Most of the teams competing within the College Football Bowl Sub-division, better known to longtime collegiate gridiron supporters as Division I-A, are locked out of ever competing, not only for a BCS Bowl opportunity, but the national championship itself.

This is one reason why the BCS needs to be altered, but is also the main reason why it likely will not EVER change, as the elite members - tabbed by television itself - have a significant stronghold on the system, and will never relinquish their death grip until either the fans or Congress step in with a remedy.   This was never more evident this week when West Virginia coach Rich Rodriguez left his alma matter for the Michigan job.

I’m not sure I agree with this move.  West Virginia’s football stadium is vastly superior to Michigan’s Big House.  Like Notre Dame Stadium, it is big, but compared to the newer, fan friendly and lucrative luxury box havens that dot the country side, the Big House isn’t that big with recruits.  It is quite boring, out-dated, unappealing to the eye and downright over-rated, like much of the Michigan football program has been since winning the national championship in 1997.

Ivan Maisel, a popular ESPN College Football analyst - who is also a favorite of mine - led with an article this morning titled “Even with increased parity, lure of traditional powers is hard to resist.”  Here is an exert from his article that pretty much sums up everything I have been trying accomplish by educating college football fans regarding the true motives behind the BCS controversy.

“We are all engorged with the parity college football served up every week this fall. But no matter how many Missouris and West Virginias threaten to stage a coup d'etat in this sport, there will always be royalty. Think of the schools whose tradition is immediately recognizable across the nation: USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, et al.”

ESPN hit the nail and the head with these three videos immediately after the BCS Bowl announcements commenced on Sunday, December 8th, 2007.  I especially like the first video as Pat Forde (ESPN), Wendell Barnhouse (Ft. Worth Star Telegram) and Lenn Robbins (New York Post) break down the ineptitude of the BCS.

According to Pat Forde, the popular ESPN College Football analyst and BCS expert, the BCS can never get it right, for a variety of reasons.  In his expert opinion, these are the reasons why the BCS can’t get it right:

1. ★   “Did the BCS get it right?  ABSOLUTELY NOT, it is incapable of getting it right.”
   

1. ★    “The BCS is a guessing game trying to decide between a bunch of teams with similar records who have played totally dissimilar schedules and have come at this thing from different directions.”
   

1. ★    “It is a beauty contest between who has the better NAME and FAME, not who has the better GAME!”
   

1. ★    “It is a terrible system that once again failed!”
   

According to Wendell Barnhouse of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram,

1. ★   “The BCS is like voting for laundry.”
   

1. ★    “They take whatever argument they have in their file and they try to make it fit the scenario of their liking.”
   

1. ★    “Take for example, the often used theory that the college football regular season is a playoff in itself.  If this was the case, if you lose in November (especially late in November) you ought to be out.  Or how about the other theory of the “Body of Work for the Entire Season.”  If this was the case, an undefeated Hawaii ought to be in” (what about Auburn, Utah, Tulane, Boise State and Marshall just within the last decade alone?).
   

1. ★    “In the 10 years of the BCS, we have only really gotten three legit championship games.”
   

According to Lenn Robbins of the New York Post,

1. ★   “I spoke with Albert Einstein this morning and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different result.” 
   

1. ★    “The only thing that is good about the BCS is all the talk and commotion resulting from the controversy.”
   

1. ★    “Where is Einstein when you need him?”
   

First of all, I’m no Einstein!  Far from it, but it is nice to know that maybe some people around the country are starting to sit up and take notice of my work, for I have been echoing these sentiments since 2004, when I began my book manuscript research project on the BCS. 

Forde said it best with his statement, “the BCS is a guessing game trying to decide between a bunch of teams with similar records who have played totally dissimilar schedules and who have come at this thing from different directions.” 

But Forde got it wrong when he suggests shaving the season back to 11 games and ridding ourselves of the conference championship game. 

In my mind, there are two appropriate reasons for this.  One, the 12 game scenario is perfect for the regular season bracketed playoff I am proposing for it allows nearly 90 percent of the teams to play an equal number of road and home games throughout the regular season. 

With only 11 games, half the teams will only play five home games a significant number of times and that isn’t going to satisfy conference administrators and university presidents who have to support their entire athletic platform from the results that take place from August through January every year.

