May 17, 2012 4:16 pm Okay Hoops25 . . . here it is . . .
In my solution, the higher ranked team/school hosts the lower ranked team/school at their facility. Visitor tickets will be provided as customary for regularly scheduled teams/school. It's just that no one know who will be the higher ranked team/school until the BCS Polling after 11 games.
As for the last game of the regular season, well it now becomes game #11. Everyone gets moved back a week for their traditional "Final Rivalry Game". And if there are still a need for a Conference Championship game, then it will also have to be completed by Thanksgiving weekend, [Thanksgiving weekend is usually the 12th or 13th week from the start of the regular season, unless a team/school starts their first game in August.] as that would be the last week of the regular season for game 11. Game 12 of unscheduled opponets in this Qualifying round will take place 10 to 14 days after Thanksgiving weekend. I see 4 days of College Football, and I even have a proposed schedule of what games are televised at what times over the four day period. Of course, this would be subject to rearranging by the Broadcasting Company to provide the highest and best audiance viewing and exposure to maximize the dollars raised in this [ad]venture. And of course, whichever Broadcasting Company that is willing to pay the most for the package of 35 games +/-, depending on Bowls available, and these dollars would be directly paid to traveling teams/schools to defray any expense in transporting their regular traveling squad, band cheerleaders, and the NORMAL people that are included in regular season traveling to other opponets.
As for tickets available to opponets . . . well this is something that most colleges provide maybe 20% or 30% of their tickets for the opponets, and if not sold out, do you think there would be a problem dumping them on gameday at the chosen facility? I think not. [for example sake, How many tickets does Clemson give to South Carolina when they play? How many tickets does Michigan give to Ohio State when they play? How many tickets does Southern California give to Notre Dame when they play? How many tickets does Miami give to Virginia Tech when they play? In each case, these home teams DO provide tickets for the Visiting team/school, and I would expect the same for this Qualifying round.]
As for using the computers, they are prejudice only to their formulas, which do not change week to week. The computers have been a constant in their selection process. Some have NEVER changed their formulas, and a few have changes their formulas. And if you go back and review the rankings from the first week of the BCS rankings, you will see an interesting thing going on, and I don't know if the Human pollsters follow the computers, or if the computers follow the humans. I really don't think the computers CAN follow the human pollsters, as they are FIXED to their preset variables, while humans are not. And the computer polls would be the same ones currently used in the BCS Rankings.
Their may be a competitive advantage to being a home team, but until someone can predict the future, no one will know WHO will be a home team. The only exception would be a very sought after reason for a team/school to strive to be #1, as that would be a guarenteed home status. And if a team/school has reached a position in the top 10 of the BCS, don't you think they may have won a few games on the road to get there?
As for proverbial 'football powerhouses', there are many. And we usually see then scattered somewhere in the top 25 to 30 rankings, so I think the top 15 contests would really be worth watching, don't you? Don't discount the other games of this 'football feast', as they will feature teams that are perceived to be equals. And we really did see some great games in the lower Bowls where we did see teams/schools in the 40 to 70 rankings that played some games that were better than a BCS bowl or 2.
As for Notre Dame, let's just say that they may be getting "squeezed" to get into a conference, or, as an Independent, there are also other conferences that may not be so locked up as the future of the PAC 12 and Big 10[B1G] seem to be. Maybe Texas and or Alabama would like to do a home and home with Notre Dame, unless the ND goes to the Big East . . .
And I really think you need to go to my profile page here and read my blogs. . .
Ask a college football fan about the Bowl Championship Series and be prepared for an earful on how it must be overhauled - or done away with - to determine a true national champion in the 120-member NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as NCAA Division I-A).
College football researcher John J. Trombetti adds a different twist to crown the gridiron king - while making more bowl games relevant and financially successful - in December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com).
The BCS consists of four traditional contests - the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, Allstate Sugar Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl - and the Citi BCS National Championship Game.
"It is a fine system, and I think it can outlast the test of time," writes Trombetti. "It is a formula that uses the human polls and computers to determine the best possible candidates to play for the National Championship.
"The Harris Interactive Poll (media, former coaches and former players) and the USA Today Coaches’ Poll (59 voters, who are members of the American Football Coaches Association) each make up one-third of the total BCS Poll ranking. The computer poll (using six ranking systems) makes up one-third of the rankings of the entire BCS Poll. There are two additional components to be added to the BCS formula: the strength of schedule and the team’s record."
