Now that the regular season of college football is over, I suppose it's time to go into another rant about the highly flawed and elitist BCS system.

As I was telling others earlier this week, I would have preferred the old independent bowl system over this tripe.  At least they were trying to maintain tradition rather than claiming to solve a problem.  For the second straight year, we have three or more undefeated teams (it's five this year).  And we have a major problem where a previously unranked team gets a BCS bowl bid with three losses (Pitt) gets in over a team that only had one loss, which was to the undefeated defending national champions (Cal-Berkeley).

On OkayPlayer I've been pedding around an idea that would eliminate this whole situation by creating a new BCS playoff system.  Tell me what you think about this:

- 14 teams.  The top seven from the West, and the top seven from the East.

- Keep the BCS polling system, but change it to two polls ranking the top 15 from each region every week, instead of 25 within the nation.

- Give the top team from each region a bye from the first round.

- Allow the teams to have playoff games in their respective regions, using neutral bowl sites for the playoff games.

- The New NCAA Championship Game would pit the Western Regional Champion vs. the Eastern Regional Champion.

- Allow the individual bowl committees to organize and run the playoff games.

- The BCS committee could decide which bowl sites would host playoff games, as they do the BCS bowls now.

- The major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Orange...am I forgetting one?) get specific dibs on the Regional Championship games and Championship games.

- NO AUTOMATIC BIDS FOR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS.

Now, let me explain why I decided on some of these provisions...

First, 14 teams.  Most want 16, but I think giving the top team from each region a bye in the first round would create incentive for teams to continue playing hard throughout the season up to the end.  In other words, the number one team in the nation would have a good reason to play hard  through their conference championship game and get a week off.

I think it shouldn't be less because that way it covers most - if not all - of the teams with undefeated or one-loss records.  I think there should be an attempt to create a system that includes those teams.

The "new" poll.  The dynamics of the current BCS poll wouldn't change.  But it would be structured to show the teams from the two regions where they are in the standings week after week.  The design would also help to make the postseason look like two actual regions, and thus help to eliminate some of the controversy of having one national poll, as it is today.

Regions.  One of the biggest oppositions (or excuses, which ever way you want to see it) to a playoff system is the travel time and cost to the fans and to the teams.  Keeping it at regional sites would at least prevent Miami from having to travel to, say...Pasadena to the Rose Bowl for a first round game.

Will this mean that on some years one region will be stronger than the other?  Sure.  In fact, I expect one of the regions to possibly have to dip down to grab teams that might be ranked 20 or possibly 25th in the AP or ESPN coaches' polls to get that last playoff spot in the region.  But ask yourself; is it really any different than the NFL, where the AFC has been far more superior this year to the struggling NFC?  Is it fair that more than likely an AFC team will be lucky to get in the playoffs at 10-6 this year, while it's possible that the NFC West champion could have a 7-9 record?  No.  But it's the rules of the game, and it's created to keep the same rivalries and matchups dating way back in yesteryear.

Besides, you have to show you are able to be a force in not only your conference, but the region.  This would make sure teams maintain strength of schedule on both sides and not just rely on their conference schedule to pull them through.

Bowl/Bowl committee participation.  These guys generally do a great job running the bowls, and are able to hype the bowls and get people out to the stadiums.  It's important to allow them to continue.  And it's still allows some sort of tradition within the playoff system.  And since the major bowls have a lot more to lose from switching over to this type of system, it only makes sense that they would have dibs on the regional championship and national championship games.

No automatic bids.  That's one of the biggest reasons why the BCS is so fouled up.  There are six conferences guaranteed to receive an automatic bowl bid:  the ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10.  While their means of obtaining conference champions are fair for the most part, it isn't in regards to seeding playoff contenders.

In an actual playoff system, would Pitt get in it?  No.  Especially not over Cal.  But due to the weakened Big East, and the fact that all they had to do was have a better conference record, they received an automatic bid and thus the $14 million dollar BCS spot over teams who were no doubt better than them.  And before people think I'm just picking on Pitt, under the current BCS system all it would have taken was a Pitt loss on Saturday for 6-5 Syracuse to get in.  If Oklahoma had been upset in the Big-12 title game on that night, unranked 7-4 Colorado would have gotten a BCS bid.  And the automatic bid rule guarantees that each conference will collect BCS money no matter how poor their conference is.

Before you say, "Yeah, but in the playoff system you suggested, an unranked team could possibly get in the playoffs."  True.    But it's much better for a team to get a first round game and possibly lose than get a big $14 million dollar payday at the expense of a one-loss team.

Take the Texas controversy this week, where there was an plea made by Texas coach Mack Brown last weekend and an email campaign made by Texas fans to AP sportswriters to put Texas over Cal for a BCS bid.

I suppose you can say it worked, although there's really no way of telling how much Brown's pleas and Texas fans emailing sportswriters influenced the lot of the sportswriters in the AP poll or the coaches in the ESPN/USA Today poll (especially since the coaches poll is done by private ballot).  And a lot of criticism has fell on Mack Brown for what happened.

But this goes back to the old 90's saying, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."  The fact is, if there wasn't so much money and prestige on the line for only 2 coveted spots created by this system Brown would not have had to do that.  In fact, a number of people felt Brown would have been on the hot seat for next season or even fired at the end of this one if Texas (10-1) did not make a BCS bowl this year.  So it was real simple; either pander to the writers and coaches or risk being fired now or next year.  He chose to pander. 

People can complain all they want, but the bottom line is, Mack Brown has a job.  And Texas is $14 million dollars richer.  I can't get mad at him for working the system to his advantage.  And don't be surprised if others don't follow his lead in the years to come, as this failed system has been renewed to 2010 with Fox Sports.

There are six automatic bids and two at-large ones in the current system.  If you aren't a member of one of those six conferences that can get an automatic bid, you have to fight the members of the other conferences and the teams that don't win their conference (Texas is in the Big 12, Cal is in the Pac-10) for those two spots.  And to show how hard it is to do that, this year Utah will be the first non-major conference team since this system has been created to go to a BCS bowl.  And they had to go undefeated in order to do so.

My solution isn't perfect.  No doubt some teams will get salty if a team that got into the playoffs over them had a lower rank in the AP or coaches' polls.  But it's better to have this than a system that is elitist-driven and only focused on a handful of teams.  This will make college football more fair and gives teams from all conferences a real chance at a national championship.

It's only 13 games in four weeks:  six for the first round, four for the regional semifinals, two for the regional finals, and the NCAA Championship Game (call that whatever you want).  The most that one team will have to play and run the table is four games.  That's not unreasonable at all.

Of course, I don't expect this to be implemented.  The conferences are making too much money for doing too little.  But a brotha can dream, cain't he?  If you have any other suggestions or complaints about this solution, feel free to address them in my comments section, the tagboard, or email me.