Two, the conference championship game is needed to determine who the best teams truly are within the conferences.  The obvious and glaring flaw with the current conference championship game set up is the fact that the two best teams within the conference most often reside within the same division.

This has been true throughout the history of the championship events within the Big-12, ACC and SEC conferences, not to mention the MAC and C-USA. 

Although you can find a variety of playoff scenarios (What if Sports, Yahoo Sports, and Sports Illustrated) across the internet this time of year, these scenarios will never happen because college football is NOT INTERESTED in the NFL playoff model, which would extend the regular season and erase 100 years of history and tradition inside the bowl platform.  It isn’t EVER going to happen!

Can we get off of this dead horse please!

This is where the BCS Buster Regular Season Bracketed playoff model enters the fray as it is a very unique and well designed model, which incorporates many aspects of the current college football model, because it is played inside of a 12-game regular season and it would determine the entire bowl platform as well. 

If BCS Buster Bracketology were in play today, it would eliminate the guessing game found within the polls, and the competitors battling for the Sears Cup wouldn’t be playing dissimilar schedules, coming from different directions.

Simply put, it calms the chaotic tides of the BCS controversy and the winds of change would clear the vision in naming a champion. 

With the BCS Buster model in play, the conference finish including the championship game is the key, which upholds the importance of the regular season, and the best teams in the country would be on a collision course to meet on the field, not inside of cyberspace as evidenced by all the phony playoff models that are circulating the globe right now (see What if Sports, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated and ESPN above).

The biggest alteration needed to change the climate of the sport is the bogus September match-ups which dot the country side every season.  The major powers of the CFA alliance feast on these ridiculous match-ups.  I am talking specifically in regards to the SEC and Big-12 Conferences.

Many people claim that the SEC was the best conference in 2007.  It is easy to identify the key media players who are a part of the CFA alliance as they are always tooting the horn of the SEC and the Big-12 as the two premier conferences in the country every year. 

The numbers, however, tell us a different story all together.

For example here are the records for the six BCS super-conferences when competing against both non-BCS and BCS conference opponents in 2007.

Is it any wonder that the Big-East, PAC-10 and ACC schools are so scorned and ridiculed?  The ACC played 22 BCS opponents and finished dead even at (.500), while the Big-12 played (11), the Big-10 played (13) and the SEC played (14).  

Many people will immediately jump to conclusions when recognizing that the PAC-10 only played 13 BCS non-Conference opponents, but the PAC-10 is the only BCS Conference (other than the Big-East who only has 8 conference members) which competes against every member of the conference on an annual basis.  So you could conclude that the PAC-10 played 23 non-conference BCS opponents during the past season, given the fact that they have one less opportunity to schedule a non-conference opponent, which is tops among all of conferences.

As a matter of fact, all of the BCS Conferences, other than the Big-10, finished right around the .500 line when competing with their BCS counterparts from the other major super conferences.  Just exactly where is the strength in that?

The SEC and Big-12, supposedly the two best conferences in the nation according to Sports Illustrated, played 48 games against non-BCS teams including 18 games (9 each by the SEC and Big-12) against Division I-AA opponents.  This was only five games less than the other four BCS conferences played versus I-AA opponents combined, PAC-10 (2), ACC (7), Big East (6) and Big-10 (8)!

Incredibly, the Big-10 was voted the third best conference in the country.  The Big-10 was so dominant that they were beaten by Duke, arguably the worst BCS Conference team, Appalachian State and North Dakota State (two Division I-AA opponents), and Iowa lost to Iowa State who was beaten by Kent State, Northern Iowa (Division I-AA) and Toledo. 

Of course this is over shadowed by the fact that Stanford defeated USC, who played without 8 starters going into the game, and an injured quarterback playing with a broken finger on his passing hand during the game. 

UCLA and their much maligned coach Carl Dorrell didn’t do themselves or the conference any favors as they were blown out by Utah and even Notre Dame defeated Stanford and the Bruins on the road.

This has proven to be the ACE in the hole for the CFA alliance.  As the 2007 season progressed, and with three PAC-10 teams consistently in the Top-10 (three in the Top-6 at one point in the season), the only thing that Tim Brando and Verne Lundquist, the media anchors for CBS (the SEC flagship network), were focused on was UCLA’s schizophrenic personality in losing to Notre Dame and Utah.  Nothing else mattered at that point in the PAC-10 Conference.  The legitimacy was completely shaken across the southern contingency of the CFA alliance.

