Tuesday, December 09, 2008

BCS Guru vs. BCS

Our friend Sam Chi explains why the BCS didn't "get it right" it merely averted disaster. Here's a link to my modest proposal for crowning a champion.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

fish,
RE: your propsal

Duck's comment that "I, too, believe it is logical and would improve the game" means...

there is no way in hell the NCAA would ever implement it.

y-g

JD said...

Henry,

I re-read your proposal. It is logical, and mostly well thought out, except for one point. (Someone else may have mentioned it, but I didn't read all of the comments.) Three cities can only host two games of a playoff if one hosts two games the same week. Either two teams get hosed playing the back-end of a double header on torn-up turf (unless, of course it is the Sugar Bowl, the only one of those venues with artificial turf), or a city gets hosed by only hosting a first round game. As you acknowledge, it will never happen, and this will never be an issue, but is something to consider if you ever revise the plan.

My plan (not that you asked for it) would be a plus 1 plus, with conference title games as eliminators. Take the top four teams in the BCS, unless one of thoes teams loses head to head to another top-four team in a conference championship game. This year, it would be (correct me if I'm wrong) 1.Oklahoma-5.USC and 2.Florida-3.Texas (Alabama lost to Florida, so they're out), with the winners advancing. Phase 2 of the plan would be to abolish the BCS bowls' individual selection committees in favor of one master selection committee. This would increase the likelyhood of the other BCS games being watchable.