In his article printed yesterday in the Washington Times Chancellor Harvey S. Perlman outlined the case for the BCS. 

I respect Chancellor Perlman and understand he is fulfilling his role as chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee by defending the BCS.  He is one of two presidents on this committee who addressed my first attempt to present an alternative to the BCS last February.

To be fair, the BCS is an improvement over the old bowl system.  It does put the top two teams in its own standings into a bowl game.  This game fails to settle the matter of who should be champion far too often and the validity of the standings is often far from clear.

To say that a playoff can't be done speaks more to a lack of effort on the part of the BCS than on the issues involved.  The BCS appears to be trying to fight themselves out of a corner they backed themselves into, especially here recently.

In the business plan I submitted to the BCS on July 24th (on the Executive summary of page 1), I stated "How long can an organization be reactive before the value of being proactive is catastrophically demonstrated?"  Perhaps it is too late.

I have personally sent the BCS one idea and the primary football contacts of all conferences a second independent idea that both meet all goals listed here better than the current system or the old bowl system.

A line item veto next...

Although offset like quotes, these are a paraphrase of the original.

The BCS has been an improvement to what came before it.  Real world constraints limit the option for a viable playoff. 

On the validity of this point I will yield.  I will object to the fairness of this complaint.  Over the past year I have gathered a collection of real world constraints well beyond the ones listed here.

If the BCS was serious about finding the best possible postseason design they should have generated an accessible  list of real world constraints for people to examine and digest.  This would have certainly helped boost the case to the public that the BCS is the best possible system by educating them about the constraints imposed on them.

The academic needs of the athletes needs to be the first priority.

This is the purpose of the NCAA and the mission of the academic institutions that make this college football. 

The fact is that a three round playoff starting on the third Saturday in December would interfere with less finals or class time than any current NCAA football tournament, March Madness or the College Baseball World Series.  To be equal a tournament would need to be four rounds starting the week before.

A related issue not directly brought up by Perlman here is the safety of the players due to added games.  FCS Championship teams play up to 16 games in a championship run.  If this limit is enforced for an FBS tournament of four rounds the regular season would have to return to 11 games or championship games would have to be canceled or counted as a part of the first round.  Extra games for road trips to Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico or being from these locations would be jeopardized as well.

The historical differences in football commitment should be respected.  Student athletes have the choice to weight the varying strengths of each institution prior to enrolling and are responsible for the outcomes of these choices.  The current BCS confernces and Notre Dame have a proven track record of success in football and a legitimate championship could not be made without their participation.

How has the TCU or BYU lagged behind Baylor, Duke, Vanderbilt, and South Florida in commitment to football?  Have they performed any less on the field?

Only in football would these successes in football not be rewarded while teams with little football history, especially recent history, garner ten times their postseason revenue.

And that is without having to play a single postseason game.

Does the Big East really carry the commanding football name that demands inclusion in the BCS?  Really?  What about a conference with three teams in the BCS top 25 for the second year running?

Requirements of these conferences:

• Revenue better than what the bowls alone can provide
• Consistent with their academic values
• Account for the effects on the fans of the schools involved
• Protect the bowl system and its broad access to many schools
• Preserve the excitement and relevance of the regular season
• Preserve the long standings relationships with the bowls and the bowl communities.
  

Let me add a few bullet points that my research has uncovered, since the BCS does not have time to publish such a list:

• Reduce controversy to a manageable level
• Respect the established postseason time-periods
  
• Improve the financial health of college football as a whole
• Enhance the student athletes bowl experience

While we are at it, lets let the fans add a few points they want as well:

• Allow all worthy teams access to the championship
• Reduce moral hazards in the system
• Prevent unworthy teams from having access to the championship
• Increase the number of games between the top teams
• Reduce the number of games with a Vegas line over 28.

[Editor's note: I plan to begin examining these issues one per week once the season reaches its conclusion.  That way I can have some meaty content during the off season]

The BCS is the only design presented that meets these criteria.

I will admit that the plan I submitted on July 2nd failed to highlight how my design addressed these issues directly.  Bill Hancock's feedback pointed me to the need for an appendix specifically to examine these issues, submitted on August 24th.  The proposed design meets or exceeds the level of the BCS in all these points.

If the BCS is infact illegal, most playoffs would be equally illegal.  Only the old bowl system would be safe.

I think this statement is backwards.  I think the success of the MWC and Boise State is a demonstration that the BCS does not reduce the competitiveness of the smaller teams but enhances it.  From an anti-trust perspective one could argue the BCS gave these teams an opportunity they would not have had otherwise.

The old bowl system is far more entrenched and far less flexible to annual variations in performance than the BCS and would be at risk of anti-trust lawsuits without the BCS.

Even a playoff does not guarantee the top two teams will play in a championship game.  The BCS makes the regular season a playoff.  The BCS provides an opportunity for the top 2 teams in the BCS standings to play every year.

Yet only twice have the teams in that game finished in the top two spots after the bowls have been played.  It would not take much to design a system where the #2 team after the bowls have been played was a part of the tournament.

A plus one, with priority placement of undefeated teams, would go a long way to improving this.

Just curious:  Which MWC was a playoff game for the NCG.  I watched TCU-BYU, TCU-Utah and will watch Utah-BYU.  Did I miss it?  I think Cincinnati and Boise State fans are curious also.

Nebraska has built success through years of hard work and building a large and devoted fanbase.  Those opportunities are still available.

Congratulations on your Big 12 championship berth.  I wish you the best and hope you beat Texas.  TCU would really appreciate that.

Perhaps Nebraska can join Utah this year as one of the eleven programs to have won two BCS bowls. 

I am certain the MWC is on pace to earn an automatic qualification for 2012 and 2013 by your own rules, especially if they add Boise State. 

This does not make the system right and a periodic change in conference designation will not fix the lack of long term vision that is plaguing the BCS nor the annual unjustness of the championship process.