The Utah game is acceptable in my opinion.  The Notre Dame game was not and is one reason why coach Dorrell has been dismissed at UCLA. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the culprit involved in 90% of the PAC-10’s problems this season, like in many seasons of the past, is not shoddy defense, poor coaching or lack of talent, but turnovers and injuries.  I think you find in any football study, professional or collegiate, the two work hand in hand. 

The Big-10 was so dominant that Indiana earned a (7-5) bowl season invitation, largely due to the fact that they defeated Indiana State, Akron, Western Michigan and Ball State.  Of their three other victories, only Purdue had a winning record (7-5) as compared to Iowa at (6-6).  Minnesota was 1-11. 

The story doesn’t get much better for Michigan State or Purdue.  The Spartans defeated UAB, Bowling Green, Notre Dame, Indiana, Pittsburgh and Purdue.  Their only sterling victory came against a suspect, largely up and down, Penn State.

The Boilermakers defeated Toledo, E. Illinois, C. Michigan, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Iowa and Northwestern, while losing to Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State and Indiana. 

This conference was the worst of the BCS Conferences in my mind and is one reason why the fans are so up in arms regarding the final BCS standings rewarding Ohio State for a season schedule that many rank as suspect. 

We have three teams in the BCS this year, Ohio State, Kansas and Hawaii that played schedules of the same classification, for this is what the BCS and the 12 game schedule has come to...padding a pretty record that would fall like a house of cards if a playoff was at hand.

Last years national championship between Ohio State and Florida being “Exhibit A” in prosecuting the fluffy schedule component, which is now vehemently rewarded by the BCS.

The BCS Buster playoff proposal simply creates room in the regular season for all 120 teams to enter what I call bracket play.  Depending on the conference finish, a team would EARN a place in one of the four brackets and would be guaranteed four games to occur in the final month of November. 

This would occur with very little change to the current system, unless you consider some minor conference adjustments that have already similarly occurred within the BCS (ACC, Big-East, Big-12, Big-10 and SEC) Conferences and also includes the non-BCS Conferences as well.  To see how I have broken down the final pieces to the conference reshuffling puzzle you will need to visit my WordPress Blog!!!

The elite bracket, known appropriately as the “BCS Bracket” would determine the National Championship participants, the remaining BCS Bowl games and the upper tier non-BCS Bowl games like the Outback Bowl, Capitol One Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Holiday Day Bowl, Peach Bowl, Chick Fil-A Bowl and the Gator Bowl. 

The BCS Conferences would get four participants while the non-BCS conferences, other than the Sun-Belt Conference, would earn two participants (the top two teams from each division) for a field of 32 teams.   The reason for this is simple.  Forde, Barnhouse and Robbins all agreed that it should be an 8 team field and they each agreed that the field for the 2007 season, had their 8-team playoff system been activated, would look like the following.

SEC Champion:  LSU

ACC Champion:  Virginia Tech

Big-10 Campion:  Ohio State

Big-East Champion:  West Virginia

Big-12 Champion:  Oklahoma

PAC-10 Champion:  USC

BCS At-Large #1:  Georgia

BCS At-Large #2:  Hawaii

However, if a true playoff were at hand, do you think Hawaii would beat out Illinois, Arizona State, Boston College, Missouri, Tennessee (or Florida for that matter), or other non-BCS powers this year, which included Central Florida, Florida-Atlantic, Central Michigan or BYU?

That would be a matter of opinion and given the fact that all three college football experts mentioned above, who are paid to cover college football, cannot agree on a championship match-up (Forde likes LSU-Ohio State, Barnhouse likes USC-LSU and Robbins likes LSU-Oklahoma), do you think incompetent pollsters like Eddie Crowder, the former Colorado coach who is heavily tied to the CFA movement as a Harris Poll voter and admitted he hadn’t seen a single clip of South Florida play earlier this season when the Bulls ascended to the Pole Position, would get it right? 

The only way to get to an 8 team field is start with 32, and I have created this process as part of the regular season race and the conference champions would in fact be the 8 teams involved. 

