|Page 2 of 2 <|
Alabama's in the title game, but is the BCS tide turning?
Am I suggesting a conspiracy? No, not at all. But I think a climate was produced in which all the momentum (and benefit of the doubt) was put behind these schools, especially deep into the season. A playoff would largely eliminate that, which is what The Cartel doesn't want and the small schools always want, and now need in order to get a fair shake.
Remember, Boise State embarrassed Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl three years ago and Utah brought Alabama to its knees in a beat down in last year's Sugar Bowl. How do you keep the have-nots from greater rewards?
Don't play them. Avoid them. Tighten the circle and lie about why. Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.) said, "What our friends and fans need to know about the Bowl Championship Series is that it is not about choosing the champion or competition on the gridiron. . . . It is about revenue sharing for the schools that are in the BCS Conferences . . ."
An amendment would also ensure that in a playoff system, all schools -- regardless of conference affiliation -- would have an equal shot at participating. What's worse than the House taking time to consider forcing a college football playoff is the necessity to do so in the first place.
Without getting overconfident, it seems now there is considerable momentum to bring down the BCS, although the gutless college presidents who front The Cartel and prop up the current system will have to be taken down in an over-our-dead-bodies last stand to do so, which would be fine with me.
Just think for a moment how great a playoff would be this season. The quarterfinal should be this weekend. Done by seeding, No. 1 Alabama would play No. 8 Ohio State; No. 2 Texas would play No. 7 Oregon; No. 3 Cincinnati would play No. 6 Boise State and No. 4 TCU would play No. 5 Florida. I could see a national semifinal next weekend of Alabama vs. Oregon and Boise State vs. Florida. And after skipping the Christmas weekend, New Year's weekend would deliver Alabama vs. Boise State in a legit championship game, with unaffiliated referees from anywhere but the SEC.
Of course, as Barton acknowledged this issue is entirely about money, which is why the NCAA men's basketball committee would consider for one moment changing anything substantive. In the spirit of being more inclusive, have four "play-in" games in which the final at-large teams play each other, or play the lowest-rated automatic conference champs on Tuesday for the right to make into the field of 64.
I can't think of any times where there were 70 deserving teams, much less 96. It seems obvious to most rational people that March Madness isn't broken and a college football playoff is necessary -- obvious to everybody except the people making the decisions.