It’s already easy to criticize the BCS, but it’s even easier when USC looks very impressive in their win against Penn St. and the upstart Utah Utes complete their perfect season by dismantling Alabama. Both USC and Utah have legitimate arguments that they are the best team in the country.

If Texas works over Ohio State, you can add another team to that list. And the more, the better.

While it’s great for fans to see an exciting BCS title game, the perfect storm would be completed if Florida narrowly beats Oklahoma in a boring game. The idea is for neither team to look particularly good, which would only strengthen the position of USC, Utah and, potentially, Texas.

We could look back on the 2008-09 season as the year that the BCS shot itself in the proverbial head.

(Be sure to check out last week’s version of the bracket as a comparison.)

What’s done is done. That’s the…..um……great thing about the BCS system. Oklahoma jumped Texas last week in the rankings and now the Sooners are slated to face the Gators in the title game. As in years past, fans are supposed to just swallow this bitter pill and move on. Some lazy, narrow-minded sportswriters are happy to have the “debate” because their next few columns will essentially write themselves.

The truth is that the current system is not only a slap in the face to the Longhorns and their supporters, but to all college football fans across the country. The vast majority of us (85%-90% if you believe the polls) would like to see some sort of college football playoff. So the last few weeks I’ve been summarizing a proposed playoff system.

Here are my assumptions…

1. There would be an eight-team playoff. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

So how does last weekend’s action affect our playoff field?

8-seed Cincinnati @ 1-seed Oklahoma
Both teams did what they needed to do. The Bearcats sneaked by Hawaii and Oklahoma was convincing in its win over Missouri.

5-seed USC @ 4-seed Alabama
In this case, it looks like the BCS rankings work. Both teams have one loss, but Alabama lost to a better team. Who wouldn’t want to see the Trojans visit Tuscaloosa? The winner would face the winner of the 1/8 game.

6-seed Utah @ 3-seed Texas
This format works for the little guy, or at least it works for Utah. (Sorry Boise State!) In order to advance, the Utes would have to win in Austin.

7-seed Penn State @ 2-seed Florida
With the Hawkeyes’ recent play, suddenly the Nittany Lions’ loss to Iowa doesn’t look so bad. They would face a tough test trying to win in Gainesville against the surging Gators.

This format would set up pair of semifinals that would pit Oklahoma versus Alabama and Texas versus Florida.

ACC champion Virginia Tech gives up its bid because the Hokies are not ranked in the top 15. With four losses, few would argue that VT should be included. With a win over #17 Oregon and an undefeated record, Boise State has the biggest gripe. We would have to move to a 12-team format (or require the conference champs to be ranked in the top 10, eliminating Cincy) to include the Broncos.

The other teams that are on the outside looking in — Texas Tech, Ohio State, TCU, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Georgia — either have three losses or have lost to teams that made the playoff, so the regular season clearly still holds its importance. (If Texas Tech had beat Oklahoma, if Ohio State had beat Penn State, if TCU had beaten Oklahoma and Utah, etc.)

The exclusion of Boise State is regrettable, but like March Madness, does anyone really think that the Broncos would be able to win three straight games against the elite teams in the country en route to a national championship? Unfortunately, in an eight-team playoff, we wouldn’t know for sure. It would be nice to have an option for a play-in game when there is an undefeated team from a non-power conference. In this case, Boise State could play Cincinnati for the right to play Oklahoma. However, if Ball State hadn’t lost to Buffalo, we’d be looking at two undefeated teams that would have been excluded. Then things get a little more dicey.

Another option would be a 12-team playoff that includes all the BCS conference champions and six at-large bids. That way, in addition to Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn State, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech getting bids, at-large teams Texas, Alabama, Utah, Texas Tech, Boise State and Ohio State would also get bids. I’m warming up to the idea of a 12-team playoff because it would account for cases like Boise State. Critics say that it would add too many games, but the only teams that would potentially play four games would be teams ranked #5 through #12 that made it to the title game (which is an unlikely scenario). Otherwise, everyone would play three or fewer additional games.