Trombetti utilizes a solid game plan to explore the history of the BCS, which was created in 1998 to determine the winner of the American Football Coaches Association National Championship Trophy - recognized in the final coaches’ poll, but not by the NCAA - and participants in the major bowl games.
The system has been adjusted due to several controversies over the years, which includes the number of polls utilized and providing "mid-major" conference teams a place to race in the derby. The BCS poll of the top 25 teams is initially published about halfway through the season and updated weekly until the final ranking is released after the conference championship games.
An impressive computer formula is the Colley Matrix System of Wesley N. Colley, Ph. D., according to Trombotti: "(The Colley system rates well) with the media and coaches on the National Champion; most often agreed on the top five; and agreed on the top 10 within a place or two. [So it seems to me that this system may be a good substitute for the replacement of the media and coaches…does it seem that way to you?]"
The top two teams in the final BCS poll are in the title game, with automatic bowl bids guaranteed to the champions of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and S outheastern Conference. Criteria is included so Notre Dame, an independent, can receive an automatic berth, along with a bid available to the highest ranked champion from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference and the Western Athletic Conference. Additional "at-large" spots are issued by the bowl committees.
There are another 29 bowl games, with new contests slated for New York City after the 2010 season and Dallas, Texas, in 2011. In a section that chronicles the bowl system since 1902, Trombetti explains that there would be a lot to lose if this format was merged into a playoff system or eliminated for a tournament styled after basketball’s NCAA "March Madness."
"In essence, the bowls were created to promote tourism by bringing in the top teams of the country to play in the games," he writes. "Today, the bowls are promoted by the cities that host the games for economic development, and the advertising of those companies that want the exposure with their names included in the title of the game.
"As you may know, the bowls we have today are financial windfalls for the schools and conferences that participate. Last year alone [2008 season], the bowl payout maxed out over one quarter of a BILLION dollars. A playoff system using the bowls would, could, limit distribution of these funds to fewer schools and conferences. With this amount of money available to the participants, do you really think a playoff scenario could ever be reached using the Bowl System we have today?"
Trombetti reaches pay dirt as he explains in detail his proposal to retain the BCS and bowls, which has an initial regular season schedule of 11 games, with the conference championships played no later than the weekend after Thanksgiving Day. The BCS rankings would include all FCS programs, which will position teams for a special slate of games to end the season. The contests would occur two weeks after Thanksgiving and cover four days. Bowl selections would follow the unique feast inside stadiums throughout the nation.
"And, the end result will produce a more decisive winner (in the BCS title game) than ever before," he writes.
It seems every year, about this time, there is a lot of discussion concerning the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision and its Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The BCS was designed to create a national champion for Division I collegiate football teams. However, one thing that you can say that it does is create controversy. This year is no different, especially since Congress is now weighing in, saying that a "national champion" cannot be determined without a play-off system in Division I (the other divisions in college football have a play-off system to determine their National Champions). In advance of this year's conversation, comes a small book dedicated to the BCS with a possible solution to the issue. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com), by John Trombetti, should soon be available soon, is a good review of the BCS and includes his thoughts on crowning a true National Champion, without the controversy.
Dedication; The Opening Chapter; The Computer Polls; The Human Pollsters; The Start of the Bowl System; Analysis and Discussion; What If; Shall We Have; Appendix I; Appendix II; Appendix III; Appendix IV; Bibliography
Starting the book by providing a historical perspective of the college bowl games and then moving into the polls that make up the BCS gives the reader excellent insight into big time college football and the polls. Trombetti uses this opportunity to illuminate the rise of the bowl games, and the economic impact they have on the cities and sponsors. As more bowl games were added to the end of the season, and the use of human polls, where favoritism and partiality come into play, to determine the national champion, it became clear to the NCAA that another method was needed to decide the best team. However, in the first year of the BCS, 1998, Trombetti points out that there was controversy centering around #3 ranked Kansas State (one loss), which resulted in the "Kansas State Rule" for the BCS, where a #3 team can be invited to play in a BCS Bowl Game. Of course, that is not the only controversy from the BCS and he provides plenty of other examples through the years. Even with these reminders, Trombetti shows his knowledge of the system by providing his thoughts on how the NCAA could have mitigated these problems. As there does not appear to be a play-off system on the horizon, due to the size of the current bowl payouts (in 2008, Trombetti notes that over a quarter BILLION dollars were in play) and the different agendas of the university presidents and coaches, he still provides a rational, and lucrative, play-off system that would yield a more decisive BCS champion.
