White House — all they wanted was a chance to meet but they couldn’t. And how about 1997 when Michigan and Nebraska both were undefeated but were tied to the Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl again? You telling me Charles Woodson didn’t want his shot at Scott Frost on the field?
Thankfully the BCS emerged the following year and allowed us the opportunity to see the top two teams in the country finally meet, regardless of bowl ties. If it weren’t for the BCS, we would never have had Miami-Ohio State in 2002, Texas and USC in 2005, Florida and Ohio State the year after, and well, pretty much every championship game.
Look, you might have problems with the BCS and want some changes, but look back at the way things used to be and tell me that at the least, the BCS wasn’t progressive and one of the best ideas in college football. Have you no sense of history?