Greg Cote of the Miami Herald thinks the BCS format in college football is just fine and that a playoff wouldn’t be any better than the current system.

Instead it looks as if we will be getting an Oklahoma Sooners team that would be 12-1 against either a 13-0 Alabama or a 12-1 mighty-hot Florida. Sounds like a legitimate championship game to me. Sounds like if you don’t agree, you are either insane or turning sour grapes into whine because your beloved Texas Longhorns just missed. The odd-team-out always claims an entitlement that does not exist.

True, we should get a good game this year in the national championship. But nobody is debating that.

A playoff is impractical because it would require a significantly shorter regular season, which would fail to win support from schools and conferences, if only for financial reasons.

No problem. Take Michigan Technical School for the Blind off of Michigan’s schedule, Reading Rainbow Camp off of Texas’s schedule, ITT off of Florida’s schedule and every other no-name program that the bigger schools play twice a year and that frees up two weeks. Start conference play Week 1 or Week 2 if you’re worried about having enough time at the end of the year.

If you had a four-team playoff based on the current BCS rankings, you don’t think No. 5 Southern California and No. 6 (and unbeaten) Utah wouldn’t be crying foul?

Make it an eight-team playoff, and how do you think No. 9 (and unbeaten) Boise State would be feeling right now?

An arguably deserving team always will be left out, whether it’s whatever playoff format you choose or whether it’s two teams in a championship game.

The BCS works because, in effect, it is a playoff to reach the championship. Teams in the top six or so are in it every year, and it kicks in around mid-October, when the BCS rankings begin. The way the format works is, don’t lose late. Period.

So if teams will be left out no matter what, why not give college football fans (essentially) two playoffs? Teams would be fighting to get into the eight-team playoff in October (which, in Cote’s words is like a playoff), and again when the actual eight-team playoff starts. What’s the harm in that? And at least teams that potentially could be left out (teams like Boise State and Utah) have a better shot to play for a national title in an eight-team playoff than they do in the current system where they have zero chance.

The absence of precise black and white is college football’s unique, enduring asset. The BCS maintains the tradition of bowl games while ultimately deciding the champion on the field, not by polls.

You get a recognized champion and you get the inevitable debate. That’s the best of both worlds — and that’s what the pro-playoff crowd never seems to get.

The bowl games are a joke. And if crowning a champion and getting to bitch about the current BCS system is getting the best of both worlds, than I must be missing a few brain cells because it’s not fun to watch this mess take place every year. What would be fun is a damn eight-team playoff. What would be fun is watching USC come from a 6 seed and knock off a 5 seed and then a 3 seed and on and on.

Cote’s idea that it’s fun to debate about this crap system every year is ridiculous. Debating isn’t part of the fun – it’s part of the frustration.

(Be sure to check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.)

With Oklahoma vaulting ahead of Texas in the BCS standings, it is a clear reminder that the BCS system is horribly flawed. Each team has one loss and Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field. Texas’ only loss was to a good Texas Tech team on the road, and it shouldn’t outweigh the Longhorns’ win over the Sooners. Oklahoma did have two great non-conference wins (Cincinnati and TCU), while Texas didn’t really play anyone out of conference. Still, should a strong non-conference schedule outweigh Texas head-to-head win over Oklahoma? Apparently, USA Today and the computer rankings think so. (For their part, Harris Poll voters had Texas #3 and Oklahoma #4.)

This brings me back to my proposed eight-team playoff that I introduced a couple of weeks ago. Here are the assumptions.

1. There will be an eight-team playoff, with the six BCS-conference champs getting an automatic bid.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings can be tweaked, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

So how does this weekend’s action affect the playoff field?

8-seed Cincinnati @ 1-seed Alabama
A 30-10 win over Syracuse puts the Bearcats at #13. Cincy still has to beat Hawaii to stay playoff-eligible. Meanwhile, Alabama has a date with #4 Florida in the SEC Championship Game this Saturday.

