Golden Football Rankings: Football Opinions 5

Biased Football Opinions - 5

Biased Opinion 12/29/07: "The Rose Bowl As It Was Meant to Be"

Recently we've seen the ad for ABC's telecast of the 2008 Rose Bowl, intoned by the one-and-only (thank God) Brent Mussberger: "The Rose Bowl. The Way It Was Meant to Be. Pac-10. Big Ten." Did ABC write the copy or did the Pasadena folks dictate it? The ad is an insult to football fans who don't root for Pac-10 or Big Ten teams. The Rose Bowl isn't interested in putting together the best matchup it can when either the Pac-10 or Big Ten champion goes to the BCS Championship Game. If that were their bent, they would have matched USC against Missouri, which beat Illinois. To the Rose committee, however, "best matchup" ALWAYS involves Pac-10 vs. Big Ten, even though the bowl existed until 1946 without a contract with the Big Ten. From the beginning, the Granddaddy of Them All was intended to pit the best team on the West Coast against the best possible squad from the rest of the country. That goal no longer applies as the Rose Bowl apparently believes that only Pac-10 and Big Ten teams and fans can appreciate the pageantry of the Rose Parade and the beauty of the area. Yokels from Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia, or Missouri need not apply. I agree with ESPN's Rod Gilmore (a West Coast guy) who commented during a recent bowl game that the selection of Illinois is a clear message to the football world that the Rose Bowl wants no part of any Plus One plan, much less a playoff.
FOLLOW UP (1/2/08): THANKS, ROSE BOWL, for that "wonderful" game you gave us. While I'm at it, thanks, too, for the "exciting" Cotton Bowl. Missouri would have provided so much better competition for the mighty Trojans.

Biased Opinion 12/21/07: Second Meetings in Bowls

Two bowls feature rematches: UCLA vs Brigham Young in the Pioneer Las Vegas Bowl and Central Michigan vs Purdue in the Motor City Bowl. With so many bowl games, why can't the powers-that-be avoid such rematches? In the case of the Las Vegas Bowl, the Pac-10 has six teams in bowl. For Motor City, CMU is the host by virtue of winning the MAC championship. However, the Big Ten has flexibility since eight of its teams qualified for post-season play. I know that teams are sent to bowls based on their records so that teams with more wins get the higher payouts. In some cases, conferences avoid sending a team to a bowl for the second straight time (hence Oregon State to the Emerald rather than UCLA returning there – although the SEC has Kentucky in the Music City Bowl for a second straight year). With so many teams in college football, it just seems a shame that any teams must play an opponent for a second time in a bowl game that should provide fresh excitement. Perhaps bowls could work in tandem and trade teams across conferences to avoid rematches.

Biased Opinion 12/15/07: Lower Division Playoffs

I don't know about you, but I've been totally disgusted watching the playoffs in the lower divisions of NCAA football. (I do so only out of duty to serve you better on this website.) The athletes are so obviously exploited and so distraught at missing school that the coaches have to cajole them into playing. What a stupid system! Why settle the championship on the field of play? Why not just let sportswriters vote and computers compute and pick the top two teams to play for the championship. Over half the teams could be "rewarded" for winning or even mediocre 6-6 seasons by playing in bowl games. I'm sure the Division I-AA and II and III players are envious of their I-A counterparts and wish they wouldn't have to start playing games in late November and continue into mid-December. I'm sure they contemplate losing games intentionally to free themselves from such a burden. After all, they probably didn't have to play so many games to win high school state championships. A "mythical" championship would be so much more satisfying.

Biased Opinion 12/7/07: College Football vs Pro

First, it was nice to read Saturday's article by college football writer Ted Lewis in the Times Picayune in which he proposed exactly the system that has been advocated on this site for two years now; namely, a final four with two semifinal games leading to the championship game.

Now to the point of this opinion. Thursday night the 10-1 Dallas Cowboys defeated the 10-1 Green Bay Packers. Compare the impact of that game on determining the NFC champion to the impact of this past weekend's college games on the NCAA championship. The loss did not eliminate Green Bay from reaching the Super Bowl, although it might cost them home field advantage should they meet Dallas in the playoffs. However, losses by Missouri and West Virginia Saturday night killed their chances of winning the college football championship.

