A Case for a Playoff?

Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Florida. They are the consensus top 4 teams in the country. LSU is sitting at #5 in the BCS with a fairly soft non-conference schedule with all home games, losses at Auburn and Florida, and a lucky win against Tennessee without a healthy Erik Ainge. Everyone knows the Vols aren't any good without Ainge and are dangerous with him.

Florida may lose next weekend to Arkansas in the SEC title game. That will just reduce the top tier from 4 to 3. It doesn't solve any problems. The BCS is clearly not a good system. I heard an argument recently that the BCS was good for college football because it generated so much discussion. The BCS system doesn't generate any more talk than a poll does, or at least it shouldn't. The BCS didn't fix the problems with college football, it just changed the flavor a little bit. The BCS does create a match-up of 1 vs. 2 ... but it's the BCS 1 vs. 2, not necessarily the two best teams. With the polls, you were wondering who the best team was. With the BCS, you're wondering who is number one and who is number 2. It's time for a change, but I'm not going to get into it here.

I want to know why Michigan is ranked below USC. I saw something from one of the voters who said he was going to keep Michigan at #2, even if USC beat Notre Dame, until he saw USC play. That was enlightening. Did he forget that Michigan went to South Bend and dismantled the Golden Domers 47-21 earlier this year? USC beat Notre Dame 44-24. Seems like maybe Notre Dame was overrated and their record was propped up by a soft schedule. But, it also seems like if the voters went back and watched Michigan v. Notre Dame, maybe they wouldn't think so highly of USC. Or, at least they'd think as highly of Michigan.

Maybe the key lies not in "style points" but in the results (channeling Urban Meyer a little here). USC beat Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame, Nebraska and Arkansas. Those are all solid wins. Michigan knocked off Notre Dame, Wisconsin and all the usual suspects. They beat the teams they were supposed to beat, right? But wait ... USC lost at Oregon State. This is an Oregon State team that lost to Boise State 42-14. Cal throttled the Beavers 41-13. OSU also lost to Washington State and UCLA. Michigan just happened to have to play against the #1 team in the nation on the road. They lost to Ohio State in Columbus, but they got jobbed a little bit. Does anyone remember the roughing the passer or unnecessary roughness that turned a 4th and long into a first down (and subsequent TD to put the Buckeyes up 10 late)? Troy Smith was hit just after releasing the ball. They aren't playing Chinese checkers, they're playing football! I just don't see how you can put the Trojans ahead of the Wolverines. It doesn't make sense.

If, after this next weekend, you still have the final four (Fla, USC, Mich, and Ohio State), why not play a little 4-team playoff? If Florida losses to Arkansas, you could have USC play Michigan for the right to play Ohio State? If you had three top tier undefeated teams, why can't you play a round-robin and see if someone emerges undefeated? If you're going to keep the regular season as is, why not make the post-season a little bit flexible so you can accomodate different scenarios that are bound to arise. You could even come up with regulations to govern many different scenarios and have a clause that another rule be made if need be. It's obvious, from USC jumping Michigan, that the current system is useless if you are actually trying to find the best team in college football.