Death to the BCS? Or Reform over Revolution?

In a recent article, ESPN's Pat Forde in his "Forde Yard Dash", brings up a book that is to be released when the first BCS standings come out entitled Death to the BCS. This is a book that is being written by Yahoo writers Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Pasan that attacks the Bowl Championship Series (or BCS), as "a terrible way to crown a champion in a great sport." They proceed to fanatically attack the BCS, pointing to the financial overviews of schools who participate in the bowls (which show a negative income even in the big money bowls), and presenting the format for a 16 team playoff to replace the BCS all together. While a playoff system seams to be the hot topic among average football fans, the upper echelon, including coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners, and even some Senators, all insist that a playoff is not what would be best for the sport. To overview, here are a few of the arguments by both sides:

BCS Supporters: That a playoff system has no way to reward programs who have winning seasons, but do not qualify for the playoffs, that a playoff system would devalue regular season games (something said of many an NFL regular season game), and that the sponsorships for the bowls provide the schools with badly needed funding.

Playoff supporters: That the BCS is unfair in the way it determines strength of shedule, that the bowls do not actually make the schools any money (something supposedly supported by relevant financial data), that regular season games would not be devalued because of the need to win games in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs, and that the only way to determine a "fair" champion is face-to-face matches between qualified teams.

Now for the reality: that both systems are far from perfect. For starters, it is true that the BCS does rely on computers to crunch numbers to determine who plays in what bowls, which is dubious at best when it comes to determining who really belongs where. It may also be proved true by delving into school financial records that the bowls do not provide money the way the BCS pundits would like to say they do. However, there are just as many flaws to the playoff system so fanatically supported by many common football fans. First of all, probably the most overlooked fact is that in every other sport with a playoff (particularly the NFL, College Basketball, and the NBA), teams who do NOT make the playoffs are compensated in some way, or else a greater number of teams are allowed a shot in the playoffs. In the NFL and in some degree the NBA, the teams who do not make the playoffs have first dibs at the best talent coming out of the draft, which in theory at least means that the balance of power should be balanced in the long run. In the case of College Basketball,  the NCAA tournament allows 32 teams (not including the play-in game) to make the tournament, and furthermore, there is an invitational tournament (I will confess not to remember its name) that means that the vast majority of teams with some semblance of a good year have a chance to get some kind of reward for it. In a playoff system for college football, NO ONE has put forth any ideas of how to reward teams who do not qualify for the tournament who still have winning seasons. This is why so many coaches and AD's don't want to hear the word "playoff", because it means their jobs instantly become that much harder because no matter how many winning seasons in a row you have, if you do not make the playoffs it is not a successful season.

Yet, sports fans, there remains hope. For there is a way to combine some of both systems so that everyone at least gets a taste of what they want. Substituting Reform for Revolution has had many successes through the histories, and here once again it may save the day. I would propose taking the system of bowls we have now, and instead of using the computers to determine who plays in the 5 BCS bowl games, you playoff the conference winners of each of the 6 power conferences, and use the remaining 4 spots of the ten team playoff as "wild card" spots for those teams who have one loss in a power conference or undefeated in another conference. Now I will not claim to be the only one to have thought of this system, but if there are other voices with the idea they seem to be not being loud enough for such a reasonable proposition. The other programs who have successful seasons still get their bowl games, and fans get to see the top ten duke it out for the Title. Reform for Revolution? Seems to be the most reasonable approach. Just ask Louis XVI.