5-seed USC @ 4-seed Florida
Since the Gators still have to play Alabama, this matchup probably won’t happen since Florida will likely move up or down in the BCS rankings depending on how they fare against the Crimson Tide. A bad loss to Alabama might knock the Gators out of the playoffs since the #7 and #8 seeds are conference champions, and Boston College might very well move into the playoffs with a win over Virginia Tech. If that were to happen, and USC were to leapfrog Florida, the Gators could very well miss the playoffs.

6-seed Utah @ 3-seed Texas
Utah remains the only non-BCS conference representative. With wins over #11 TCU and #18 BYU, they have the best resume of the three non-BCS schools in contention. (Boise St. and Ball St. are the other two.) The Utes need to root for a Virginia Tech win over Boston College.

7-seed Penn St. @ 2-seed Oklahoma
OU still has to beat Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game to remain the 2-seed. If Alabama loses to Florida and the Sooners are convincing in their win over the Tigers, they could move up. They could also fall completely out of the playoffs with a loss to Missouri.

Since Cincy moved into the BCS Top 15, they earned a berth in the playoffs. The lowest ranked at-large team – Texas Tech – were pushed out of the playoffs. #17 Boston College could conceivably move into the Top 15 with a win over #25 Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship Game, and in that case, Utah would likely be the team to be knocked out of the playoffs. (And that would be a shame.)

Of the teams that are on the outside looking in, only #9 Boise St. and #12 Ball St. don’t have losses to teams that made the playoffs. #10 Ohio St. lost to USC and Penn St., #11 TCU lost to Oklahoma, and #14 Oklahoma St. lost to Texas and Oklahoma. So, despite what the anti-playoff crowd says, the regular season still matters with this playoff system.

Since it looks like Boise St. and Ball St. will miss the playoffs, and a Boston College win might push Utah out, it might be interesting to have a four-team playoff amongst the best non-BCS teams to see who has the right to make the playoffs. Of course, this would add two games to the schedule and it might just be easier just to go to a 12-team field (though most of those extra slots could easily go to BCS schools like Texas Tech and Ohio St.)

Check out Part 4 now.

I’m not afraid to say that I am a casual college football fan.

During the regular season, I will watch a handful of games, usually those that feature matchups between two top 10 schools. I don’t get too invested in the college football regular season because I know that it’s probably going to come to a disappointing conclusion. There will be a BCS Championship Game that will pit the top two teams in the country against each other, but there is always a debate about who truly belongs in that game.

That’s the only postseason game I’ll watch. At that point in the season, I only really care about teams that still have a shot to win the national championship, and that late in the game, it’s down to two teams. I couldn’t care less about the other BCS bowls because they have absolutely no impact on who will be the national champion.

College football purists probably look down their nose at guys like me, but I don’t really care. Fans like me are the ones that could take the sport of college football to the next level.

If there were an eight-team playoff, I would sit down and watch every single one of those seven games. If the BCS-playoff debate is about money, then I don’t see how doubling the number of games that the casual fan watches can do anything but increase ratings (and ad revenue).

Also, knowing that the college football season would come to a solid, undisputed conclusion, I would find these late season play-in games a lot more interesting. Under the current system, I’m not going to watch #12 Oklahoma State try to knock off #3 Oklahoma. But if the Cowboys were to have a shot to make it the playoffs (and to knock the Sooners out), then I might tune in. The same goes for the Florida/Florida St. matchup.

Suddenly, a casual fan that used to watch 5-10 games a year is now watching 20 or more. How is this bad for college football?

I debuted this feature last week, but now that another week’s worth of games are behind us, it’s wise to take another look.

First, my assumptions:

1. There will be an eight-team playoff, with the six BCS-conference champs getting an automatic bid.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings can be tweaked, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

Off we go…

#8 Penn State (11-1) @ #1 Alabama (11-0)

#6 Utah (12-0) @ #3 Oklahoma (10-1)

In this case, since likely conference champions #16 Cincinnati (Big East), #17 Oregon State (Pac-10) and #20 Florida State (ACC) are not in the top 15 of the BCS rankings (and are therefore not one of the “elite” teams in the country), they give up their automatic berths.

