- Builds the bowls and their purpose into its core philosophy
- Restores the excitement of New Year's Day as a celebration of elite college football
- Restores the bowl timing to represent each bowls level of prestige
- Allows all teams a chance to earn the national title by going undefeated
- Increases consensus at the eligibility cutoff
- Remains within the current post season bounds established by the NCAA
- Keeps the total number of games possible consistent with other NCAA football championships
- Does not require a shortening of the regular season
- Keeps the field limited enough to preserve the proven marketing value of the ranking systems to add to the excitement of the regular season
- Builds on the existing structures, using the same governing bodies that the current system uses
According to the Tennessean.com:
A meeting of the group during the American Football Coaches Association convention at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, executive director Grant Teaff said there is no consensus for a viable alternative to the BCS system.In 2008 the NCAA refused to approve the modest change of a plus one format, citing a desire not to expanding the college football post season further into January. This is used to argue that no room is available to discuss a playoff without shortening the regular season.
“There’s just no plan out there,’’ he said. “Our coaches would vote on one if there was one out there. I ask our coaches all the time, ‘Okay, give me a good plan and we’ll present it to (the NCAA),’ and we scratch our heads.”
The real problem with a plus one is that it does not address the main problems with the current system. It does not guarantee access for all undefeated teams. It does not resolve the issue of potential controversy at the cutoff, merely pushing that dispute down a level. Why would the NCAA approve adding a game that promises to fix the system but does nothing to address any of the core issues?
With a growing number of public officials raising an eyebrow to the current system, and congress' proven track record of making things worse, it would be best to fix the system internally.
A new idea is needed.
Instead of being an agreement to pair the top 2 teams in a national championship bowl the BCS needs to be charged with the task of increasing the consensus of the national champion and become the governing body for assigning prestige to the bowls and conferences.
That is unless the BCS is achieving its real purpose of undermining the tradition of the bowls while raising a public outcry for a playoff. In that case the BCS is doing an exceptional job as it is.