No right answer to BCS controversy (cont.)

If that's the case, an increasingly unfair burden is being placed on a set of 65 coaches and 114 Harris voters, none of whom ever claimed to have all the answers. As an AP voter myself, I fully admit I don't get to watch each of the teams more than a handful of times throughout the season. Based largely on two Texas Tech games, two Oklahoma games and a whole bunch of box scores, I went into last weekend thinking the Red Raiders had a better defense than the Sooners.

Whoops.

And the scary part is: I've still seen far more of both teams than any of the coaches outside of the Big 12 that vote in the coaches poll -- which makes up one-third of the BCS standings.

The inevitable reaction to all of this, as it has been for years, is that college football must institute a playoff right this minute. As the commissioners and presidents have said a million times, that's not going to happen. There are too many concerns about a playoff potentially devaluing the regular season and rendering the major bowl games -- so heavily dependant on fan travel -- extinct.

"As I've stated a number of times, we have the best regular season in football," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said Monday. "... My fear is if we ever went to even a four-team playoff -- and that would probably go to eight and 16 -- we would be sitting here 10 years from now talking about why we did that and the effect it had on the regular season."

I don't disagree. Unlike Barack Obama, I've never been a proponent of a full-scale college playoff. I never want to see the day where Florida rests its starters for the Florida State game, and where the Rose Bowl is half empty from fans whose teams lost in the quarterfinals.

I am, however, a strong advocate of a plus-one system (using two BCS bowls as national semifinals). In rejecting that concept last spring, the commissioners and presidents fundamentally erred in failing to recognize that last season's unsatisfying conclusion was a precursor to the way things will be in this era of increased parity and 12-game seasons.

They rejected SEC commissioner Mike Slive's proposal with nary a discussion because, let's face it, if 10 years of previous BCS controversies failed to elicit change, why would this one?

But last year's controversy, and this year's as well, is an entirely different breed from those of years past.

Back when Florida State unfairly squeezed out Miami (2000), and Nebraska ('01) and Oklahoma ('03) back-doored their way into the title game despite blowout losses in their season finales, the commissioners could simply chalk it up to their wacky computers and tweak their formula yet again the following year.

Ultimately, they chose to put the bulk of the decision back in the hands of the voters, who were immediately dealt with their first no-win situation in 2004 when USC, Oklahoma and Auburn all went undefeated. There was no way to "fix" that particular scenario, just as there's no way to "fix" the increasing jumble of one- and two-loss teams. The source of the BCS' annual controversies has shifted from the system to the season.

Had officials instituted a plus-one, however, they could have eased a whole lot of the pressure facing voters. They'd be asking them to select four teams instead of two. This year, that would likely comprise the SEC champion, Oklahoma, Texas and USC.

There would still be grumbling, particularly from fans of Penn State and Texas Tech, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for either due to the Nittany Lions' weak conference and the Red Raiders' humiliating unmasking last Saturday. (Undefeated Utah is another story. On paper, they'd deserve a shot as much as anyone, but no one in their right mind truly believes the Utes would win the thing.)

You'd be amazed at how much more clarity would arise with a four-team system. Nine times out of 10, there will not be more than four teams worthy of a shot at the national title.

At the end of the day, all polls are a matter of personal opinion. If a voter thinks Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country, that's his or her prerogative. If he or she thinks Texas is better than the Sooners, that is a perfectly justifiable opinion, too.

But with the way the system is presently constructed, there's simply too much riding on those individuals' respective opinions. Go to a four-team playoff and you'll alleviate a great deal of the controversy -- but not all of it. And that's a good thing.

A college football world without at least some controversy would not be college football at all.

Stewart Mandel's book Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls: Tackling the Chaos and Controversy that Reign Over College Football, is now available in paperback.