Comments Requested: Proposed BCS Solution

I like the idea of getting rid of the Coaches’ Poll. I agree it cannot be based on proper observation.

I believe it makes fundamental sense that the top 2 teams should play off in a NCG. The real issue is, how are they to be chosen?

The current rules of the BCS are clear – the NCG is to be between the two highest-ranked teams in the country, as judged at the completion of the season. Given that there are so many FBS teams, and only 12 games, using a ranking system is a reasonable way to choose who plays. Even your solution uses rankings, for conferences.

There are good arguments for a different system to be used, such as a playoff. However I don’t believe anyone would seriously want an NCG which did not choose the best 2 teams, however they are to be identified. Your solution, as often as not, would produce 2 teams for the NCG which unarguably were not the best 2 teams, just the winners of the strongest conferences.

For example, I can imagine a scenario in which WVU is universally recognized as the best team in the country, but the Big East is never one of the strongest football conferences. No matter how many times they win their conference they would never make it to the NCG. (Yes, I realize the are moving conferences, but it is a good example of what could happen with your suggested system.)

As long as LSU wins the SECCG, I am completely relaxed about Alabama being the second team in the NCG, because it was the team which clearly is the best in the country which kept Alabama from the SECCG. It is entirely possible that the 2 best teams in the country are in the same conference or division, and I think that this season is a good example to prove that. Without pre-judging the voters on Sunday, I will be surprised if they choose OSL (assuming LSU wins out).

If LSU loses the SECCG, that isn’t necessarily inconsistent with LSU and Alabama and LSU being the 2 best teams in the country, it just raises an additional quesiton about whether they really are the 2 best teams.

I’m very relaxed about a different system for choosing the NCG participants, but I strongly feel it needs to identify the 2 best teams, not conferences. The winners of the 2 strongest conferences are not necessarily the 2 best teams in the country.

This is a particularly strong year for non-AQ conference champions. They’re usually not as good as Houston and TCU (they beat Boise, so they’ll win the MWC if they beat UNLV on Saturday). Look at 2009: the 8th spot would go to either East Carolina, Ohio or Troy.
I actually don’t have a problem with both Houston and TCU (or Boise) going to BCS bowls. If you just look at their records, they earned it. But the bowls will never allow it because those teams don’t have the fanbase to support it. They’d rather let in a 9-3 Nebraska team that would guarantee a sell-out than an undefeated Houston squad which is the 5th or 6th most popular team in its own state. And until a true playoff system is implemented (which will probably be never), bowls will always ignore performance on the field in favor of what teams have the biggest draw.

I’ m not sure who would be bothered by this except for some of the moneyed interests connected to the bowl system (and after seeing the Real Sports installment on that, I could care less whether they like it).

Also, aren’t they already committed to certain conferences in some of these bowls? SEC winner to the Sugar; ACC winner to the Orange; Big 10 and Pac 12 to the Rose? I’m not sure how that would change.

. . . that assumes that Boise’s & Houston’s conferences are strong enough to merit the invite every year.

Like you said, your projected bowl lineup actually looks pretty good. It also eliminates the “we never get a BCS bowl” complaint from the Boises and Houstons of the world. I personally think that Alabama would crush Houston, but that doesn’t mean Houston shouldn’t get the opportunity to prove me wrong.