BCS needs to drop the C

I have said it before, and I will say it again, this time with even more fuel for the fire. College football needs a playoff system like a crying baby needs a pacifier.\nI am not saying college football needs to keep quiet. I, more than anyone, love the excitement fall Saturdays bring to college campuses all across the country. However, the postseason system that awards college football's national champion should not garner anywhere close to the attention it typically gets, let alone all the controversy and discussion it will create between now and early January.\nAfter last weekend's conference championships and final games of the regular season, there are no undefeated teams in college football. But there are three one-loss teams from major conferences all with viable arguments to play in the Sugar Bowl Jan. 4 for the national title. USC was snubbed out of the chance to battle for the title, despite being ranked No. 1 in both human polls, The Associated Press and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll.\nThose in opposition of the Bowl Championship Series, myself included, got just what they had been hoping for when USC and LSU both won and Kansas State upset previously unbeaten and unanimous No. 1 Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game. Despite the 35-7 thrashing at the hands of the Wildcats and slipping to No. 3 in both human polls, Oklahoma is still the top ranked team in the BCS.\nWhile the BCS has faced controversy concerning its No. 2 team on several occasions, especially in 2001 when Nebraska went to the national title game after not even advancing to the Big 12 Championship, there has never been a question with the BCS' top ranked team. Once again this year, Oklahoma, a team who did not even win its own conference championship, will somehow be playing for the national title.\nThe winner of the Sugar Bowl, be it LSU or Oklahoma, must be selected the national champion by all voters in the Coaches Poll, but luckily there could be some justice in the screwed-up system. Associated Press poll voters are not tied into the BCS system and could therefore still vote USC No. 1 if they defeat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.\nUSC coach Pete Carroll has an extremely tough task at hand. Not only does Carroll have to convince his team they still have a shot at a share of the national title with a win over the Wolverines, but he must prepare for a balanced Michigan attack that arguably could be the hottest team in the nation. USC players will likely have plenty of motivation, though, to prove they should have been playing in New Orleans for the outright national championship.\nIf Michigan were to beat USC, a possibility which I could easily see, things would seem simpler heading into the Sugar Bowl, but they could just be getting steamed up. While a USC loss would mean only one top team would have one loss, some voters could jump Michigan over everybody depending on how the two games are decided.\nEither way, a split national title might not be the best for college football for the 2003 season, but in the long run, reform is needed. If NCAA Division II and III can have playoffs for their national titles, then why can't Division I? It is as simple as cutting the preseason weeks in half and not taking so much time off before the start of the bowl games. The playoff could still be worked around finals times for students and would not go any farther into the new year than the NCAA has already pushed it, to Jan. 4.\nWhy don't college presidents and the NCAA want to change the current format? One of the biggest reasons is because they now have over 25 bowls, all but 10 or 15 of them fairly worthless and with little history that bring in big bucks for the institutions and conferences involved. A playoff system would possibly shrink the number of teams allowed to participate in a bowl-like setting. Instead, they would rather bring in the dough from all the different bowl games, especially the $13 million to each school in a BCS game, even though much of the $13 million goes to that school's conference.\nUnfortunately, it will likely be at least 2006 before big changes occur in the system, because the BCS contract is not up until the end of the 2005 season. Until then, I will be referring to the BCS as the BSC. I think you can figure it out.