Let's Call the Whole (College Football) Thing Off

Pete's Place South Florida correspondent Howard Schulman brought to my attention an interesting article written by Josh Levin for Slate in which he argues that the problem with the BCS system is that it is a system. Each year, the system may be tweaked slightly but the system is designed so that the No. 1 college team plays the No. 2 college team to determine a national championship.

Mr. Levin suggests that instead of a system, perhaps flexibility should be order. I have made this same argument off and on ever since the BCS started. If at the end of the year, there is a compelling reason to have a playoff between or among undefeated teams, then have one (the USC-Texas matchup from a couple of years back is a great example). In years where this is not the case--and this season is certainly one of those--then don't. The past Sunday morning, before the BCS results were made official (although everyone knew it would be LSU and Ohio State), I told my son that the only bowl game that could hold any interest for me this year would be a matchup between Hawaii and USC. The regular college football season this year was fun, it was dynamic and it was certainly unpredictable, right up until the very end when, fittingly, both of the top two ranked teams lost. Anything after this is definitely anti-climatic.

Here's the salient point Levin makes: "if there are five or seven or 10 teams that are roughly indistinguishable, don't bother with a playoff or a championship game. The regular season may do a terrible job at selecting the country's best team, but it functions rather well at determining who the best team isn't. This year, every team has done more than enough to eliminate itself from contention. So, let's play all the bowls, give everyone a smallish trophy, and tell them better luck next year. "

I'll drink to that.