A New BCS

The slobber from Matt Flynn's kiss wasn't even dry on the crystal trophy when the president of the University of Georgia began hollering for a revamping of the BCS championship system. He felt that the Georgia, not LSU, had deserved to be playing in the National Championship game. He proposed that the championship should be determined by having a mini playoff season in college football, much like the final four that they do in basketball. Now, I'm not going to get into whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, but the timing of the president's complaint makes him sound less like a man wanting to improve the way of doing things, and more like a child whining "No fair!"

Would the University of Georgia have benefited from a playoff scenario? Let's think about it for a moment.

The first question is, how would they decide who made the playoffs? They could choose strictly by won/loss records. But would this be any more fair than what they have now? The key here is that all conferences are not created equal. Let's take the University of Hawaii for example. Now, going 12-0 is no small feat, and I don't want to diminish that in any way. It is an accomplishment to be proud of. But Hawaii plays in what is considered to be a relatively weak conference. They did well, but in the Sugar Bowl were completely dominated by a team from the powerhouse SEC--a team that, mind you, didn't even qualify to play for their conference championship. Georgia didn't play and lose the conference championship. They didn't even qualify for the game.

Now we must look at whether this method would have benefited Georgia. The answer is no. There were enough teams that finished as good or better than Georgia in the won/loss column that to choose the 8 teams for the playoffs, they would have had to look at conference records. Georgia finished third in conference play behind Tennessee and LSU.

OK, another way they could choose is to simply pick the all conference champions to play in these mini-playoffs. This still wouldn't have benefited Georgia, because they didn't win the conference championship. They didn't even qualify to play in the championship game.

The SEC is divided into two divisions--East and West. The winner of each division plays each other for the conference championship. So there is your mini-playoff right there. LSU won the SEC West outright, by having the best record. Georgia and Tennessee tied won/loss records in the Eastern Division, but the title went to Tennessee because they had beaten Georgia earlier in the year. LSU then beat Tennessee in the conference championship game. Not only did they win, but they won with their starting quarterback sitting on the bench. They won with their backup quarterback. Think Patriots winning the Superbowl with whoever Tom Brady's backup is.

So, by either of these scenarios, Georgia still wouldn't have played in the National Championship. So they put a thrashing on the University of Hawaii. Does that mean they are the best team in the country? Not necessarily.

After the loss, a tearful Colt Brennan said, "We've never played a team of this caliber before." So that game cannot be considered a test of Georgia's true ability. Just because the 1-15 Miami Dolphins could put the hurting on my local high school team, doesn't mean they deserve to play in the Superbowl.

Now, I'm not saying the current system is perfect. It isn't. And I don't want to get into whether a playoff system would be better. I'm just saying, it still wouldn't have benefited Georgia. At least, not this year.