Throw this idea at the wall…

— Editor’s note: Yet another controversial year in determining the four teams who will play for the national championship of the Football Bowl Subdivision is at hand. We revisit a column written in December 2011 that suggested a possible way to construct a true playoff based on rankings and utilizing the existing bowl games. It’s not unlike the Football Championship Subdivision in which Eastern Washington plays.)

Roos Field sat in the evening chill, dark but silhouetted by the parking lot lights last Friday night prior to Eastern Washington University’s basketball game with Pacific Lutheran.

It was just a year ago this week – Dec. 17 to be exact – that the place was abuzz with Eastern’s 41-31 victory over Villanova that sent the Eagles to the Division 1 national championship game.

And need anyone remind Eastern fans of that outcome? Sure, why not. It never hurts to recall their come-from-behind 20-19 win over Delaware down in Texas.

So the naive question begs to be asked, if the Football Championship Subdivision can author a true bracketed playoff involving 20 of its best teams, what’s wrong with the folks at the Football Bowl Series?

For whatever reason, seeing the darkened and locked Roos Field reminded me of an idea for a college football playoff that’s kicked around inside my head for years.

It’s a concept so simple – to me at least – that I’ve wondered why hasn’t anyone considered it before?

But before we get into the weeds one must look at how things are currently done.

At the heart of the inability of the nation’s biggest football programs to crown a true champion is the age-old bowl system.

That’s not just conjecture but confirmed by EWU athletics director Bill Chaves, who, before coming to Cheney five years ago, was an associate AD at Baylor. He’s been there and done that when it comes to dealing with the postseason bowls.

“Absolutely,” Chaves said when asked if the present bowl structure keeps a traditional playoff from happening among BCS teams.

“It’s not that it can’t be done,” however, Chaves said. “There’s a historical and I guess political pull from the bowl games that make it real difficult to just hit the reset button.”

So at least for now we’ll see the same general format that’s been in place since 1999 when Tennessee topped Florida State 23-16 in Tempe, Ariz.

Not only will the Monday, Jan. 9 game at the Super Dome in New Orleans be for the national championship, but oddly enough features an all-Southeast Conference title game as No. 1 Louisiana State goes against No. 2 Alabama in a rematch of their Nov. 5 game in Tuscaloosa won by LSU 9-6 in overtime.

In the near future, the controversial two-team format could be in for a little change, Chaves said:

“The thought process moving forward, after 2013, when this current cycle ended – the BCS cycle at least with the television rights – this Plus-One is the model that at least seems to get the most traction.”

That plan would take the top four teams, utilize the current bowl system in a semi-final playoff and the two winners would then playoff for the championship in the Plus-One game.

But even with the Plus-One idea there’s still the issue of having deserving teams being left out. The list is lengthy where someone’s team gets to moan and complain on the sidelines over a snub rather than block and tackle on the field.

Notable was in 2001 when the Associated Press’s No. 2-ranked team, Oregon, lost out to Nebraska for a shot at the title despite the Cornhuskers’ loss in its final regular season game to Colorado.

Five schools – Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Texas Christian University and Boise State – finished the 2009 regular season undefeated. But the BCS selected traditional powers Alabama and Texas to participate in the BCS National Championship Game.

But why not this idea as a start to end the “favored nation” status that perpetuates big-time college football?

The Top 16 BCS teams get seeded into a four-week tournament ala FCS style. This means No. 1 LSU would take on No. 16 Baylor; Alabama at No. 2 would meet 15th-ranked Texas Christian. And so on…

To appease – and reward – the bowl folks, those venues would be ranked in order of their longevity to host the title game. The Rose Bowl, first played in 1901, would have the first title game of the new format. The host would rotate. How? Maybe by bid?

Other longtime bowl sites like the Orange, Sugar and Sun (all started in 1934) or the Cotton, first played in 1936, could battle over semifinal and quarterfinal sites. Ultimately, 15 bowl game sites would be used to decide a true national champion.

Lesser bowls that are locked into conference affiliations could get more glamorous games that really mean something. Then San Diego’s Holiday Bowl might latch onto a better matchup than a pair of 7-5 teams like California and Texas. Or Nashville could do better than two 6-6 teams.

And like ‘em or not, respect ‘em or not, Boise State’s 11-1 record could command a better opponent than 6-6 Arizona State in Las Vegas.

The rest of the batch of cities that love the idea of hatching a bowl game to fill hotel rooms can feast on the remaining teams in the polls and other bowl-eligible programs.

This gets us a true national collegiate champion. It gives bowl games a practical purpose, makes them a marketer’s dream and a way to pay for the whole thing.

That’s my shot in the dark. Seems to make more sense than anything out there now.

— Paul Delaney is a sports reporter at the Cheney Free Press. Email him at [email protected]