+1=-1

If there is any system of college football championship more stupid than the one we have now, it’s the so-called “+1″ system several people are currently flogging. The idea would be that after the bowls, we play one extra game using our new information to better pick out the two best teams in the nation.

Uh-huh. So who are the two teams? One will be the winner of the Florida-Oklahoma game. Who’s the other? Undefeated Utah, who just whomped ‘Bama? Texas? USC? All this will do is mean that our championship game matches up three over-hyped teams as opposed to two.

Here’s how you do a playoff properly. You take eight conference champs — six from the major conference and then two from the other conference (or Notre Dame, if they are rated high enough). You play them off in the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls on January 1 maintaing traditional slots rather than seeding (i.e, Rose Bowl is Pac-10 vs. Big 10 no matter what the rankings). You have two more games on January 8, one more on January 15. Net result — one week and two games more than we have now. No controversy but a legitimate champion.

The critical factor in this is taking only conference champs. That way you avoid controversy. Imagine if we used the current system. We would take six BCS champs and two at-large teams. Who are the at-large teams? Texas? Ohio State? ‘Bama? Utah? Boise State? It will be determined by the same ignorant writers who insisted last year that South Florida was a great team. You can expect mid-majors to be shut out.

But the mid-majors are too weak? Prove it on the field, not with your mouth. Oh, I’m sorry. Attempts to prove the weakness of the mid-major champs have ended in victory of the mid-major champs. Oops.

If you take only conference champs, then everything is settled on the field. You want to win a national title? Win your damned conference. The motto of the playoff could be: “No Second Chances”.

Of course, this will mean the writers’ votes are a sideshow and have no relevance to determining the national champ. We can’t have that, can we?

Comments are closed.