The flaw within the 8-team playoff models floating around the internet is the simple fact that they are still relying on a poll of votes rather than results on the field and given the fact that 13 times in the now infamous 2007 regular season, a top-five ranked team was defeated by a non-ranked opponent, I don’t think we could accurately pick who deserves the final two at large spots, even if we voted ten times and took an average.

The system I have created solves this critical factor which renders the entire BCS system dysfunctional.  The key element which provides a superior rating compared to the common 8-team playoff proposals that nearly everyone is touting on the internet is the fact that the conference race and the true conference championship determination that this system provides, essentially provides total validity to the 8-team playoff proposals because in the end, by the time we arrive at week number eleven, the BCS Busters model is an 8-team playoff at this point.

The key is we arrived at 8 by the results on the field, rather than a poll, and it occurred as part of the regular season.

In addition, the BCS Busters model also solves the primary playoff rebuttal that is often used, “the fans wouldn’t be able to flip-flop across the country as this would be financially insolvent and render the entire playoff platform a financial train wreck!”

Not to fear, because with my system each team would get to host two games within the brackets, and the ticket sales for these games would be a part of the yearly ticket package.  Instead of Oregon’s pre-season schedule for 2008 looking like this:

1. 1) Boise State                                            
   

2. 2) Utah State                                                                                      
   

3. 3) @ Purdue                                                                                        
   

4. 4) UCLA                                                                                         
   

5. 5) @ Arizona State                                                                      
   

6. 6) Washington                                                                                    
   

7. 7) @ USC                                                                                               
   

8. 8) @ WSU
   

9. 9) Stanford
   

10. 10) @ CAL
    

11. 11) Arizona
    

12. 12) @ Oregon State
    

Instead it would look like this:

13. 13) UCLA
    

14. 14) @ USC
    

15. 15) Washington
    

16. 16) @ WSU
    

17. 17) @ OSU
    

18. 18) Stanford
    

19. 19) @ California
    

20. 20) Arizona
    

21. 21) TBA  (San Jose State if utilizing this model for the 2007 season)
    

22. 22) TBA (@ Fresno State if utilizing this model for the 2007 season)
    

23. 23) TBA (Colorado if utilizing this model for the 2007 season)
    

24. 24) TBA (@ Kentucky if utilizing this model for the 2007 season)
    

25. 25) Florida in the insight.com bowl hypothetically
    

The key here is although weeks nine through twelve are listed as TBA to the season ticket holders, the fans are buying these tickets as part of the regular season ticket packages they buy every year during the late spring and early summer. 

When purchasing the tickets, the fans would understand that there would be four games remaining in weeks 9-12, but the opponent would be determined based upon the results of conference play as all 120 teams would begin conference play first, in week number one, saving the vital month of November for head-to-head action between opponents who are similar in stature.

The conference finish determines which bracket a team is placed in, which determines which bowl a team can qualify for.

The major question (rebuttal) harnessing the entire playoff platform for college football can now be answered - “how are the fans going to attend?” 

Since all of the teams would be playing two road games and two home games in this system (ideally... it wouldn’t work out perfectly) the fans would be able to attend on short notice because they have already purchased these tickets as part of the season ticket package, and the visiting fans would be able to attend due to some unique maneuvering within the brackets.

In a normal setting, the brackets would flow chronologically.  For example:  On the winners side of the bracket, the winner between West Virginia and South Florida would move on to play the winner of UConn and Cincinnati, just like winner of Ohio State and Wisconsin would move on to play the winner of Illinois and Michigan. 

We need this chronological flow on this side of the bracket because the determination of a conference championship game is necessary to get to the Elite 8.  The six BCS Conferences are represented, but then the newly created Rocky Mountain Conference winner would end up playing the winner of the match-up between the MAC Conference and C-USA.

However, on the losers side of the bracket, things change quite dramatically.  To keep things in a regional setting so visiting fans are capable of attending the games, the teams would be placed into a region and then the match-up would be determined by proximity to that region.  This set up ensures that the payday games played between the PAC-10 and WAC or Mountain West, Big-10 and MAC, SEC and Sun-Belt,  and ACC and C-USA for example, would continue. 

This is one aspect that any playoff system will need to address.

Thus, on the winners side, the conferences are set up so that the conference champions meet another conference champion from a region which is close in proximity.  All four of the brackets are set up in the following manner, essentially creating an East versus West match-up in the final. 

