The dust has settled on one of the most tumultuous college football seasons with Oklahoma and Florida emerging from the morass of qualified one-loss teams to compete for the so-called national title. Of course, USC, Texas Tech, Alabama and, particularly, Texas, might beg to differ with the selection of the Sooners and the Gators for the national title game. And undefeated Utah is on the outside looking in.
Many fans contend-including the President-elect-that eight deserving teams should compete in a three-week playoff culminating in a national title match. Bah humbug.
Sounds reasonable, right, except a couple of issues arise. One, what happens to the existing bowl system? How does that system morph with eight teams vying for the national title under a white-hot spotlight? Would the other bowl games whither and pass into bowl oblivion with the Cherry Bowl, Bluebonnet Bowl and Seattle Bowl?
Second, what makes any pragmatic observer think that the gripes about inclusion will be magically whisked away with an eight-team pool? Yeah, this year, it's USC, Texas, Texas Tech, Alabama and Utah, leading the gripe concerto. That orchestra will morph into the number nine, ten, eleven and twelve and various conference champions staking justifiable complaints about exclusion. How are the eight teams determined? The Mensa-members-only computer system?
Which brings me back to my starting point. What was wrong with the bowl system the way it was before the BCS? What was wrong with the Pac-12 champion facing the Big-10 champion in the Rose Bowl? What was wrong with the various conference champions earning berths into specific bowls? What was wrong with poll services and coaches deciding on a mythical college champion? Or champions?
What was wrong with earning a bowl berth as a reward for an exceptional season? Has the BCS really solved the problem of determining an undisputed national champion? Bah humbug.