Good title game won’t fix system

SAN JOSE, Calif. – Peace and joy reign throughout the college football land. Or at least there’s no gnashing of teeth and bitter accusations of the usual idiocy.

The Bowl Championship Series, lo and behold, worked for a change. Unlike the typical chaos, the system actually did what it was supposed to do – ensure that the best teams in the land, USC and Texas, will square off in a reasonable facsimile of a title game.

Most everyone seems content, but not us.

If we were the boss of college football and could issue an official decree, there would be no BCS. No antiquated bowl games. No postseason matchups based more on popularity (hello, Notre Dame!) than merit (sorry, Oregon).

Imagine … a playoff. Sixteen teams … a national football tournament … a gridiron version of the NCAA basketball tourney, only better … March Madness with shoulder pads.

That’s exactly what we’ve done, figuring that if the BCS can crown a mythical national champion, we can stage our own mythical national championship tournament. College sports writer Jon Wilner, who has a vote in the Associated Press top 25 poll, selected his 16-team field – modeled on the Division I-AA system – and then predicted how the brackets would play out. It’s intended to be fun. You know, sort of like the way a playoff would be a blast.

Sure, the Orange Bowl contest between Penn State and Florida State is a nice story, and endless source of geezer jokes, with the Joe Paterno-Bobby Bowden showdown. Some people outside of Pennsylvania and Florida might even care. But what if JoePa’s team were battling through a tough field – as Wilner envisions – to play USC in the title game? You bet the whole country would care.

Speaking of betting, imagine the bracket pool possibilities. (Not that we’re endorsing blatant lawbreaking, of course.)

“I agree it would be a tremendous buzz,” said Grant Teaff, head of the American Football Coaches Association.

So what are they waiting for? C’mon, this isn’t exactly rocket science.

“But it’s just not feasible,” he added.

Teaff’s point: Even if the public holds its collective breath until turning Michigan blue in the face, there are too many entrenched interests, many well-meaning, that make a playoff impractical.

For instance, most college presidents say they won’t endorse a plan that could lengthen the season into the second semester of school. Of course, these are the same folks who allowed conference title games as well as the addition of a 12th regular-season game starting next year. Both of those, of course, cut into the class time that presidents claim to be protecting.

The biggest issue, though, is that a playoff would require blowing up the bowl system, and that’s not going to happen. The majority of presidents, athletic directors and coaches love the bowls, including the Meineke Car Care Bowl. This year’s bloated, 28-bowl postseason means 56 teams get a postseason reward – even if many don’t deserve it – and half of them go home happy.

And you, dear reader, are part of the problem. Except for a handful each holiday season, the bowls are essentially meaningless. But enough of us watch them on TV, or travel to Tempe, San Diego or Orlando to see them in person, to keep the illogical process alive.

If enough people stopped paying attention, you better believe that ADs, presidents and coaches would find a way to make a playoff “feasible” and keep the money flowing.

Instead we have the BCS – the creation of a cartel of six major conferences, Notre Dame, TV executives and the four major bowls. Using a mix of human and computer polls, it’s supposed to ensure No. 1 playing No. 2, but the system keeps proving to be flawed.

Two years ago USC, despite finishing first in both human polls, didn’t get to play in the big game. Last season, unbeaten Auburn got stiff-armed from the title contest. Cal also missed out on playing in a BCS game thanks to a voting process worthy of a banana republic.

It became such a fiasco last year that the AP no longer allows its poll to be used in the selection process.

This season the BCS didn’t cause its usual controversy, marking the fourth time in eight years that it matched the consensus top two teams. That’s not a blind-squirrel-finds-acorn percentages, but it’s not good, either. One Texas congressman is conducting hearings about the BCS.

“Why in the world can’t we have a playoff system?” Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville asked in July. “Until the media or the fans start really getting involved in this, we won’t change it because our board is not loud enough.”

He was referring to the coaches’ association. But, Teaff contends, the group won’t be beating the drum for a playoff – which the presidents would have to approve anyway. Teaff recalls being on an NCAA committee in the early 1990s that looked into making the change.

“We met and talked and studied and pondered every conceivable scenario, and it was finally concluded that Division I couldn’t have a playoff,” Teaff said. “That’s the reason why there isn’t one.”

He offered another thought.

“The coaches, by and large, already believe we have a playoff system,” Teaff added. “If you don’t think so, just ask those folks with one loss if they feel the regular season really is a playoff.”

The BCS is in business through at least January 2010, and it will continue to slap duct tape on the contraption. Look for a “plus one” matchup – where the two highest-rated teams after the BCS games meet in a showdown – to eventually show up on a TV network near you.

So our national football tournament will remain only a whimsical daydream.

That’s because, unfortunately, we’re not the boss.