The early chapters, while providing the foundation for the rest of the book and were necessary, were difficult to read as Trombetti described the peculiarities of each poll that makes up the BCS. However, even for the casual college football fan, he does a good job of illuminating the differences in each poll and they are rather interesting. The book really hits its stride as Trombetti describes the history of each bowl game, the original purpose of each, and the payouts per team. Building upon that, he wastes no time moving into the analysis of the BCS and his well reasoned argument for a play-off system that would benefit more teams, cities, and television networks. While this is a small book (98 pages), he packs a lot of information into it without wasting a lot of time on any one chapter. December Dream could have benefited from a few things; better editing, a more readable format for the BCS Series Standings, and accessible descriptions of the individual polls. Finally, as I read it, I couldn't help thinking it was more a college thesis than an approachable book on the BCS. Trombetti knows his subject matter, that is very clear, however he needed to connect with the reader. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings is an excellent analysis of the BCS that culminates in arguably the best reasoned approach to a true National Champion.
Score: 92 December 12, 2011 7:01 pm I do believe that a solid majority wants a playoff system . . . a system tha can not be formulated without all of the Schools being in agreement. With such a playoff that is continually being suggested, with seeding and higher ranked teams playing lower ranked teams [i.e. #1 vs. #8] are ridiculeous. There is NO TIME for seeding playoffs unless we start about the 9th game of the season. I really do not see this happening. . .
I do see an easy QUALIFYING scenario where as the last game of the regular season we can effectivly match #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc. all the way down to #119 hosting #120, or at least #69 hosting #70, as we have 35 bowls to fill. It would be simple to arrange these "last game of the regular season" to be a match up as stated above. Why should #1 host #2, you may say. . . It's simple!
How did #1 become #1? They played 12 games and lost none. How did #2 become #2, and #3 become #3? They each lost 1 game. And how did we determine why #2 should be #2 and #3 being #3? Well the Computers had #3 as their #2 pick, but the HUMAN POLLSTERS made the difference in their selection to pick differently from the computers, and now we have LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma State. Since we are acceptable that we prefer the prejudices of HUMAN POLLSTERS to an non-changing criteria of the computers, we will not necessairily always have the picks correct.
With my system, we have #1 hosting #2, etc., to at least #69 hosting #70. We let the teams that are PERCEIVED to be equal play their final game of the season against one another. [WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE TEAMS THE EXPERTS THINK ARE CLOSE TO BEING EQUAL PLAY EACH OTHER?]
By having this as the 12th game of the season, we have effectivly provided a QUALIFYING ROUND for all the potential bowl participants to prove that they are as good as their record indicates. No more do we have the argument of who did they play, and this can also be a sure way to dispute seemingly tied records.
Overall, this would happen after Thanksgiving weekend, and the games would start and be completed 10 to 14 days after Thanksgiving weekend.
I have several blogs on my profile page about this system, which is also in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings, www.bbotw.com Infinity Press. Please review my blogs/book and I will refute/appreciate any of your questions, complaints, and/or suggestions.
Let's take a moment to go back in history and see what happened when Ohio State was #1 and Michigan was #2. A lot of people thought that after the last game of the regular season, Ohio State beat Michigan, and since Michigan had their opportunity to beat Ohio State and lost, that they should not be given another opportunity to play in the National Championship game.
Here it is, a few years later, and we have similar circumstances, with LSU #1, having beat Alabama in the regular season, and because it's SEC, then there must be a rematch. If you look at the final Coaches poll in USA Today, 5 dec 2011 edition, you can see that the Coaches of the SEC did put their conference rankings slighly higher than the other Coaches rankings. And you can see that the Computers, which have no distinctive biase, put Oklahoma State in the #2 position. And Alabama bearly beat out Oklahoma State for the #2 position.