I'm not suggesting that the NFL change its playoff system to fit the college model, which would dictate that the team with the best regular season record in the NFC move immediately to the Super Bowl to play the AFC team with the best record. However, I have proposed a modification of the college system which would preserve the importance of the West Virginia-Pitt game while not penalizing one- or two-loss teams like Virginia Tech and LSU that win their conference championships. Hence, the Final Four proposal (referred to above), which preserves the importance of regular season games without restricting access to the championship unfairly to only two teams.

Biased Opinion 11/24/07: Hawaii BCS? Brennan Heisman?

The ESPN announcing crew on Friday night's Hawaii-Boise State game shamelessly plugged Hawaii for a BCS bowl, which would undoubtedly be the Sugar Bowl since it has last pick this year because it hosts the title game. They also spoke highly of QB Colt Brennan for the Heisman Trophy because he was throwing so well against the Broncos.

Let's dilute the sentiment with some facts. Boise State's previous loss was to 4-7 Washington. Another WAC team touted as "strong," Nevada, lost its first game of the season to Nebraska by 42 points. Hawaii beat Nevada by only two. The Rainbows defeated Louisiana Tech by one point in OT, the same Tech that LSU toyed with 58-10. Fresno State lost to Oregon by 31 but to Hawaii by only 7. Also, WAC Commissioner Karl Benson admitted on the telecast that the bottom five of his league are weak. ("Pathetic" would be a better adjective.)

Even including the defeat of 9-win Boise, Hawaii's nine IA victims have only 30 wins among them. Maybe June Jones' club will give a good account of themselves in the Sugar Bowl as Boise did in the Fiesta last year. But it's hard to believe that based on the results of the season. And voting Colt Brennan for the Heisman ahead of Tim Tebow, Darren McFadden, Chase Daniel, Todd Reesing, and other stars who play in BCS conferences would be a travesty.

Biased Opinion 11/11/07: Shorten the Games

For the 2006 season, the NCAA implemented rules intended to shorten the length of games. However, they were not well received by the coaches or the fans. They included starting the clock after a time out on the referee's ready-to-play signal (when the play clock begins), starting the clock as soon as the ball is kicked on a kickoff (which led to Wisconsin intentionally running offsides in the last seconds of the first half against Penn State to avoid giving PSU any plays), and setting the play clock to 15 seconds after a timeout. The only one that survived was the last one.

Still, games are too long. The LSU-Alabama game lasted over four hours without overtime. Replay reviews – and the amount of time they take to come to a decision – are one determinant of a game's length, as well as injuries, the number of incomplete passes, out-of-bounds plays, etc. I certainly don't want to eliminate or even limit the replay reviews to get calls right (although some take longer than necessary). And I don't advocate what the NFL does for the beginning part of each half; that is, restarting the clock when the ball is placed down after an out of bounds play. I love college football's overtime, which is worth the extra minutes because it is so exciting and avoids ties. So don't tamper with that.

Instead, I favor removing the rule that stops the clock every time a first down is achieved (unless the ball carrier went out of bounds). Keep the current rule for the last two minutes of each half only. It is not needed at any other time. If an average game has, say, 30 first downs and the clock is stopped an average of 15 seconds for each first down, that's 30 x 15 or 450 seconds or about 7 1/2 minutes less per game.

Another factor in the length of games is the officiating crew's efficiency in getting the ball marked and restarting the play clock after each play. Nick Saban, after his two-year NFL flirtation, favors implementing the NFL's rule whereby the play clock is set to 40 seconds as soon as the previous play ends. (Saban also favors not stopping the clock after first downs.) Some conferences have experimented with this rule. I'd favor the 40-second (or even 35-second) play clock in college as applied by the NFL. This would provide uniformity across the different types of plays (runs vs. passes, in-bounds plays vs. out-of-bounds plays) and – more importantly – across officiating crews.

Biased Opinion 10/29/07: Eliminate the "Hidden" Timeout

Writing in Sporting News, Troy Aikman says, "The hidden timeout trick must get the boot." He is referring to the practice that has been prevalent in the NFL and even in college this year whereby the head coach calls a timeout at the last second before a game-winning/tying FG kick. While not knocking the coaches for acting within the rules, Troy says:

I don't like it. It's a loophole in the rules that needs to be closed because the hidden timeout trick is not in the spirit of competition. It just isn't right when everyone on the field, in the stadium and watching on TV thinks they're watching a valid play, only to find out after the fact ... that the kick didn't matter. Show me another situation in football where a coach and an official can conspire on the sideline, keeping everyone else in the dark as to what's going on while a play is in progress.

