BCS: The Golden Age of Football?

In the Feb. 15th, 2010 issue of The Weekly Standard (a publication that The Vigilant American endorses), Jeffrey H. Anderson put pen to paper in defense of his Bowl Championship Series (BCS) against the onslaught of politicians who say that the BCS system violates anti-trust laws. While I support Anderson in his defense, particularly in the point that there are much more important things for politicians to concern themselves with than who is playing for the college football national championship, I do not agree that the BCS is a capitalist system where the laws of competition and free markets have full sway.

In most respects the BCS is more socialist by nature; it limits competition. Thus, it limits an individual team's potential, uses factors outside a team's control to determine its worth and potential, and makes it extremely difficult for teams to grow, improve, and build on past mistakes and failures. In essence the BCS system is a desire of the few to have control over the many.

So what would be the true capitalist/American system of determining who should be the college football National Champion? The answer--some sort of play-off system. College football is the only sport wherein the participants of the championship game are determined by poles and computer programs rather than some sort of play-off system. Proponents of the BCS say that it has created the best regular season of any sport because every regular season game matters. That may be true, but it has also created the worst post-season of any sport because only one game matters--the championship game. The post-season Bowl Game system is boring and a waste of time, with teams playing games that mean absolutely nothing. Even regular season games in a play-off system have more meaning than post-season bowl games. On the contrary, in a play-off system, regular season games still have significance. Excitement and importance build as a team progresses through the play-offs toward the championship game.

Now it does no good to criticize an idea without having a suggestion for improvement: Combine the BCS system with the play-off system. Use the BCS System to rank teams throughout the regular season. The top 16 teams at the end of the season go into a post-season playoff. The play-off games would still be "bowl games" with all the endorsements and fanfair, etc. of traditional bowls, except now they matter where as before they didn't.

By nature playoff games would be more entertaining because teams would be doing everything possible to win (trick plays, four down attempts, onside kicks, two point conversions, etc.). Taking the top 16 teams would allow for teams with 1,2 and possibly 3 losses in the regular season to make it to the play-offs, allowing teams who get off to a rough start to improve and have a chance to grow and develop into a national championship team rather than being out of the running at the first part of the regular season.

Scheduling: The regular season is normally over by the end of November. There would be 8 games the first weekend of December, 4 on Friday, 4 on Saturday. With eight teams eliminated, there would be four games the next week end, 2 on Friday, 2 on Saturday. They next weekend 2 games and the championship game 2 weekends later on the last weekend of December or the first weekend of January. This schedule would produce a more exciting off-season, more revenue for all entities involved (TV, sponsors, etc.) and a true national champion who has proved themself on the field. There could still be other bowls for teams that aren't in the play-offs but including the national championship game and all the play off games there would already be 17 "bowl games" that would mean something.

This combination of BCS and Playoff system would be a beneficial "happy-medium" for everyone involved, and it would produce a true national champion the American way.