Compared to last week, with the institution of the “Top 15 Rule,” Cincinnati would no longer get a berth, but since the Bearcats are at #16 and still have two games to play, they could still finish in the top 15. Right now, Texas Tech would be the first at-large team to lose its spot, and given the drubbing they took this weekend, that makes sense.

With Cincy no longer qualifying, #6 Utah moved into the playoffs. Undefeated Boise State is currently ranked #9 in both human polls and the BCS rankings. Their computer ranking (.630) just doesn’t measure up to Tech’s (.890).

Other than Boise State, the teams that are on the outside looking in — #10 Ohio State, #11 Georgia, #12 Oklahoma State, #13 Missouri and #14 TCU — all have losses to teams that made the playoffs, so the regular season still matters, despite what the pro-BCS crowd says.

So, how does it look?

We took a poll last year and 90% of our readers said that the BCS should be trashed in favor of a playoff system. It takes guts (or something) to stand up against that kind of popular opinion, and Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock is the latest to take up the mantle, using President-elect Barack Obama’s pro-playoff stance as a starting point.

Like I did with similar arguments from Tim Cowlishaw and John Walters, let me respond to Whitlock point-by-point…

I realize I’m one of just a handful of American men unpleased by Obama using the weight of the presidency to pressure college presidents to disband the BCS. He knows this, too. It’s probably pretty much all he really knows about big-time college football. Fans — Republican, Democrat and Libertarian — are dissatisfied with the current system. There’s virtually no risk in bashing the BCS.

Why is that? I’m not one to argue that the majority is always right, but when 90% of the populace agrees on something, we should probably go ahead and give it a try.

President-elect Obama doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and he diminishes his high office and invites other politicians to join him by foolishly entering a debate that has life only because “Joe the Sports Writer/Broadcaster� can’t wrap his brain around sports issues of substance.

Now Whitlock claims that anyone that is pro-playoff “can’t wrap his brain around sports issues of substance.” Mind you, he hasn’t yet made an actual point, but he is already declaring that anyone who doesn’t agree with him just simply isn’t as smart as he is.

Yeah, by lending his name to this non-issue, Obama has pleased every Bubba in America and pretty much ensured that big-time college football will continue an escalation toward professionalism and exploitation of “amateur� athletes.

Okay, here’s the big windup…

Let me quickly repeat the argument I introduced in the mid-1990s:

Division I-A college football has the greatest regular season in all team sports, and a playoff system would ruin that distinction. For decades, coaches and players focused on winning conference championships and were quite satisfied with a “mythical� national championship decided by poll voters. The advent of ESPN and sports-talk radio created the fallacy that the lack of a playoff system scars athletes, fans, women and children, contributes to global terrorism and delays Santa Claus’ delivery run on Christmas Eve.

There’s nothing wrong with college football on the field. It is America’s healthiest sport in terms of consistent entertainment value. This is not even remotely debatable.

So Whitlock’s argument is that the college football regular season is perfect as is, and that it was sports-talk radio that created a “fallacy” that the sport needs a playoff. Assuming this is correct, sports-talk radio was successful in convincing 90% of college football fans that the current system – the very system they were supposedly “fans” of – was broken. Wow, sports-talk radio must be really powerful. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything?

He also declares that it is “not remotely debatable” to say that any other sport is as consistently entertaining as college football. I know a few million NFL fans that would beg to differ.

There’s a lot wrong with college athletics. Many football and basketball players are funneled through the system without receiving much of an education. Coaches and administrators are paid salaries that invite questionable ethics. Too many athletes arrive on campus completely unprepared to be educated and solely interested in the development of their bodies. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is out of control within most athletic departments.

These and other issues are worthy of discussion at the presidential level.

