BCS ratings have dropped considerably, enough for the fat cats to consider serious reform. Change is coming, and probably through the oft discussed “plus-one” game after the bowls. This game could be seeded in a final four format, or unseeded, selecting teams after the bowls.The latter option would be more palatable to troglodytes like Jim Delany concerned with “bracket creep.” That likely will be the choice.

The unseeded plus-one may be antithetical to a playoff, but, if paired with an objective formula, it could turn the regular season and bowls into a more viable de facto one.

Presumably, the best system for fans (and those seeking to profit from us) has every game count, not in the cheap rhetorical sense but in veritable practice. College football is regional by nature. The sport needs tangible stakes to draw a broad casual audience. The way to save bowls is to make as many of them relevant as possible. That’s where the objective formula comes in.

We’re about to use a soccer example. Please bear with us. The English Premier League’s most exciting time is the final day relegation battle. In a fortunate year, four to five teams are at risk. Multiple scenarios, perceived in advance, decide which teams go down. Wigan Athletic might need to win and to have two of Bolton, QPR and Wolves lose to be safe. Knowing that, four games become vitally important instead of one. The other teams have their own safety scenarios. Two teams might be playing each other.

Knowing the constraints engenders drama. Even if you root for Arsenal or Chelsea, multiple games become riveting spectacles. The title may be decided weeks earlier, but the final day could finish with half its games being relevant, nail-biters.

The BCS formula chokes off a source of suspense. With a hodgepodge of human polling and dubious mathematical system it is inscrutable. Projection is more amateur psychology than grounded analysis. It’s impossible to know precisely the effect of a single game or the possible ramifications beforehand. The seminal moment arrives not on the field, but when the nebulous numbers are compiled and leaked on twitter the following day. Persisting with the BCS formula in an unseeded plus-one would keep the same flaws in the old system, just slightly improve the data input.

A clear, objective and valid formula tabulated through the bowl games would provide perfect knowledge of constraints and victory scenarios, investing tangible importance into games otherwise thought meaningless. This would improve the bowls and the regular season.

Let’s say Oklahoma State and Alabama enter the 2011 bowl season separated by a Keira Knightley-thin margin. Instead of having Mike Gundy complain and hope to slip past Alabama in a cloud, Cowboy fans would know what mathematically needed to happen. Lesser games could become important. OSU might need Kansas State to beat Arkansas, Penn State to lose to Houston or a certain number of Big 12 teams to win to close the gap, adding significance to those games.

Alabama would have its own scenarios. LSU would have scenarios where it could lose and still reach the final. Stanford might have a mathematical possibility of sneaking into the game. There’s no need for arbitrary limitation. A season could have six or seven teams in play and tens of bowl games directly or indirectly relevant. Ratings would increase for the “BCS Bowls” and a number of ancillary ones. Hours discussing hypotheticals on ESPN would presumably trump hours of baseless pontification and hype for dead rubber exhibitions.

Picture the regular season as well. Teams schedule toward what the system values. Presently, the BCS formula rewards win-loss record and popular perception, which breeds risk aversion. Alabama was 11-1 and the one loss was to LSU in overtime. Few penalized them for their second best win being Penn State and having played Kent State, North Texas and FCS Georgia Southern. An objective formula would emphasize strength of schedule, encouraging tougher non-conference schedules. It would lead to more Big Ten – Pac 12 style scheduling agreements and fewer FCS-tas in the SEC.

The composition of the formula would be a matter for debate. Presumably, our finest statistical minds could optimize one accounting for all relevant data (such as margin of victory and strength of schedule) without rewarding teams for dropping triple-digits on an overmatched team.

We would, in an ideal world, favor a playoff. Besides being entertaining, it would be competitively valid, would profit schools rather than grifters and would provide equal opportunity and a true “national” champion. If we’re practically limited to a plus-one, an unseeded one with an objective formula could be a decent alternative. It would improve the regular season, help save the bowls (if that’s desirable) and settle matters with on field performance rather than circular arguments.

[Photo via Getty]