I agree totally with Troy's opinion. I haven't liked this aspect of the game either. The adjective that came to my mind is "sneaky." Aikman offers a solution.

Pick a point in time – maybe when the center touches the ball or shortly thereafter – and don't allow a timeout to be called after that. It's a matter the competition committee should – and I believe will – address in the offseason.

While agreeing with his suggestion, I would go one step further. I want to see timeouts put back in the hands of the players on the field in both pro and college ball. The game has been taken away from the players too much already. Sure, coaches can signal to their offensive or defensive team to call a TO but a player on the field must call it so that everyone can see it.

Biased Opinion 10/21/07: If Ever a "Plus-One" Format Were Needed

This crazy college football season CRIES OUT for a Final Four rather than just two teams voted into the championship game after the regular season. There is a strong possibility that there will be no undefeated teams when the dust clears or, like last year, just one. No team is head and shoulders above the others. This is not 2005 when USC and Texas were 1-2 by a large margin.

To repeat what has been advocated on this site before concerning a Final Four (sometimes referred to as the "Plus-One Format"):

The top four teams in the final BCS poll would be paired in two bowl games: #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. Then the two winners would meet in the championship game a week later.

If the bowls don't like the idea of seeding teams (which they probably won't), another plan could be implemented that would not be as good as a "pure" Final Four but would still be better than the present BCS. In this approach, the bowls return to the conference tie-ins they had before the BCS; i.e., Big Ten champion vs. Pac-10 champion in Rose Bowl, SEC champion in Sugar, ACC vs. Big East in Orange, and Big 12 titlist in Fiesta. Then rank the teams again after the bowl games and pick the #1 and #2 teams for the championship game to be played 9-10 days later.

While not as good as 1 vs 4/2 vs 3, the second plan would still allow teams to play a bowl game before the pairing for the championship game is finalized. [It isn't as good because you could have years when three unbeaten teams (like USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn in 2004) all remain unbeaten after playing in three different bowls.] Such an approach would be particularly useful this season, when the top five changes weekly. Don't pick the two finalists until Ohio State plays USC in the Rose Bowl, LSU plays Oregon in the Sugar, Boston College plays West Virginia in the Orange, and Oklahoma plays South Florida in the Fiesta (just to illustrate the possibilities using the teams that are atop their conferences at the present time). In addition, the results of the other bowls would impact the human voters and especially the computer rankings because every bowl game provides an inter-conference matchup. The Big Ten and especially the ACC are criticized this season for not being as strong as the other four BCS conferences. The bowl games would provide those conferences with an opportunity to show they are stronger than the "experts" believe and therefore help propel their champion (if it won its bowl game) to a #1 or #2 ranking.

However you did it, a "plus one" format would result in a fairer and more interesting matchup in the championship game. It would enhance the bowl games, not detract from them.

Biased Opinion 10/15/07: Causes of Parity in College Football

The wave of upsets the last few weeks has sparked discussion of "parity" in college football. (Some say this is a growing problem rather than a great development.) What are the reasons for this situation?

Coaches have long claimed that the limitation of scholarships to 85 per school in 1991 has leveled the playing field. In the 1970s, schools like Nebraska and Oklahoma fielded powerhouses every year because they could have 120 players on scholarship.

Another source of parity is the increased academic requirements installed by the NCAA over the last decade. This has sent some blue-chip athletes, turned away from BCS conference schools, to schools in lesser conferences.

Some might cite the proliferation of telecasts so that a player doesn't have to go to a traditional power to be on TV.

While not disagreeing with any of the above, I would cite another equalizer: the proliferation of spread offenses. I have watched the struggles of LSU's outstanding defense against two such offenses (Florida and Kentucky) the last two weeks. I can also cite other instances: Oregon State's near-upset of LSU in Baton Rouge in 2004, Utah's undefeated BCS-bowl season under Urban Meyer in 2004, Boise State over Oklahoma (and former BSU coach Dan Hawkins' upset of the Sooners at Colorado this season), Appalachian State over Michigan, Wake Forest's recent success in the ACC, etc. All a coach needs to do is recruit a QB who can make quick, accurate throws from the shotgun (he doesn't have to be a future NFL star to shine in that offense as evidenced by every Texas Tech QB in the Mike Leach era), stock up on quick receivers (who don't all have to be tall), and train O-linemen to cut block and double-team D-linemen. 4- and 5-receiver sets force defenses to play nickel and dime packages and cover one-on-one. Linebackers must move wide to cover receivers. (Florida isolated its fastest receiver, Percy Harvin, on LSU's LBs Ali Highsmith and Darry Beckwith – both fast for linebackers but no match for Harvin.) This leaves the middle open for a RB to burst through a seam for 5-10 yards before anyone can touch him. Even Glen Dorsey is impotent against double teams that control him just long enough for the QB to fire a quick pass or the RB to pop through a seam. When the QB can run (like Tim Tebow), the offense is even more frustrating to stop.