Who’s No. 1? How to set up an eight-team playoff format?

Leave that to the idiots.

This is a classic debate tool. Distract from the real issue by making points that almost everyone can agree with and then act like you’ve won the argument. Just because there are other issues to deal with in collegiate athletics, it doesn’t mean that Obama shouldn’t help to facilitate something that 90% of college football fans want to see.

He didn’t say why a playoff would ruin the regular season, he just stated that it would, as if it were a fact.

I guess that’s just one of those “sports issues of substance” that we mere mortals just can’t wrap our brains around. Jason Whitlock says he knows best, and therefore he must.

While they remain undefeated, the Alabama Crimson Tide aren’t the unanimous No. 1 team in the nation according to some voters.

Alabama, which was idle this weekend, retained the top position with 56 of 61 first-place votes. The Crimson Tide are the only remaining undefeated team from one of the six conferences with automatic BCS tie-ins.

Third-ranked Florida, an easy winner over The Citadel, claimed the last No. 1 vote. The Gators will square off with Alabama in the Southeastern Conference championship game in two weeks. If both can handle their in-state rivals over Thanksgiving weekend, the winner is sure to claim one spot in the BCS championship game.

Hmm. How can an undefeated Alabama team not receive 61 of 61 first place votes? I thought the BCS system was set up so that a clear No. 1 and No. 2 would be determined?

Nobody should be surprised that ‘Bama didn’t receive all the first place votes, because it’s still unclear at this point if they are truly deserving. Everyone wants to point to Florida’s loss to Ole’ Miss as proof that the Gators shouldn’t be ranked No. 1, but in the back of many people’s heads they’re not so sure that Urban Meyer’s team isn’t the best team in college football. The same could be said for Oklahoma, which absolutely crushed Texas Tech over the weekend and got four first place votes. And what about Texas? They lost to Tech on the final play of the game and beat Oklahoma, yet received no first place votes.

The system is a mess, which is a dream scenario for supporters of a playoff, because it proves that the BCS doesn’t work.

First, my assumptions…

There will be an eight-team playoff, with the six BCS-conference champs getting an automatic bid. If a conference champ has three or more losses on the season, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid.

Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these standings can be tweaked, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the finals will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

And off we go…

#8 Cincinnati @ #1 Alabama

#6 USC @ #3 Texas

Unfortunately, #7-ranked Utah wouldn’t make the cut because #19 Cincinnati finished with just two losses (assuming they win out, of course) and #8 Penn State won the Big Ten with just one loss. The Utes would have a shot to move up with a win over BYU along with a loss by one or more of the teams ahead of them.

There were three at-large bids (since the ACC winner had at least three losses) and those bids went to Texas, Florida and Oklahoma.

Of course, as the season winds down, the BCS rankings will stay fluid, so we’ll re-visit this potential playoff schedule once the regular season is over.

So how does it look?

NBCSports.com John Walters chimes in with a lame argument in favor of the BCS. Walters is a little different from the other BCS-apologists out there in that he framed his pitch as an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama, who recently reiterated his support for a college football playoff. Whenever I read these pro-BCS arguments, I feel compelled to pick them apart point by point (like I did with Tim Cowlishaw two weeks ago).

I will begin with my most ardent point (we’ll call it Item 1): The beauty of the alchemy of the unknown. College football offers unforeseen plot twists and turns each Saturday. It is a fragile yet fertile ecosystem, something that man could not knowingly create yet, now that it exists in its present form, he can appreciate. To attempt to “fix it” would no less befoul the college gridiron landscape than would unregulated drilling in Alaska.

So instituting a playoff would automatically ruin the “alchemy of the unknown”? What does that mean? Even with a playoff, college football will still offer unforeseen plot twists and turns each Saturday, just like the NFL does each Sunday.

It’s always funny when commentators wax poetic about the uniqueness of the college football championship format. They mention qualities (that would not suddenly go away with a playoff) as reasons to keep a bad system.