http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2003/Columnists/MZ/Change_by_committee.htm

In summary, Zemick states a Bowl Selection Committee should be established to oversee the placing of teams in the BCS bowls. His main argument is such a committee will prevent four loss teams like Florida State from appearing in the BCS bowls, thus allowing the eight best teams in the country to make their rightful appearances.

I feel Zemick could have better argued his position perhaps by not making Florida State is main thrust of his column.

I actually love the idea of a Bowl Selection Committee. However, unlike basketball, which actually has to spend five days to place teams from 34 conferences into a 65-team bracket, the football selection process is much less complicated. Each bowl team only plays one game. In addition, one can use the standings to have a good estimate of which bowl a team is going to attend. Therefore, a Bowl Selection Committee is not fully necessary.

Even a Bowl Selection Show similar to the one for basketball is not needed since the conference champions know there they are going to end up except when their bowl hosts the national championship. The show is a really nice touch, but ESPN has a bowl preview show regardless.

One of Zemick's main arguments is conference champions should not have an automatic bid to the BCS. This is the argument that I most disagree with. Winning your conference must count for something. If the team with the most wins gets the BCS bid, we have the NFL. Teams would schedule as many cupcakes as possible to get as many wins as possible. While Maryland might have been the best team in the ACC this year, they did not take care of business by finishing with the best conference record. Florida State did, so they rightfully backed into the BCS.

One thing that I do agree with is the non-championship BCS bowls have lost their meaning. Every major game used to have championship implications. The disadvantage of this was split national champions. How do you weigh the following?

- Only one bowl game has any meaning, but that game determines a concensus national champion. Keep in mind, split national champions are still possible (Nebraska and Oregon in 2001; Florida State and Miami in 2000).

- Four or five bowl games have championship importance, but the probability of split national champions is rather high. Under the old system, Miami and Ohio State would have been co-champions this year.

I have run out of ideas, so lets hear from you.

turtlepower,

I think Zemick must buy into the whole "a playoff would rob the regular season of any meaning." I think that's bogus for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that teams under the current system deflate after one critical loss and it hurts the regular season far more than a playoff system. The playoff system would also enhance the regular season in a number of ways, but I'll save that for another thread. If we have a playoff system, I definitely think a conference champ should get an automatic bid, but I'm not sure I agree that a BCS bid should be guaranteed. I think that's a tough issue either way.

I agree that it was foolish to target FSU with such venom. Looking at the SEC's poor performance and the butt whoopings the ACC upper crust laid on their opponents, it's difficult to say that FSU was undeserving of its shot at UGA. It's not the BCS's fault that Rix slept through two exams. With Rix at the helm, many in the media were picking FSU to beat UGA, some in a blow out, especially after the dismantling of Florida. I don't think competitiveness was an issue with FSU prior to Rix's problems. I think it was easier to bash FSU because they backed into their title after some distasteful scandals had emerged.

It's funny that Zemick wants to exclude a team like FSU, but not a team like Arkansas, had they managed to beat UGA. I think you're just as likely to have a major stinker earn a BCS berth via a conference title game in the Big 12 or SEC. I don't want to rob a conference title game underdog of added incentive to win, but I wouldn't be averse to a cap being set in the BCS rankings for the winner of a conference title. I'm not sure a conference champ ranked below 15 or 20 ought to be in a BCS game. But all the BCS means is a big pay day. If we're going to exclude less appealing conference champs, then we ought to target teams like Kansas State as well. I think K State is a fine program, a very rugged team, but there is no way that a team scheduling so many patsies deserves a shot at a BCS bowl. In fact, teams in the Big 12 and SEC use the level of competition in their conference as an excuse to duck quality opposition. I agree that their conferences are usually tougher than the ACC and Big East. They shouldn't have to schedule top 5 teams out of conference. But scheduling patsie after patsie isn't acceptable either.

I have the same opinion of some ACC teams. Maryland played two MAC schools and Wofford. Maryland's a terrific team and FSU was fortunate to play them so early, but they didn't deserve a BCS bowl with that many cupcakes on the schedule. Same for NC State. Bowl game, sure, but not BCS. This is especially true when the target of all the criticism, FSU, played Louisville, Iowa State, Notre Dame, Miami, and Florida out of conference. Only Miami and USC played equivalent games out of conference. That's not a shot at Maryland, I'm actually a huge fan of the Fridge. But if Zemick is gonna quibble about FSU's 4th loss, then the difficulty of the out of conference games ought to be weighed against that of other theoretically more deserving teams. Kudos to Maryland for taking on West Va and Notre Dame, but if Miami, UF, and Lousville had been substituted for Eastern Michigan, Akron, and Wofford, Maryland would have finished 9-4 just like FSU.

Most FSU fans felt that the team didn't deserve a BCS bid. But the at-large teams Zemick wants to accomodate should face quality teams out of conference. Had K State played FSU's ooc schedule instead of lining up sacrifical victims at home as usual, their record would have been no better and this would have been a non-issue. K State is the last program anyone should feel sorry for. If USC or Virginia had been left out of the BCS, that would have been a different story.

On the Bowl Selection Committee idea in particular, I think it would create as many injustices under the BCS system as it would cure. K State could start ranked #12 and climb up the charts winning 6 early games against nobodies while UVA could start ranked 20 and drop out of sight losing tough games on the road to Michigan and Texas. UVA wins the conference by upsetting FSU but finishes with 3 losses. K State loses it's only meaningful game to Nebraska. K State, with one loss and ranked #5 or 6, has not shot at a conference title but thye are highly ranked. They could get a BCS bid despite abysmal scheduling and not winning a single meaningful game. UVA puts it together and finishes strong against FSU and Va Tech, even though they have 3 losses. Zemick would exclude UVA but not KSU. That's ridiculous, bt that's really the only function a bowl selection committee could serve. At least now if someone gets screwed you can say that the rules are the rules and it was a neutral decision.

I think a selection committee would only be appropriate if we had a large playoff system. Under the current system a selection committee could theoretically make the match-ups in the minor bowls more attractive, but the conference tie-ins would limit their matchmaking ability. However, in a playoff system, a selection committee committee could make the brackets as appealing as possible on a national and regional level, and could help assure the best possible attendance at the host sites/host bowls within the limits imposed by the ranking formula.

One more thing, in a playoff system using an adjust version of the BCS polls as a neutral basis for picking the field of 16 (12, 8, whatever), if a conference champ had a disappointing season, it would be seeded very low and would have to earn its way forward with a very tough match-up. The injustices faced by the top at-large teams would not be present in the playoff system, as long as the field was large enough, and "fraudulent" conference champs like FSU would either prove their worth or make an early, painful exit. If the at-large teams are all their cracked up to be, they'll play longer and earn more money.