Finally, the success of the spread is not limited to college. Have you noticed what the two best NFL teams, New England and Indianapolis, run? Pro teams have cornerbacks and safeties who can cover one-on-one. So NFL spreads usually keep a back in to protect against blitzes and provide a running threat. But the challenge for defenses is still great. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning rarely have a bad day in those offenses.

Biased Opinion 10/8/07: Human Polls Use Formulas Too

Florida gave the #1 team in the land all it wanted Saturday night in Baton Rouge. The Gators' reward? They drop from #9 to #13 in the AP poll and from #7 to #14 in USA Today. I agree with my friend Maize and Blue that this is ridiculous. Computer rankings have been deplored for reducing the game to formulas. Well, human voters use formulas also. Put all the undefeated teams first, then the one-loss teams, then the two-loss teams. So the human "formulas" say that Florida has two losses in a row and therefore must drop below one-loss teams like South Carolina, which didn't give LSU nearly the game the Gators did, and even Virginia Tech, which was slaughtered in Baton Rouge. And while we're on the subject, two more questions about the USA Today rankings.

Why is Virginia Tech (#10) ahead of South Carolina (#12)? Do the voters look at common opponents at all? Apparently SC is below the Hokies simply because SC lost to LSU later than Tech did.

How is USC #7? The Trojans should have lost at Washington and then were beaten at home by unranked Stanford. Yet they rank ahead of Oregon, which lost only to #2 California, West Virginia, which lost only at #5 South Florida, and South Carolina, which lost only at #1 LSU.

And remember: the official BCS rankings (to be revealed for the first time next week) use the USA Today poll along with the Harris Poll and a composite of six computer rankings. (The AP pulled its rankings from the BCS system.

Biased Opinion 9/25/07: Why a Plus-One Format Is Doubtful

Dan Wetzel's article brings a number of ideas into focus. It is good to hear a national writer voicing what so many of us in SEC country have been saying. I'd like to agree with some of his points and add some ideas of my own.

SEC Commissioner Mike Slive, particularly during this two-year period when he is BCS coordinator, should be lobbying hard for some form of Plus-One format. (Maybe he is behind the scenes. But he needs to do it publicly also.)

The Big Ten and Pac-10 commissioners spew the usual blather about opposing any extension of the season because of academic disruption, overemphasizing football even more, etc. But in reality they know the BCS is their conferences' best hope to get their teams into the championship game. Last year was a perfect example. Ohio State was not really the best team after the regular season. Two SEC teams were better as was USC and perhaps Louisville. Yet the Buckeyes defeated a young Texas team early in the season and were able to run the table within their conference to rise to the top. (If Michigan had won the final game in Columbus, the same could be said about them, with ND being their "signature" non-conference win.)

For the same reasons as their Big Ten and Pac-10 brethren, the Big 12, Big East, and ACC commissioners probably oppose any Plus-One system as well. However, in their case, they may feel more pressure from their fans to make a good system (the current BCS) even better.

Although Wetzel does not mention this factor, the Big Ten may not implement a championship game even if they add a twelfth school. They have seen what happened to Tennessee in 2001 (ranked #2 but upset by LSU in the championship game after beating the Tigers in the regular season), Oklahoma in 2003 (upset by Kansas State in the championship game but able to remain #1 in the system in place at the time, although they would have dropped to #3 if the current format had been in effect), and what may occur this year in the SEC (LSU and Florida playing again in the championship game, raising the possibility that each will win one and perhaps eliminate both of them from the national championship).

