Nobody likes the BCS system.
Apparently not even Congress.
After the Bowl Championship Series officials came to Washington on Friday, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee gave them a verbal smacking in an attempt to force a change to a playoff system.
Currently, the national championship is rotated between four BCS bowl games, with the top two teams in the BCS rankings pitted against each other. Under this arrangement, the BCS is churning up quite a profit.
It’s got a shiny, new, four-year, $500 million deal with ESPN that begins in 2011. That’s more money than the gross domestic product of approximately 15 countries.
But not so fast, buddy.
It just might be looking like some good old-fashioned government interference could go a long way in reshaping the face of college football.
Despite the fact that only three of the 32 members of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee even bothered to show up, the hearing is an indication that change is coming to postseason play.
Under the proposed system, a 12-man committee would give eight playoff bids to the top teams at the end of the season. The four first-round games would consist of the BCS games with two more weekends after that for the semifinals and championship.
This would provide opportunities for mid-major schools that go undefeated, like Utah and Boise State, a crack at the national title. It would also help get rid of the politicking that goes on at the end of each season when coaches of top teams try to sell their school to the media for votes that will sneak them into the BCS. There would be no automatic bids into the playoffs, as opposed to the BCS which gives free rides to the winners of the six major conferences.
But this system has its flaws.
For one, the season would get stretched longer. Traditional games like the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl would lose more meaning than they’ve already lost, and it would be tough to actually initiate.
It would need approval from the 120 Division 1-A presidents. The six power conferences ““ the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big-12, Pac-10 and SEC ““ comprise 64 votes. This could be problematic for any switch to a playoff as these power conferences rake in a guaranteed $18 million each season just for having a horse in the race.
But, according to Rep. Joe Barton (D-Texas), who led Friday’s hearing, a playoff is coming whether you like it or not. He’s the one who put his name on proposed legislation that would prevent the BCS from slapping the words “national championship” on any bowl game, unless it’s the outcome of a playoff.
“If we don’t see some action in the next two months, on a voluntary switch to a playoff system, then you will see this bill move,” Barton said on Friday.
Now Barton really has no way of guaranteeing that his bill will pass, and BCS officials probably just see it as an empty threat. But it does get the ball rolling.
The man at the sharp end of Barton’s stick is John Swofford, coordinator of the BCS and commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference. Swofford’s main argument that a playoff system would throw the lesser bowl games under the bus is somewhat valid. However, small bowl games are losing money anyway.
It’s not the format of the postseason that compromises the legitimacy of lower-tier bowl games, it’s just the fact that not many people care. A playoff system wouldn’t make a December matchup between Louisiana Tech and Northern Illinois ““ which was last season’s Independence Bowl ““ any less appealing than it already is.
There’s about 99 other problems that Congress should be working on instead of the state of college football, but they’re on the right track with this one.
When the BCS is making even Congress look good, that’s when you know it’s time for a change.
E-mail Feder at jfeder@media.ucla.edu if you think the Bruins will sneak in as the No. 8 seed.