(This was originally a letter to a sports reporter; since the paper decided not to do anything with it, I'm going to post it here. I think the idea is a good one; what say you?)
Your article of December 4 ("Voters Swayed by Gators' Late Win) pointed up the problems surrounding the selection of teams to compete in the BCS Championship Bowl, the most telling being the mention of 2004, when four teams went undefeated but only two played for the "national champion" title. The BCS standings are fine as far as they go, but when you have multiple undefeated teams or a conference championship game that can sway voters, it falls short.
The BCS standings, however, CAN act as a seeding for an eight-team playoff method. While some would prefer that the bowls be completely left out of a playoff, I believe this would lead to even more mediocre matchups in bowls when the top eight teams are taken away. Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama at 6-6 each is bad enough; can you imagine Kansas and Kent St. (also both 6-6) in a bowl as well? Therefore, I would propose that six current bowls be used as playoff sites, with the Championship Bowl to be put up for bid nationwide, five years before the actual event. (For instance, the 2011 Championship Bowl site would be named this year.) Those six bowls would be the Cotton, Gator, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose (with a caveat). The first five bowls would rotate between the four quarterfinal games played on December 23,and one semifinal played on January 1; the Rose would always have the other semifinal game, also on January 1. The Championship Bowl would be played January 8, at the designated site.
The caveat is this: The Rose Bowl, being the first of all bowls, would be given the option to participate in the playoff system. If yes, the system plays out as given above. If no, then the Rose has first choice of remaining bowl-eligible teams, and will continue to play on January 1 as it has always done; the place in the rotation will be taken by the Sun Bowl.
The top eight teams in the final BCS standings will be the eight teams in the playoff, with this exception; if any D-1 team finishes the season undefeated, that team is automatically in the playoff, replacing the lowest-ranked team with at least one loss in the BCS. For instance, in 2004 Utah would have become the 8th seed, replacing the #8 team in the rankings, since the other three undefeateds were already in the top eight. Seedings for the playoff is determined by placement in the BCS standings, first vs. eighth, second vs. seventh, etc.
Let's set it up for this year. Assuming the Rose Bowl participates, the quarterfinals on Dec. 23 would be Ohio St.-Boise St. (Sugar), Florida-Wisconsin (Cotton), Michigan-Louisville (Gator), and LSU-USC (Fiesta), attempting to keep sites as neutral as possible in the round. On Jan. 1, the Orange Bowl would play host to the winners in the Cotton and Gator Bowls, and the Rose Bowl would be the site for the winners of the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls. The BCS Championship Bowl on Jan. 8 would match the winners of the Orange and Rose Bowls, and give D-1 a true "national champion".
The benefits? The championship is won on the field, by a team that must prove themselves with three victories over top-level competition. The bowl system remains in place, and in the case of the six named bowls, it gains extra meaning by being a part of the championship process. All other bowls can continue, taking those teams that did not quite make it to the top eight or through an undefeated season, making for better bowl matchups. Equally, taking the seven bowls (including the BCS Championship) out of the regular bowl mix means that less slots are available for 6-6 teams, which is a good thing; NO .500 team should be in a bowl, to my mind.
Sorry for the length of the letter, but continued snafus stemming from the BCS process demand a complete fix, and this system combines both a playoff (which the fans want) and the continuation of the bowls (which the host cities want).
