College Football: BCS Title Game debate

Before our weekly delve into the NFL, I'd like your thoughts on the BCS system in college football. Also, do you have a strong opinion, one way or the other, about whether Michigan can now play in the title game after their loss to Ohio State.


Tough question and I'm going to say what everyone should be saying: college football needs a playoff system. If you're going to use computers all season to determine which team (Ohio State) is the best in the nation then why even play a national championship game? It seems inherently unfair, in a season with a clear number one and a muddle of number twos, to give only one of the one or two loss teams the chance to challenge the Buckeyes for the national championship.

Logistically there are problems with a playoff system, but I say shorten the schedule and tack on an 8 team playoff schedule where the top two teams receive byes. In three weeks you'd have your national champion. It's just too damn bad that tradition and the money hungry powers that be that run the B-level bowls (Fiesta, Cotton, Cereal) are keeping this from happening and making fans across the nation happy. After all, if I paid to sponsor the Pets.com bowl I'd be pissed off it is was relegated to a first round playoff matchup too. As per Michigan: I don't think Michigan can or should be allowed to play Ohio State in the national championship game. It's already been proven that they're worse than Ohio State let somebody else give it a shot.


I think before we have a playoff system, we should go to the +1 Bowl. It will be an extra game played after all of the bowl games are over. You run the BCS calculations one last time, after all the top teams just played another top team. The top two teams remaining play an extra week with the entire country watching. This can work. No bowl really gets relegated. The +1 is the National Title Game and it can rotate between bowls like it does now. You know more than me, can this work?

As for Michigan, here's what I don't get about the people in your camp: Isn't Michigan still the second best team in the country? How does losing to the #1 team in the country AT THEIR PLACE by 3 points make you seem like a worse team? And haven't we always looked for the top 2 teams to play in the national championship? We look for #1 and #2 and they should play on a neutral site. I don't like the idea of finding #1 and then the best team in another conference. If Duke and UNC were the best two teams in the country in basketball, I want them playing in the national championship. Tell me where I'm wrong.


You're wrong because in college football, as opposed to basketball, schedules are heavily assymetric. None of the best teams even play a remotely similar schedule, and that makes it very difficult to rank the teams. So Michigan could actually be a worse team than USC or Florida or LSU but we have no way of knowing for certain either way which is why there is this convoluted points system anyway.

And in basketball, while 1 v. 2 is a great draw for a championship game, how often does it happen that the two best teams in the country both survive the tournament? I think your +1 idea has some legs, though. But remember, I don't know what I'm talking about.


I think the national title game was played already, and it was on Ohio State's homefield. That's not how it's supposed to be.

All right, we'll transition to the professionals tomorrow. I think Seattle needs to take care of business tonight, because they can't let Dallas get the 2 seed. Seattle and Dallas, in some order, will be the 2 and 3 seeds of the NFC, and will face each other in the divisional round. So whoever finishes with the better record will host that matchup, and be the favorite. More importantly, whichever team gets that second seed, I think that's the team representing the conference at the Superbowl. Carolina will upset Chicago in the 2nd round, and then travel to the winner of the Dallas-Seattle game. I've told you I'm clairvoyant, right?

See you tomorrow.