Radical Georgia Moderate

First, the indisputable: one of the most competitive and enjoyable seasons in college football history ended with one of the least competitive and boring bowl slates in college football history.

Next, the disputable: why?

It’s not as if this level of parity in Division I football is unprecedented. You only have to go back to 1989, when in the pre-bowl Dec. 5 AP poll, there were seven one-loss teams at the end of the regular season. You had to hit the number 15 spot before encountering a three-loss team.

Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the BCS had been around then!

Top-ranked Colorado went undefeated, but played a relatively soft schedule. It looks tough until you see that Texas went 5-6 and Oklahoma went 7-4. The Buffs did beat 10-2 Nebraska, but not many other quality opponents. Just as Ohio State with its soft schedule was handled by a lower-ranked team, the Buffs were handled by lower-ranked Notre Dame 21-6 in the Orange Bowl. They were both paper tigers, mucking up an already mucked-up scene further.

Would a playoff (for example, the eight-team playoff proposed by UGA president Michael Adams today) have sorted out that particular mess? Colorado likely would have been eliminated before a championship game, but wouldn’t one-loss Arkansas have something to gripe about if two-loss Auburn or two-loss FSU had been included over them since they were ranked higher?

I’ll leave those questions as rhetorical for now, as I want to show you just how much chaos there was in 1989 and this season.

1989: losses by teams ranked #1 and #2 in the AP poll

Teams ranked 1 and 2 which lost: Michigan, Miami, Notre Dame, Alabama, Colorado

2007: losses by teams ranked #1 and #2 in the AP poll

Teams ranked 1 or 2 which lost: USC, LSU, Cal, South Florida, Boston College, Ohio State, Oregon, Missouri, Kansas

(note: I know the AP poll is now irrelevant to the BCS, but I didn’t find good stats for weekly UPI/USA Today Coaches’ polls readily available as they were for the AP poll on AP Poll Archive … it will do for this purpose)

So, five first- or second-ranked teams lost in 1989, and nine (!) first- or second-ranked teams lost in 2007. You could call it ten if you want to count Ohio State twice, which some people will be inclined to. [Update 9:40 a.m. Jan. 9 - Also, LSU lost twice when ranked first or second, so call it 11 if you want to count the same teams twice. Thanks to Patrick for pointing that out.]

Anyway, to try to get back on track, would a playoff have provided a more satisfying ending in 1989? Would the bowl match-ups have been better?

Maybe. But I don’t think that in a season with as much chaos afoot as there was in 1989 or this year that there would be any less craziness and mismatches in one system versus another. And there certainly wouldn’t be any less politicking.

Many people, including me, have complained about how Hawaii didn’t deserve to be on the same continent as Georgia. Could a playoff that represented all of college football prevent Hawaii from earning a berth somewhere? Doubtful. The same financial and political pressures that led to ABC trying to pull another Boise State out of its hat under this system would exist under any other system.

I am inclined to support a playoff, but just keep in mind it isn’t going to solve the politics of picking a champion. The have-nots will always get shafted by the haves. Don’t expect any new system to change that.