The University of Southern California Trojans are a road win at UCLA away from being crowned Pac-10 champions and earning a birth to the Rose Bowl to face Big 10 champ, Penn State. Sounds pretty good, right? Not if you are a member of the Trojans football team. The fact is, USC is tired of going to the Rose Bowl and facing the same type of opponent. The Trojans have held the Pac-10 conference hostage in recent years and, due to designating certain bowls to certain conferences, have run rampant at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. 

In the 2008 Rose Bowl, USC embarrassed Illinois. In 2007, USC exposed Michigan. In 2006, the Trojans met the Texas Longhorns in one of the most epic college football games ever as the Rose Bowl also doubled as the BCS Title Game, a contest that was snatched by Vince Young in the final minutes. USC was absent from the Rose Bowl in 2005, only because they were spanking Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. In 2004, USC toppled Michigan in the Rose Bowl. 

See the problem here? With designated 'bowl hosts' -- Pac-10/Big 10 for Rose, Big 12 for Fiesta, SEC for Sugar, ACC for Orange -- we as college football fans are robbed of the most compelling and competitive bowl games as possible. We are fed repetition instead of innovation. Part of the fun of college football is that programs from different parts of the country are known for playing different styles of football. The Big East will run it down your throat. Florida is one of the fastest teams in the country. Oklahoma is overwhelmingly physical. USC changes based on their premier players -- it just so happens that their mantra this year is defense.

We need to stop forcing USC to play a Big 10 opponent in the Rose Bowl. We need to stop forcing bowl games to have a member of a specific conference. The four major bowls plus the BCS Title Game should be reserved for the Top-10 ranked teams at the end of the season. If you are the champion of a weak Big 10 or a weak Pac-10, sorry, but you are not guaranteed a Rose Bowl berth. The status and spotlight and revenue that comes with these major bowls ought to go to the programs that played the best against everybody over the course of an entire season. The whole body of work should be evaluated, not just the conference record. 

Of course there are problems that this does not fix and there are issues we must address. This is not a proposal on how to fix the BCS system, nor should this format be used in place of a playoff system. It is widely agreed that the only way we will ever have a "true" champion is if college football adopts a playoff format and it is settled on the field. This isn't meant to point out the flaws of the BCS and the complaints of outraged fans across the country. The point is only to make sure the most deserving teams on a national scale receive a major bowl birth and that we see new match ups within those bowls, not recurring massacres. So lets set that straight first.

This proposal will not do get rid of the "title game controversy" that we are faced with every year. There is no way around that because, odds are, there are going to be more than two teams in any given season that can make plausible arguments as to why they should get a crack at the National Championship. As of today, the majority of the teams in the Top 10 could make some sort of case if they wanted to. The Conference championships will act as a process of elimination, but there will still be upset teams. That's just the way it is.

And the Top-10 teams ranked in the BCS will always be up for debate. Realistically, any time there is a "cut-off" of some sort, there is going to be controversy and debate because different people have different opinions. I'm alright with that because I think that is a big part of what makes sports so great to follow. It's all about the argument to be made. The top six teams probably won't be argued but when it gets to No. 9 or No. 10, who is to say that No. 12 or No.13 isn't as worthy? That is based on opinion. Strong cases could be made for Ball State and TCU to be included in the Top-10 this year, but part of the knock against them is that their conference isn't as strong as these other programs. And that is only a piece of the debate; these types of questions will always be around when we have to decide who is included and who is left out.

I understand tradition and all of that too, but I think this is a tradition that has been borderline irrelevant for some time. Tradition comes in the rivalries and the annual meetings of two programs. Tradition is built from March through August on the recruiting trail. I just don't see that selling point here. What I do think would be a great side effect from this proposal is that programs will be more inclined to bulk up their non-conference schedule with stronger opponents. Since the BCS rankings would be used and they take into account wins, losses, and strength of schedule, games like Citadel at Florida in late November would be frowned upon. If a program just misses the Top-10 and is left out of a major bowl, they can look to the patsies on their schedule and then point the finger in the mirror.

As of this week, the BCS Top-10 is as follows: 1) Alabama 2) Oklahoma 3) Texas 4) Florida5) USC 6) Utah 7) Texas Tech 8) Penn St. 9) Boise St. 10) Ohio St.

For the sake of this column, lets assume that all of the conference championship games have been played and the regular season is over. This is the final BCS rankings heading into the bowl games. This group includes the SEC champ, Big 12 champ, Pac-10 champ, and the Big-10 champ. The only difference this year is that the ACC champ would not be included and would not go to the Orange Bowl like they normally would. Should a 9-3 Boston College team or a 8-4 Virginia Tech team go to a major bowl game over 12-0 Boise State simply because they were crowned the best of the ACC? No, that would be a shame. 

Here is one suggestion using this proposal given that the current BCS Top-10 rankings are final:

• BCS TITLE GAME- Alabama (1) vs. Oklahoma (2)

• ROSE BOWL- Florida (4) vs. Texas Tech (7)

• FIESTA BOWL- Texas (3) vs. USC (5)

• SUGAR BOWL- Utah (6) vs. Penn St. (8)

• ORANGE BOWL- Boise St. (9) vs. Ohio St. (10)

On paper, all of those games look like great bowl games and most importantly, they are unique match ups for programs that deserve the opportunity to prove themselves against another national power. This format isn't designed to get rid of the BCS system or completely redesign it. The system is what it is and hopefully we will see a playoff sometime soon. The idea with this format is to reward college football fans with the most attractive and most competitive bowl games as possible. 

Bowl season is a huge part of the Holidays and we don't want to see any clunkers. I can only speak for myself, but I'm tired of watching USC stay in Southern California and blow out inferior opponents. I'm tired of seeing Ohio State embarrassed by faster and more physical Florida and LSU teams in back to back years. For a change, lets take a more creative look at the BCS and make the best out of the system by producing intriguing match ups that we would never be treated to given the designated "bowl hosts" format. Maybe then we won't be heading for a nap, or bed, by the third quarter during what are supposed to be the most glamorous and celebrated college football games of the year.


by: Teddy Mitrosilis