Call it what you want . . . but I have proposed such a pre bowl selection Qualifying Round [as the 12th game of the regular season], which would have made this an easire solution as to who should play who in each of the Bowls. Having #1 host #2, #3 hosts #4, etc up to #69 hosting #70, as there are 35 bowls. [see my blogs for more info, or buy my book at www.bbotw.com December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings.]
Who put Alabama at #2? It was the HUMAN POLLSTERS. It was their OPINIONS. My system throws away opinions and let's the teams battle it out on the field. Isn't that why you want playoffs? My system pits schools/team of perceived equal strength play it out, and the winners go on to a better bowl than the losers.
As we have seen, LSU can put up 35 to 45 points, as they have done in many of their games this year. Oklahoma State has put up 30 to 60 points in most of their games [6 above 50 points]. We have seen Alabama put up points slightly less than LSU. LSU beat Alabama 9 to 6 in OT.
The question I have is if LSU played Oklahoma State, could we see a high scoring game by both? I believe we would, and that is the #1 reason why I would have favored this matchup. Like Michigan, Alabama had their chance.
And lastly, if we see another 9 to 6 type of game with Alabama just bearly beating LSU, then we see Oklahoma State sufficiently put away Stanford with their typical 30 to 60 points, we just may see the Associated Press vote to have Oklahoma State as their National Champion. . . and if this happens . . . AGAIN . . . then I blame the HUMAN POLLSTERS as the culprit who paired LSU and Alabama in the NC Game.
My system let's the schools/teams of perceived equal strength play to prove their biased human pollsters were correct, or not so correct in their ranking of the schools/teams; and THEN we can have schools/teams assigned to the proper bowl.
Why should the Bowls participate with the desires of fan[atic]s wanting a playoff system using the bowls?
Obviously, you just don't get it. . . The Bowls were created for different reasons, but one thread that is common to all is the fact that they are promoting the tourism and economic wind fall that occurs when a city/area hosts this type of EVENT. You see, it's not just a game, it's an event. The Rose Bowl started it all when they wanted to host an EXHIBITION GAME to be a part of their winter festival. The Orange Bowl started to promote economic development to their area. Even the Sun Bowl was created to generate economic development to the area.
You can betcha' that if these BCS Bowls go away, the Bowls may revert to what they were before, and the Rose may go back to hosting Pac 12 and Big 10 schools/teams.
What I am saying simply is that the Bowls may be able to again pick and choose who they want.
And just one last note. . . the Rose Bowl in 2002, under the BCS Administration had Washington State and Oklahoma. The Rose Bowl was not happy with the BCS Selection [as Iowa went to the Orange Bowl], and the Rose Bowl did not sell out, the first time since 1944.
As for the minor bowls . . . well don't you think they also desire to create an event to lure the fan[atic]s to their city to participate in the week long event, and spend money in the local communities? Of course they do! And if their Bowl is just the first stop of a playoff, they may not have the opportunity to have the "event" status they currently have, as the game would be more of a business trip that a week long event, and the economic part of such an event will be lost.
Read my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the final BCS Rankings, Infinity Press, $10.95 in paperback, www.bbotw.com .
As a point of the original question, I picked the 16 team playoff as the bigger joke. . .
First of all, you all have seemed to miss the number one point, it's all about the MONEY!
I do not have the numbers, but maybe one of you proponets who desire the playoff can find out how much the teams/schools make with a playoff in Division II and Division III. I would also like you to check the ATTENDANCE to all of the playoff games. I'll bet dimes to donuts the attendance and dollars don't amount to many.
The Bowl system was NOT created to judge who is the best team, and NO ONE REALLY CARED! The Bowls were created to host an EXHIBITION Game between a powerhouse of a team from another area of the country to come to our town and play our best local team, and while were at it, let's raise some bucks for the economic and social development of our areas. Most, if not all the Bowls are NON_PROFIT Organizations. They raise money that is used to fund Boys and Girls clubs so they can have activities that they would never have been able to do without the support from these Bowls, or other organizations which support the economically disadvantaged people in their areas, just like the United Way, and similar organizations.
The Bowls are truly UNIQUE. . . NO OTHER SPORT HAS THEM! A playoff is fine with me, as long as it is completed before the 35 or 36 scheduled Bowls. . . but that just AIN"T GONNA" HAPPEN!
