Money should play absolutely no part in deciding the best teams in the country, only the play on the field should decide this. How can anybody justify this as fair? In some years the BCS has been lucky enough to have two clear cut teams that deserve to play in the national title game, such as last year, when Miami (Fl) and Ohio State were the only undefeated teams out of the 117 Division 1A schools (www.cbssportsline.com). The BCS appeared to have done its job of identifying the two best teams in the country, but rarely will it be so easy. .
This season could turn out to be the most controversial and disastrous of all BCS seasons since it was instituted in 1997. With no regular season games remaining there were three teams with one loss including USC, Oklahoma, and LSU. USC turned out to be the #1 ranked team by the Associated Press (AP) and by the coaches poll. Now, logically you would think USC would be playing in the national championship game, which this year is the Nokia Sugar Bowl. However, due to a Notre Dame loss in the final day of the regular season, USC's strength of schedule was lowered enough to put them all the way at the #3 spot on the BCS rankings, leaving Oklahoma at #1 and LSU #2. This may turn out to be a great title game, but there will always be the thought of what if USC had been given the opportunity.
Ideally, the college football season would end much like the college basketball season in a playoff format. The college basketball season ends in "March Madness," a sixty four team bracket which is played in a single elimination format. The winner would then eventually have to play and win six games in the tournament in order to win the title. Obviously sixty four teams is too large of a number to be played for football. I feel that using a similar format, and just cutting down on the number of teams, is the simple answer to this controversy. There are many different formats you could use: four, eight, or even twelve team brackets.
