Stop the Bowl Game Bashing

Monday December 6 marks the first day of about a month straight that we're going to have knocking the BCS and Bowl games. For those of you who have actually sat down and spoken to me about it, I've stood by my views consistently through the years and I'm not about to change now: I am for Bowl Games and would like to go back to the system prior to the BCS.

Before the comments come back ripping me apart, let me state for the record that if there was a play-offs, I would love the games and would watch every one. I will assume that if we did have a playoff system of a hypothetical 8 games, we could no longer have automatic bids for conference champions. It would be the top 8 teams according to the rankings or polls. According to the final BCS rankings, we would see brackets looking like:

1 vs. 8 USC vs. Virginia Tech

4 vs. 5 Texas vs. California

3 vs. 6 Auburn vs. Utah

2 vs. 7 Oklahoma vs. Georgia

These would be great games, and we would have an undisputed tournament champion. That being said, let me explain what I do not like about these games. Firstly, look at the conference breakdown. We have 2 Pac-10, 2 Big 12, 2 SEC, 1 ACC, 1 Mountain West. Three of the 8 teams did not win their Conference. Louisville, who had one loss all season to Miami, is not invited. Undefeated Boise State is not in. There are no representatives from the Big 10, Big East, or MAC. Now I won't kid myself and say that every year a MAC or Big East team deserves to play in one of these games, but a Big 10 team who has finished on top of a strong conference should have the opportunity to play in these games, like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa who all had two losses this season, same as Georgia and VT who were invited. Basically, there will always be controversy over who should be invited to the playoffs and there will always be an Auburn or Cal who is left out.

Secondly, look more closely at the match-ups and the second round possibilities. Lets say first round, USC, Cal, Auburn, and Georgia all win. That means in the semi-finals, we'll see a repeat of USC-Cal and Auburn-Georgia. Why should a team who has already won in the "regular" season have to play a second time. That means that USC in this scenario would have to sweep Cal to get to the championship game while Cal just has to win one out of two to play for the championship. We always hear that teams should "settle it on the field." Well guess what? They did already, and USC and Auburn were victorious earlier in the year.

Despite the fact that I have many other argument points, I want to highlight one final issue. What about everyone else? This 8 team playoff would take 7 "Bowl Games" to complete. That steals away post-season games for 6 teams. Now I speak for the little people since I am an alumni of Indiana University, a continual losing football program. Every year, I'm just praying that we can somehow squander 6 wins so we can be Bowl eligible and go to a game. I am well aware that we are not a National Championship Contender, there are only 7 teams annually who are. But I know that if we get 6 wins and go to a Bowl Game, that's my Championship Game, be it the Rose Bowl or the Mastercard Alamo Bowl. Indiana would have a chance to play on National television and represent our University, students, and alumni in a one-game championship.

I'm actually against the BCS Championship Game for the same reason I am against the playoffs. I do not feel that we need one National Champion. This is not professional sports and with 117 1-A schools, I find it hard to believe that we can distinguish who the "Best" team is. I say let the Indiana's out there have their day. Give us our Championship Game, a.k.a. any of the 28 Bowl Games.


Email Gary