The format consistently proposed on this site, namely, a Final Four in college football, would come as close as any system to satisfying all competing values. It would preserve college football's unique and marvelous regular season while providing a much fairer (and more exciting) post-season to determine the most worthy national champion. By putting only the top four teams into a position to win the championship, this format would continue the emphasis on week-to-week excellence and winning one's conference championship. Going undefeated in a BCS conference only to be ranked behind two other undefeated teams (like Auburn in 2004) or even losing one game in a tough conference (like Florida last year) would not eliminate a worthy team's chance at the overall title. On the other hand, a team with two losses (like LSU in 2006) would not make the top four.

Biased Opinion 9/16/07: Improving Replay Reviews

Last week I explained my preference for the college replay system over the NFL approach. This week, I'll suggest ways that both methods can be improved.

More plays should be open to review. Case in point: in the Week 1 Bears-Chargers game this year, a Chicago defensive lineman got a split second head start on the goal line, causing a fumbled snap which was recovered by the defense. Slow motion replay from a ground-level camera on the goal line showed he was offsides. However, the play is not reviewable. Why not? Isn't the objective to get the call right, especially in such a crucial situation?

Both college and pro rules forbid review of pass interference calls. I can understand the reluctance, since interference calls are perhaps the most controversial. However, some aspects of passing violations could be reviewed. Case in point: In the infamous 2006 LSU-Auburn game, a flag for interference against Auburn in the end zone late in the game was picked up because the officials ruled the pass uncatchable. However, replay showed that the receiver couldn't catch the ball because he was tackled by one Auburn defender which allowed a second defender to get to the ball first. Why can't the question of whether a ball was catchable be reviewed? And in college, perhaps an interference call could be reviewed if a coach wishes to use his only challenge for that

Biased Opinion 9/9/07: College Replay Better

I much prefer college football's replay procedure. Every play can be reviewed whereas in the NFL this is true only in the last two minutes of each half. College did add a proviso that a coach can issue one challenge a game. But for the most part that isn't necessary as almost anything the coach would want reviewed is checked automatically. The NFL puts the onus on the coaches to request a review which simply is not as good a way to do it. I'm an SEC man, but I thank the Big Ten for originating the replay system which was soon adopted (with only minor tweaks) for all conferences. I think the system could be expanded (in pro as well as college) to allow review of more categories of calls but I'll delve into that in a future Biased Opinion.

Biased Opinion 9/2/07: College OT Better

I like both college and pro football (college better). Some rules differ from one level to the other as they should. For example, I like the fact that college football requires only one foot inbounds for a reception but pro requires two – that's a natural evolution of skill to the next level. Also pass interference is a 15-yard penalty in college but a spot foul in the NFL. However, college football has the better system in several areas. I'll talk about one this week and save the other for the next Biased Opinion. [See above.]

I prefer college football's overtime procedure whereby each team gets the ball on the 25-yard line. I've thought about starting the possession further from the goal but don't see any compelling reason to change. Last Saturday (9/1) Colorado intercepted Colorado State in the end zone to end its possession. Then CU kicked a FG to win. I cite this to show that starting on the 25 does not guarantee a team will score at least a FG. Pro football has its sudden death overtime procedure which isn't bad but isn't as exciting as the college system, which puts a team in scoring position immediately. I'd like to see the pros do what the colleges do but start the ball further from the goal, say on the 40 yard line or even midfield. This approach would guarantee each team a possession, which is not the case in the NFL now.

Biased Opinion 8/27/07: College Football Better Than Ever?

A lengthy article in the Times Picayune argues that this decade is the best in college football history. Bobby Bowden is quoted: "Right now, our game is at its peak. But I don't think we've reached the top yet." Attendance and TV ratings are at all-time highs. Offensive and defensive play have never been more sophisticated. The writer, Ted Lewis, cites the BCS as a major reason for the excitement. I agree with him and also with Bobby Bowden. College football is better than ever and the BCS is a strong factor in that. But the sport can be made even better. Let's take each of those points on its own.

The BCS definitely affects everyone's anticipation of the season. In addition to the conference championships that teams always strove for, squads and their fans do not have to rely on luck as much to be the champion. Before the BCS, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs knew they would play in the Rose Bowl, the SEC winner would be in the Sugar Bowl, etc. If your team went undefeated but a team in a major conference not tied to your bowl also went undefeated, that team might rank #1 and there would be nothing you could do about it. If they won their bowl, they would be AP champion even if you won yours. (Consider Alabama in 1966 and Penn State in 1994, to name just two of many examples.) Even the Boise States can dream about playing in a big-time bowl.

