2006 could be another BCS nightmare

By Darrell Laurant  |   Wednesday, April 26, 2006  |  Comments( 0 )

College Football
Got something to say?

Sign Up and be the first to comment on this article!

Like the Internal Revenue Service, the Bowl Championship Series never misses an opportunity to confuse things a little more.

Two years ago, in response to complaints that the existing system discriminated against teams from the “lesser" conferences, the college football kingmakers added a fifth bowl to the BCS lineup, beginning in 2006. Then, at their annual meeting in Phoenix this week, they revised that decision a bit, morphing that “fifth bowl" into a “stand-alone title game" that would be stacked atop the four major bowls.

Of course, this raises the question: "So why not match what seem to be the two top teams after the four major bowls are over?" But never mind -- apparently, the word "playoff" to the BCS is like "taxes" to a Republican.

Certainly, this will make Division 1-A coaches happy, since at least two more members of that fraternity will be able to boast of getting their team into a BCS bowl. And the TV revenue will grow considerably. (Will this new game be part of the ABC/ESPN deal, one wonders, or will it be put up for bid?)

Here's the thing, though. In 2005, the BCS folks lucked out. They knew going in that Southern Cal would be a dominant force, and as soon as Texas beat Ohio State in Columbus in September, all the dominos fell into place.

By contrast, 2006 looks like an argument waiting to happen.

Texas would have been the hands-down favorite to repeat had Vince Young not jumped to the NFL. But he did, and Mack Brown's Longhorns may now have trouble holding off a resurgent Oklahoma (with a healthy Adrian Peterson) in the Big 12, much less repeating as national champs.

The SEC is loaded, with the LSU Tigers, Florida Gators and Auburn Tigers leading a pack of title contenders. The FSU Seminoles will be a force to be reckoned with in the ACC as Drew Weatherford ripens into one of the nation's better quarterbacks, and Miami will be back. If Ohio State can rebuild its defense, it has the offensive capability to beat Texas in Austin in the second game of the season and move on from there. But then the Buckeyes would have to contend with one of the best Michigan teams in years.

Elsewhere, Notre Dame could ride Brady Quinn's arm into this new BCS finale, and Southern Cal might still be the class of the Pac-10.

The sexy pick for pre-season No. 1 in recent weeks has been West Virginia, which has most of its significant players back from an 11-1 season and a relatively weak schedule. But the Mountaineers will have to face the Big East's other beast, Louisville, on the road in November.

So why not play the four major bowls, then pick the two title contenders from those results? And instead of choosing one of the sites that has already hosted a bowl, as the BCS plan proposes, why not have the championship game somewhere else, to spread the wealth?

Of course, this scenario has its flaws, as well. For example: What if Oklahoma dominated its opponent in its BCS bowl, but then lost Peterson to an injury in the third quarter? Ditto Notre Dame and Quinn?

Anyway, the idea that one football game really proves who's the best team in the nation has always been a myth. Does anyone really think Texas would have beaten Southern Cal more than half the time had they played a series?

Maybe we all should have more important things to worry about. Let the BCS arguments begin.
Got something to say?

Sign Up and be the first to comment on this article! (0)

About Darrell Laurant

Sorry, Darrell Laurant's bio is currently not available. Please check back soon!
read more
Article Tools Share!   |  RSS  |  Bleacher Report About Bleacher Report