Yes there are a few blunders and miscues with the BCs system as we have seen in the past. A few teams/schools were not justifiably treated to the games they may have been or should have been invited to play, but that has established the BCS's learning curve. The one I believe that has been hurt most was Kansas State, and that is why the BCS has the "Kansas State" rule.
The BCS needs to progress, and with the further re-development of the Conferences, and the better quality of players and teams from the NON-BCS conferences, we will see an occasional rule change and maybe the admittance of other conferences, or maybe, and this is my best change is to eliminate the Automatic Qualifier.
Another fact of why the BCS was created was to get some of that 'Rose Bowl' money. I know your saying, "what?", and that is fine. The Rose Bowl was not the 'grandaddy' because they were the first bowl, but they were the Highest Paying Bowl as well. . . and it was a closed bowl to only the Pac 10 and Big 10. The other conferences wanted to play in the Rose Bowl because of the scheduled payout.
With the creation of the BCS there were four bowls, and all had the same scheduled payout. Now the Rose Bowl was not the highest paying bowl, and now the other bowls of the BCS also paid the premium top dollars once only enjoyed by the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl, who were the top paying bowls in that order.
I have only one innovation that I would like implemented, and I put together a strong arguement for my proposal in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankingswww.bbotw.com Infinity Publishing.
My methodology is to allow teams of perceived equal strength play each other. #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc. all the way down to #119 hosting #120, or at least as many teams as there are Bowl berths. Let's face it, the regular season IS the playoff. By the time we get down the last game of the season, we know who are the best teams, we just quibble a bit of the order of who is the best. This system will vindicate a few of these arguements, and maybe provide a bit of discovery along the way.
And the BOTTOM LINE is simply this. . . there are 10 BCS Bowl berths. Each one is the same scheduled payout per team/school. [currently $18mil]. Do you think any of the Presidents or Board of Directors of the Schools of these six conferences really care IF their School wins? HELL NO, just as long as they play in the game. Win or lose, the pay is the same.
Rather than counting Who was the winner, start counting which school/conference has made the most dollars from the teams in their conference by appearing in these BCS Bowls. . . As 'deepthroat' said . . . "follow the money".
August 13, 2010 8:24 pmScore: 120 Please note, the BCS is the first rating vehicle that uses a concensus to determine the ratings. It is a 3 part formula with The Coaches, The Harris Pollsters, and The Computer. Actually, I like the computer part as I think it helps deter some of the prejudice we might otherwise see prevail in the system. The humans can be swayed and be victims of their own personal situations, while the computer is fixed in it's program, and does not ever change during the season.
I think the BCS is a very viable methodology, and in it's history, there has been some room to grumble about certain years, and 3 no loss teams at times, so who really is better than the others will continue to be a guessing game, until we have the teams play.
I devised a system, and it's not a playoff, but a Qualifier. As I have read on this board many times over . . . "well who did they play?" and the chorus pounds on a #1 team that plays a Division II or III team. This is why we need to Qualify the teams. Many of you have heard this before, and I am just going to do this one more time because it is the same benefit as we would get from a playoff. . . In the 12th game of the season, we have NO games scheduled. After the BCS poll comes out, we have #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc. all the way to #119 hosting #120 if you want, but I think having only as many teams playing as there are Bowl Berths.
Now you may say, Why should #1 play #2 when they should be playing in the NC Game? Well who says they are #1 and #2? Human Pollsters and Coaches and the Computer, that's who! And don't you think there may be some hidden prejudices and personal favorites in these pollsters picks? You betcha'! By having these teams play, we will see how well teams of PERCEIVED strength will do against each other. If you want a game, and you want to see teams that are touted as getting there because they beat a Division II or III team, well here's their chance to vindicate their right to be a contender.
All of this action would take place BEFORE the Bowls matchups. This would give us the best games we could have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled. It would pit Titan against Titan. It would eliminate maybe one of those "cream puff" games, as this game would actually only allow the teams to schedule 11 of the 12 seasonal games. This would keep the Bowls in tact. This could give the Conferences the ability to rearrange their Network broadcasting rights to include 11 games, and some of the proceeds of broadcasting these 35 or 36 games over a 4 day period will pay for the travel expense for all of the teams, and perhaps the gate could be shared by the two teams playing, as this would not be equal to a home and home scheduled game. This could really create a new profit center for the schools and conferences.