As I have argued in more than one of these Biased Opinions, a Final Four or even a Plus One post-season format would make college football almost perfect. I don't know what Bobby meant by "I don't think we've reached the top yet." But I think that the game can improve its post-season without damaging its regular season, which is undoubtedly the best of any sport.

Biased Opinion 8/19/07: Big Ten Expansion

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney seemed to open the door again for the conference to discuss adding a twelfth school. The new Big Ten network is his reason for revisiting the issue. "The broader (the network) is distributed, the more value (expansion) has. We have eight states. With expansion, you could have nine." Rutgers has been widely discussed as a prime candidate because of the huge New York City market. However, ADs and presidents have to wonder: What if we add Rutgers (or Syracuse or Pitt) and then Notre Dame changes its mind and wants to join a football conference? Matt Hayes in Sporting News quotes a "BCS official:" "It's Notre Dame or no one." In other words, don't expect any expansion soon.

Biased Opinion 8/3/07: Recommendations for a Plus One Playoff Format

I did an analysis of how four different Final Four or Bowls Plus One options would have played out in the first nine BCS seasons (1998-2006). On the basis of that analysis, I wrote a summary and made recommendations for the best format to establish.

Biased Opinion 7/27/07: Football Final Four?

A New York Post article claims a College Football Final Four is inevitable – and sooner (2010 season) rather than later. (Thanks to Maize and Blue for this link.) This is a response to that article. (If you haven't read the article yet, do so before reading further.)

I think reporter Lenn Robbins is overly optimistic about a Final Four starting in 2011. Finding several "sources in conference offices" doesn't mean a majority of the presidents in any conference will support a change. The SEC discussed a playoff proposal by Florida president Bernie Machen several months ago. The presidents rejected Machen's proposal but did ask SEC Commissioner Mike Slive "to take a hard look at the BCS and what improvements ... might be made."

Robbins underestimates the stumbling block presented by the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-10. The article lists the concessions made to the Rose Bowl when the current four-year BCS agreement was signed. Pasadena is itching to return to a setup whereby it always matches the Big 10 and Pac-10 champions. Those two conferences would also like that arrangement provided it does not prevent their champions from playing for the national title.

A friend in a high position in the Sugar Bowl told me that "no bowl wants to be a semifinal." Bowls want the teams and their fans to come to their city for 3-5 days. If it is known in advance that the winner of the game will play an additional game for the championship, bowls fear that fans of both teams will make a quickie visit to see the game, saving money for a second game within two weeks.

So my estimate is that there will not be a true "Final Four" in 2011, as much as I would love to see it. However, the conferences might agree on a "Plus-One" format that placates the bowls, as follows.

The major bowls would return to their pre-BCS conference tie-ins. Rose: Big 10 vs. Pac 10 champions; Sugar: SEC champ vs. at-large; Fiesta: Big 12 champ vs. at-large; Orange: ACC vs. Big East (or just tie in with one and let the other champ be an at-large). The difference from the current BCS setup is that no bowl would lose the champion of its host conference to the title game because the championship teams would not be decided until after the bowls.

The at-large spots would be filled according to rules similar to those in place now (Notre Dame if it finishes high enough, a non-BCS conference champion if it finishes ahead of a BCS champ, etc.).

As stated in the article, another bowl might be brought into the picture. This would create two additional BCS (i.e., high-paying) slots. That bowl could have a tie-in with either the ACC or Big East champ (whichever one is not affiliated with the Orange Bowl). A second non-BCS team could be included some years if it finishes high enough in the rankings.

As far as determining the national champion, the bowls would essentially be another week of the season, albeit with hand-picked matchups. Another BCS ranking would be published after the bowls. Teams 1 and 2 would then meet for the championship (the "Plus One" game) one to two weeks after the bowls. [Question that needs answering: Would the entire NCAA have to approve any system that involves some schools playing two post-season games for the first time in history?]

The championship game would probably be played at the site on one of the BCS bowls as is the case with the current four-year contract. (Sugar Bowl hosts its game plus the championship this season, then Orange, then Rose.)

I'm not advocating this plan, just speculating on what might happen. I want to apply the plan to the results of the first nine BCS years to see if it would have provided a better outcome. Then I can decide whether this "Plus One" plan is an improvement over the current system. But I'll leave that for another Biased Opinion.