Adams: A vote for democratic post-season system

As every college football fan knows, the BCS method of determining a national champion has all sorts of advantages.

The most obvious advantage is that through polls and computer rankings you’re assured of having the two best teams play for the national title. Contrast that with the NFL’s Neanderthal process of selecting its Super Bowl participants by a prolonged series of playoff games, which, in this case, have left you with nothing more appealing than the Giants vs. Patriots.

That’s what the playoffs gave you. The BCS would have given you Colts vs. Patriots.

But it’s not my intention to belabor the obvious. Just because the BCS is the best means of determining a true champion doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

My message: A great system could be greater. I realized that while watching the Democratic presidential debate Monday night.

Our country chooses its presidential candidates in much the same way it chooses who will play for the national championship in Division I-A football.

There’s a noticeable difference, however. It’s called a “campaign.”

In college football, voters base their decision on what the candidates have done. In politics, voters base their decision on what the candidates say they will do.

Never mind how misleading campaigns can be. That’s a small price to pay for entertainment.

And what’s entertaining about voting moments after the last regular-season game is played?

Proponents of the BCS often cite “increased publicity” as one of the benefits of its system. I won’t argue. Any self-respecting sports columnist or talk-show host can’t go through a football season without portraying the BCS as only slightly less sinister than al-Qaida.

Imagine what a post-season campaign would do for publicity. There’s plenty of time for it, and there’s certainly enough motivation.

You still could have polls immediately after the final regular-season games. They would determine the field of candidates. Another poll, two weeks later, would determine the two candidates most worthy of the championship game.

For two weeks, you could stage a series of debates between representatives of the contending schools. The debates could be held at locales far removed from big-time college football — places like Burlington, Vt.; Taos, N.M.; Butte, Mo.; Lincoln, Neb; and South Bend, Ind.

The debates would be televised by ESPN in front of live audiences. Selected members of the Football Writers Association of America would ask questions of the candidates. ESPN’s Lee Corso, wearing a generic mascot’s head, would be the moderator.

The schools would be represented at the lectern by a head coach or a coordinator. Cheerleaders and mascots would be scattered throughout the auditorium.

Think how the debates might have gone after the 2007 season. Ohio State coach Jim Tressel would have tried to explain away his embarrassing loss in the previous national championship game while Georgia and LSU cheerleaders chanted “S-E-C.” Georgia’s Mark Richt would have had to explain a blowout loss to Tennessee. And LSU’s Les Miles would have had to tell why his cap is too small for his head.

The Nielsen ratings would be tremendous. So would the suspense, which would build from one debate to the next, until the final vote was taken.

Eventually, the process would be too successful for the NFL to ignore. It would scrap its outdated system of playoffs and choose its championship combatants the American way: By vote.

Sports editor John Adams may be reached at 865-342-6284 or adamsj@knews.com.