The De-Stupifying of College Football, Part 1

So, the 2009 college football season has brought upon us what every black-rimmed glasses-wearing, sweater vest wearing, pointy-headed geek that created the BCS system always feared: not one undefeated team... not two undefeated teams... not even three, or four. There are FIVE undefeated Division 1A (I refuse to use the term "FBS") schools and room for only two of them in the BCS title game. Oh man, what a dilemma. What ever should we do?

Let's start with the facts. Alabama was the SEC champion, defeating several ranked teams along the way, including a thrashing of the previous AP/BCS #1 team and defending national champions. Bama finished the season undefeated in a conference that has produced the last three BCS national champions. To say that Bama doesn't deserve to go to Pasadena would be laughable at best. I know I'm biased, but the SEC has proven itself time and time again to be the toughest/best conference in college football. Alabama is no fluke of a team, and deserves its shot.

What about Texas? As an undefeated team and champions of the Big XII, they make a hard sell for their inclusion in the title game. Interestingly, the Big XII has only produced one previous BCS champion (compared to five for the SEC): Texas, in 2005. They have lost four other attempts. Still, the merits of past teams should not necessarily be weighted when determining if the 2009 Longhorns are championship material. So far, they have done everything their schedule asked of them. Yes, they've had a few close calls... but what team hasn't?

Oh, you might mention that that other team from Texas dominated all their games. Hmm, did they? Let's look at the schedules. Now of course, we know that TCU plays in the Mountain West Conference. A team shouldn't necessarily be penalized for what conference they play in, I get that. And for the conference games TCU played, their average margin of victory was 43 - 12. That would be impressive for anybody. But look, the so-called "mid-major teams" know going into the season that they have to produce impressive victories to get their chance. This includes in their out-of-conference schedules. TCU played two "major" conference schools: Virginia and Clemson. While a 30 - 14 victory over a rather bad UVa team looks good, a 14 - 10 win over Clemson - who, though they made the ACC title game, also lost to South Carolina and is ultimately a Music City Bowl-level opponent - just simply does not impress. A hard-fought 20 - 17 win over Air Force is also not the stuff of champions. Look, I know that a win is a win. But these teams know that they have to do more than just win, they have to completely dominate and annihilate every opponent to get the shot. The facts are that TCU did not. Hey, I'm not saying that they aren't deserving of Pasadena or that they are worse than Texas. I think there's a good shot they'd beat Texas. For the system that we have in place though, and the pre-defined "rules" that exist in the BCS system, TCU did not do what it takes to make the title game. Twist it any way you want to... that's still the truth. Maybe they should petition the PAC-10 or Big 10 for a spot in a big boy conference.

Apply everything I just said to Boise State. Yeah yeah, the 19 - 8 win over Oregon looks good. They then spent the rest of the year not playing a single team from the six so-called BCS conferences. They also struggled to beat Tulsa. You have to be more impressive than that, Broncos.

So then there's Cincinnati. BCS conference? Check. Undefeated season? Check. So why are they excluded? The reputation of the Big East, for one reason. Since the departures of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, the conference has had its BCS credibility attacked from all angles. Cincy was champs in 2008, and promptly got beaten 20 - 7 by a rather average Virginia Tech team. That's not a good way to impress people of the strength of your conference. The "new" Big East has yet to regain its credibility and needs a BCS bowl victory by one of its teams to get back over the hump. If the Bearcats can beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl, things could change for the future. But in 2009, with the standards, preconceptions, and notions that are in place relative (TM, Nick Saban) to the BCS process... Cincinnati had no chance.

To argue for a playoff between these five teams is ludicrous, in my not-so-humble opinion. What do you do, add a sixth team and give two teams bye weeks? How do you determine who gets the byes? And do you realize, there is only one one-loss team in Division 1A? That's Florida, which got thumped by Bama. To give them another shot at a championship is ridiculous. What next, expand the playoff to eight teams? What two two-loss teams do you give a chance? There are plenty of those to choose from. Don't even get me started on doing a sixteen-team playoff. Does anybody really think West Virginia deserves a chance to "get hot" and somehow fluke its way into a national championship? Really?

Whether anybody likes it or not, Alabama vs. Texas is the only logical matchup this year for the system we have in place. Am I saying it's perfect? Of course not. The BCS is inherently flawed, and always will be. But that doesn't mean that college football has to always suffer for it. I think there are ways to make the game better, without having to resort to a ho-hum, us too system of an eight or sixteen team playoff. Controversy is the lifeblood of college football; it makes the games, the rivalries, the trash-talking, all of it, even better. So what's my solution to "fix" the game? We only need to look to the past. My answer will be in Part 2.