This would let the teams determine their destiny, and because these games would be played 10 to 14 days past Thanksgiving, we should see all teams in their prime condition. The only down side I see is for the teams ranked in the #7 to #10 position, as they just may lose their right to be in a BCS Bowl. Translated to they may not receive the $18mil associated with the scheduled payout of the BCS Bowls.
Let's face it . . . it is all about the money. . . and If the #1 or #2 team loses, don't you think they will still be in the top 10 to be included in another BCS Bowl besides the NC Game? YES! and they will still get their $18mil scheduled payout!
On the other hand, if your thinking about using the Bowls in the 4 or 8 or 16 team playoff, it will never happen. WHY? Because of the Money. Do you think your favorite school President and Board of Directrs will be happy when your school looses in the first round and another school gets 3 paychecks to your one? These Presidents and Board of directors don't give a darn about a playoff, but believe me, they can't wait to eyeball that game with a scheduled payout of $18mil.
My system, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankingswww.bbotw.com Please check it out, and if you really do not want to purchase this book, I understand, but do go to my profile and read my blogs for more info.
There is NO WAY that the Bowls will be used as a Playoff venue. The Bowls are the "sacred cows" or in this case the "Cash cows". My system will not add any costor headaches to have a Qualifying Round. These teams play 12 games already. This is just an unschedule 12th game of the season. These games will be held at the top rated team's home venue. The odd numbers in the BCS Rankings determine the home teams.
I am certain that any one network or even a consortium of 2 or 3 networks would bid for the right to broadcast a 36 game college football extravaganza over a 4 or 5 day period. This makes this 12th game of the season a new profit center for the participating teams and conferences. The monies paid by the broadcast network will cover travel expense with more dollars available to all of the participating teams and conferences. [ I am more specific about this in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings ]
The money may be larger for a 16 team playoff of 16 teams, or 8 games, but ONLY for those that participate. Is your system using ONLY 8 Bowls or is it using 15 Bowls? By using 15 Bowls, you are taking away monies from 14 Schools/Conferences that could have played in those extra 7 Bowls.
Do you think the fan base will travel to ALL of the games or only the first bowl? How many fans do you think will travel to the second or even the third Bowl? and how many fans will not go because they can only go to one Bowl and are hoping their team will be in the Final Bowl? Seems to me the first round may not be a sell out by any stretch of the immagination. This could be a REAL Fan Headache.
Right now, the Schools are okay with a 12 game schedule, as these are teams that have players that are there for school and an education. These are not Pro players, and the fact is only about 2% of all the players will even get a chance to be pro players.
So do you also think that these Schools/Conferences will be happy with being displaced from a Bowl because they were not in the top 16? Do you think say a Florida team will be happy losing the first game and ONLY receiving the dollars from one game while say an Oklahoma State gets to receive the dollars from 3 Bowl appearances. This type of playoff is a complete disparity of potential earnings for more teams than not.
Based on the Bowls, there are, I believe 36 Bowls currently scheduled. 15 of them will be tied up as playoff, and 21 Bowls will have the remainder of the qualified teams. That means 58 teams will play in the Bowls that normanly service 72 Teams. So as I read it, you are for limiting the opportunity for 14 Schools/Conferences to have the pleasure of going to a Bowl, and possibly earning additional monies for playing in a Bowl.
My system DOES pit #1 against #2, #3 vs #$, etc. But the fact is, WHO says #1 is really #1 and #2 is really #2, etc. . . People do, and not necessairily you or me. If they are really #1, then let's Crown them before the Bowl game.
In my system we see #1 Hosting #2, #3 hostin #4, etc., and we let them PROVE they are worthy of the vote they have received from the Harris Pollsters and Coaches. In 2008, the BCS poll had Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Southern California and Utah in that order. Had Oklahoma played Florida and either team win in a medicore victory and the same situation with Texas and Alabama, and Utah with a decisive victory over Southern California, don't you think we might have seen Utah in the National Championship Game? With a situation like this, we just might have seen Utah getting better votes from the Harris Pollsters and Coaches to be in the #1 or #2 spot. After all, of thse 6 teams, the only one without a loss WAS Utah.
My system is mearly a QUALIFYING Round. It answeres the argument of "well who did they play?" My system will also show who is a prentender and who is a contender. My system also does not interfer with the Bowl System. It keeps the Bowl System in tact.