Big-East  vs  Big-10

ACC  vs  SEC

Big-12  vs  PAC-10

Rocky Mountain vs winner of the MAC / C-USA bracket.

On the losers side of the equation, if the conference participants in week #10 have already met as part of the regular season, occurring within the first 8 weeks, then they enter the regional bank where their opponent will be determined by proximity. 

If they haven’t already met as part of the regular season, as would be the case with Texas and Kansas, or Tennessee and Auburn for this past season, then they would play the game as conference match-ups that did not take place as part of the regular season would take priority. 

On the winners side, we need this rematch to determine the conference championship, and this really isn’t any different than what is already occurring in the conference championship match-ups today.

This is how the losers bracket would have been set up based on the results of this past 2007 season for week #10 within the BCS Busters BCS Bracket:

WEST:

1. ★    ASU
   

2. ★    OSU 
   

3. ★    NEW MEXICO
   

4. ★    BOISE STATE
   

MIDWEST:

1. ★    WISCONSIN
   

2. ★    MICHIGAN
   

3. ★    MIAMI (OH)
   

4. ★    TEXAS
   

5. ★    KANSAS
   

6. ★    HOUSTON
   

SOUTHEAST:

1. ★    TENNESSEE
   

2. ★    AUBURN
   

3. ★    CLEMSON
   

4. ★    SOUTH FLORIDA
   

EAST:

1. ★    VIRGINIA
   

2. ★    UCONN
   

The Week #10 match-ups in the BCS Losers Bracket.

Boise State @ Oregon State

Arizona State @ New Mexico

Kansas @ Texas (due to the fact that this game hasn’t been played this year)

Miami (OH) @ Michigan

Tennessee @ Auburn (due to the fact that this game hasn’t been played this year)

Clemson @ South Florida

Virginia @ UCONN

Wisconsin @ Houston (the two odd-ball teams playing out of region)

As you can see, utilizing BCS Buster Bracketology would drastically reduce the number of games which would be played outside a region, which eliminates the often used rebuttal “how would the fans be able to attend?”

The answer to this question would simply be that the fans would attend the same way they have always attended college football games for the past 120 plus years.

On the winners side of the bracket, since the teams are already aligned due to conference and then region, you only have one true long distance travel arrangement occurring with this playoff proposal, but the advantage is that the best teams are aligned to compete on the field to actually earn a BCS or upper tier bowl berth. 

Thus, on the winners side of the brackets, the teams would advance chronologically, while on the losers side of the brackets, the teams would advance through a region.  This is why the brackets may be a little confusing to you as you study them throughout this website. 

It is also important to note that the Holiday, NIT and Sportsman’s Bracket, would be utilizing the regional pool set-up throughout both the winners and losers bracket, with the exception being that conference match-ups which haven’t already occurred due to the 8-game conference set-up would take priority.

With this model in place, we would virtually eliminate the secret coaches polls, incomprehensible computer formulas, smoke filled “back-room” bowl brokering and most importantly, eliminate the gross competitive advantages that ROYALTY teams like Michigan, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida enjoy by being placed at the top of the polls at the beginning of the season, before a single game has been played due to an oligarchic brand name identity that was built some 30 years ago, which doesn’t apply to the actual product on the field. 

This ROYALTY aspect that drives coaches like Rich Rodriguez to Michigan is another thing that needs to go. 

Rich is going to find that the best thing going for him was to stay at West Virginia as their football facility and product on the field is vastly superior to the Big House!  Like Saban and soon to be Petrino, they should have stayed at LSU and Louisville respectively.  The grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

Elimination of the ROYALTY FACTOR  will help the Missouri’s of the world (Kansas State in 1998 as they fell from number one to the Alamo Bowl) from being snubbed by the Orange Bowl, and programs like Oregon from being relegated to the wastelands of Odessa, while a team they destroyed by over 30 points resides in Orlando during the bowl season - A ROYALS WELCOME - so undeserving it makes many people want to vomit.

But most importantly, it would provide a head-to-head avenue to determine a valid national championship each and every year, ending the continual whining, jostling and complaining.

Let’s eliminate the BCS and remove the 8-Ball factor which limits the championship bowl aspirations for nearly 100 teams who compete in Division I-A, better known as the Football Bowl Sub-Division in college football!

Comments?  Click Here!