by Bruce Bostwick

Created on: December 10, 2008   Last Updated: December 01, 2011

The BCS is very controversial and it seems to only allow conferences from major bowls to get a chance at the National Championship punishing those who have good records and not part of the system. Just last season, Utah went undefeated but did not get a chance to compete for the National Championship to prove that they are indeed the best college team in the land. Now, there is a debate as to which one would be more sufficient when it comes to determining the national champion.

Now, the argument for the BCS is that every single game counts as a playoff game and by losing, it hurts your chances of competing in the National Title game. Now, this would be true except that it seems that if a college from a smaller conference has a better record than some of the larger ones automatically don't get considered for a National Championship. It took time to finally give them a crack at some of the bigger schools when a team went undefeated such as Boise State for example. Utah went perfect beating Alabama, a team that was ranked number one for weeks. Was there a question as to who was the National Champion? Yes, because of Utah finished undefeated and with Florida winning, even adding USC to the mix really made for an interesting question as to who is the undisputed National champion.

With regard to a playoff system being created in college football to replace the BCS, it will not be perfect by any means.  There is no such thing as that but it can probably come up with a way to have the best possible match up based on who deserves to go.  It could be involving those that won their respective conference and the teams with the second best records getting involved if need be.  As far as how many teams, at least 16 but no more than 32.

As far as the idea of a second tier like NCAA Basketball, it’s not a bad idea to consider.  It gives other teams a chance to do something that could have been close to making it but fell short.  The winner would get that prize respectively and it wouldn’t be a bad thing.  It’s not like playing in that tournament would be a horrible idea.  It could have the same amount as the previous playoff tournament.

If there has to be insistence on having bowl games as well, then so be it.  They can be added for those that did not qualify for either tournament should this type of system be developed.  As far as how effective would it be, it’s a tough call and would need to be seen in order to really have a better idea on it in general?  All that can be added at this point would be that it could be like a mixture and might work for everybody.

Upon further review, the playoff system using also bowls could work if done properly but it will not be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Money would play a serious role in this ordeal and can really complicate even a playoff system. Ultimately, it would probably be more of a benefit to have a playoff tournament system than to continue with a BCS system that is biased towards larger conferences.

Learn more about this author, Bruce Bostwick.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.