BCS: The Sequel

Summer's finally here – although not officially until June 21 – and it's time to start really getting revved up for the college football season. It's hard to believe, but it's only 77 days away until it all starts up again.

Well, we can't talk about college football without talking about a playoff so we might as well start there. Of course, now that University of Florida president Bernie Machen has brought the topic to the forefront again at the recent SEC meetings, it may be good that we address it now so we can get on with talking about football.

First of all, I have decided that I am never going to bring the "P word" up again. After watching the president of the school that just won three national championships (one football, two basketball) do a 180 on the p---off topic in less than 24 hours, I need to re-evaluate my thinking on the subject.

It was just two months ago that Machen gave that ill-advised public interview during which he expressed his viewpoints on the college football postseason. I mean, Jason Giambi and Clinton Portis could not have done it better.

In that interview, he stated, in somewhat "colorful" language, as the writer described it, that "the BCS system must be changed" and that "it is not in the best interest of college football." In words that probably did not endear himself to the other presidents in the SEC or its commissioner, Mike Slive, he also said that "it remains unfair that weaklings like Kentucky and Vanderbilt get more BCS money than Utah," and "I'm not just trying to fatten up the coffers of the SEC" and finally that the commissioners "don't want to work with me. They want to protect the BCS. I'm going outside the BCS."

In a bit of an understatement, all of us p---off advocates were on the edge of our seats anxiously waiting to see what would come out of the SEC meetings a couple of weeks ago when Machen actually broached the topic with the other leaders of the SEC at their annual conference meetings in Destin, Fla.

Well, as I mentioned before, his comments and demeanor took a totally different tone and a totally different direction. According to Machen, now "it's better to work within the confines of the current BCS system," that "we see the world in pretty much the same way" and that the presidents "are persuaded – and I am now persuaded – to work within the BCS structure."

SEC conference commissioner Mike Slive was a little more succinct.

"Our presidents and chancellors are not interested in pursuing a playoff – but [rather] to take a hard look at the BCS and what improvements we think might be made over the next few years," he said.

Folks, the Big 12, ACC and Big East made it clear they feel the exact same way as the SEC. And unless you've had your head buried in the sand, or as in my case somewhere a little more in close proximity to your torso, you know that the Pac-10 and Big Ten are even more strongly against a p---off.

In other words, we all need to get it in our thick knuckle-brain heads … there ain't gonna be no dadgum p---off.

As of now, the only people who have any say at all in regards to postseason play in college football – the college presidents, athletic directors and conference commissioners of the six Bowl Championship Series conferences plus Notre Dame are clear, unambiguous and united. They are not going to talk about a p---off in any way, shape or form. Never, no way, nada, not going to happen. What they are going to do is continue to work within the BCS structure and tweak the existing system whenever they feel they can make it better.

So from now on, all you ever are going to get from me are suggestions as to how we can tweak the BCS and make it better. In fact, at this time, I would like to offer my suggestions for the next tweaking of the BCS.

Instead of the four BCS games plus a championship game that we now have, I suggest adding two more bowls to the equation – preferably the Cotton Bowl and the Citrus Bowl. We should add the Cotton because you can't really honor the longstanding relationship of college football and the bowl system without it, and we should add the Citrus Bowl because, well I live in Orlando just a few miles from the stadium and I have a lot of friends down at the club that are going to experience quite an economic impact if we get a game here.

I would play the first four BCS games on the next-to-last weekend in December between the top eight teams in the final BCS standings. I would match them up in a manner that would reward the most deserving teams such as having the No. 1 ranked team play the No. 8 ranked team, No. 2 play No. 7, No. 3 play No. 6, and No. 4 play No. 5.

Next, I would play two more BCS games Jan. 1 between the four most deserving teams from the previous weekend's games. Preferably, this would be the four winning teams.

And finally, one week later, I would play the BCS title game between the two highest-ranked teams in college football based on a final BCS poll taken Jan. 2. Of course, we might want to tweak the BCS poll criteria to ensure that the outcome of the Jan. 1 bowl games is the most important factor in the final poll.

The winner of that game would then be crowned the BCS national champion.

Yeah BCS!

We don't need no stinkin' p---off.

We just needed to do a little tweaking within the confines of the system.

I think we should call it "BCS: The Sequel."