How to fix the BCS

AP Photo/LM Otero

Here is my idea on how to fix the BCS

The BCS is broken, but not beyond all repair.  I have thought up a system that would include all teams that make the top 16, would reduce the lag time between the end of regular season play and the championship, and that would keep the regular season just as important as it is today.

First give every team in the top 16 a chance, regardless of conference or independent status.

You have 5 rounds.  However there would be teams that 'won' bye rounds by virtue of their end of season rankings.  In addition each round except the championship would feature home games.  The teams with the higher rank would get home games.  Your regular season rank would stay with you the entire playoffs, so if you were ranked 16 at the end of the regular season, your rank would not improve after the first round, even if you won. 

Using the 2008 December 7 rankings here is how the 'sweet 16' would work

Round 1 you have teams ranked 13,14, 15, and 16 play 12, 11, 10, and 9.  So 9 or Boise State would play 16 Georgia at Boise State's home stadium.  Ohio State ranked 10th would play Oregon ranked 15 at the Buckeye's home field.  TCU would host Georgia Tech, and Cincinnati would host Oklahoma State.   Games are played December 1st, Saturday.

The 4 winners would move on to Round 2.  Again just for simplicity we assume all higher ranked teams win.  So you have 12, 11, 10, and 9.  They play 8, 7, 6, and 5.   So number 5, USC would host Cincinnati. Number 6 Penn State would host  TCU.  Number 7 Utah would host Ohio State.  And Number 8 Texas Tech would host Boise State. Games are played Dec 8th, Saturday.

Round 3  you would have the teams that ended the regular season ranked  4, 3, 2, and 1 host.  For simplicity's sake we say higher ranked teams all won.  So Florida ranked 1 would host 8 Texas Tech.  Oklahoma ranked 2 would host Utah.  Texas ranked 3rd would host Penn State.  And Alabama ranked 4th would host USC.  Games are played Dec 15th, Saturday.

Round 4 Now you how the final four.  Again home games.  Top ranked team plays lowest ranked team.  Florida hosts Alabama.  Oklahoma hosts Texas.  Games are played Saturday, Dec 22nd.  I seriously doubt the playoff winners would follow rankings.  I think some years there would be a team that had some bad breaks that puts together a run in the playoffs playing teams that during the regular season did it with smoke and mirrors.

Round 5 Now 1 and 2 play.   This game is in a warm weather location, San Diego or Miami or Arizona.  They rotate the game between these spots.   Florida plays Oklahoma. In some nice warm city.  Game is New Year's Day, Tuesday. 

This system would force the different conferences to finish up before December 1st.  I think this is easy to do by having the teams eliminate meaningless games.  Ohio State like teams should never play games against teams like Youngstown State.  Every game played should be against opponents who have a chance to win.  Ranking should be based on quality of opponents, teams should be rewarded for playing a tough schedule.  I'd rather see a team go 5 and 5 and play 10 tough games make the playoffs than someone go 10 and 0 and play 1 tough game.  Also there would be no conference tie ins or exclusions.  If all 12 SEC teams were ranked in the top 16 they all make the playoffs, if no Big Ten team is in the top 16 none get in. 

The rankings would be a simple formula.  Lowest Score is best, just like golf.  Each week you play a team, if you beat them you 'take' their rank as your score.  Teams with the lowest score at the end of the week reset.  Who decides who is ranked 1 through 16?  Should it be a computer?  Coaches? Writers?  A combination? 

iteration.  whatever system you come up with is going to have flaws because not everyone plays everyone else.  the only league like that is the English Premiership in Soccer.  There are too many teams to do that in College football.  So you have to have some judgment involved.   You want to try out the system and tweak it for a few seasons with the principle of favoring tough schedules over easy schedules.  You want teams to take chances early and often on who they play.   You want the tough teams to play as many tough games as possible to eliminate as many questions as possible.  Look at Ohio State's 2009 Schedule

September 5 Navy
September 12 USC
September 19 at Toledo
September 26 Illinois
October 3 at Indiana
October 10 Wisconsin
October 17 at Purdue
October 24 Minnesota
October 31 New Mexico State
November 7 at Penn State
November 14 Iowa
November 21 at Michigan

Outsideide of the Big Ten they play 1 game they could be favored to lose.  Toledo, Navy and New Mexico State should be replaced by teams like Alabama, Utah, and Texas. 

I think you have to create a simple system to rank teams - you beat somebody good you move up, you beat someone crappy it doesn't help, you lose to someone good it isn't the end of the world, you lose to someone crappy you are out of the playoff race. 

I would not let coach's vote.  I would not let writers vote.  There are a number of reasons for this. Coaches would all play Division III teams if they could and will rank bad teams higher than tough teams to make their teams look better.  Coaches and writer's will vote on teams they've never seen play.  Some writers just like teams like Notre Dame.  Some writers just hate teams like Notre Dame.  Everyone is biased.  Everyone has some sort of an interest. 

What would work is a system where the pre season ranking is based on a cumulative value of beating a team.  It is like a handicap.  As you beat historically great teams your team's handicap improves.  Each team gets a historical value based on the last 50 seasons.  The last 10 years are weighted heavier than the first 40.  Value each year is the final rankings. Not perfect, but you need a base.  As you play each week you get rewarded for playing teams with a tradition of winning and those on the rise in the last decade.   

This system would eliminate the need to run up the score.  If you beat someone by 1 point or 50 the outcome is the same.  You beat Alabama, a storied program. 

This system would also be great for policing corruption.  Say if Florida State cheated for a few years.  Instead of making them forfeit some games in their record books, the penalty would be much higher, they'd have a worse historical rank all of sudden that would take years to recover from.  

This system would besurvivalial of the fittest where every game matters, every season matters, history matters and taking risk is rewarded.  The season would end Jan 1, without a huge lag between the regular season and the championship game.  The system would allow the top 16 to get a shot at the title, eliminating a lot of controversy.  Travel would be minimized by home games and byes.   

The money

A big issue is the money.  How is playoff money distributed?  Should every team in Div 1 get an equal share?  Should each league decide how the money is shared?  Should each playoff team decide?  Here is a radical idea.  All the gate money goes to the home school.  The TV money is split 50/50.  The championship game money goes to ......

Students of the winning school.  Non athlete students specifically, who are not on any scholarships. The money does  not go to the school's athletic departments.  it doesn't directly go to the schools.  The money goes into the individual Stafford loan account of the students.  It is sent electronically directly as a payment credited to the student.  It hits the principle before graduation, giving the students less of a mountain of debt.  The money is divided up by a per student basis.