Editor’s note: The following is a breakdown of the current bowl system and provides a proposal to adjust conference makeup. The commentary discusses the pros and cons of the Bowl Championship Series and the negative aspects of a playoff idea. In this proposed system, conferences would give teams the opportunity to mid-major and BCS status.

On my trek to Texas over Thanksgiving Break in a big truck that just wasn’t big enough, I was tuned in to countless college football games via Sirius Radio and admired the accessibility of these nationally sponsored amateur events. College football is an institution that brings together the tackiest colors and wildest personalities, and it is being inundated with talk of playoffs and micromanagement of the worst kind: a looming bureaucracy that could negate the sport’s interest. The college football bowl system doesn’t need as much changing as the majority thinks it does — but the system could use a first aid kit.

During that drive, I got the inspiration to try and solve this holiday “debacle” that sports writers everywhere are getting bent out of shape for. There are so many things to consider about the changes I’d like to see in the sport that gives our academic institution so much and enables me to have so much fun in the fall. I love the pageantry, the rivalries, the tough October conference games, and Verne Lundquist getting worked up about an 18-year-old running a 40-yard dash faster than he’s ever driven. I love big tailgating, big hits and even bigger plays, but most of all, I love that the regular season means so much and that the bowl games — even the absurdly titled Konica Miniolta Gator Bowl — give teams and their fans a vacation and reward for a good year. My love for all these things and the game itself compelled me to create some changes and present them physically to you, fellow fans.

With the help of arguments, reading, statistics and some fans, I have devised a solution to create excitement, increase revenue and make the playing fields even in college football. Really.

The BCS is the right system

The BCS was made to decide No. 1 vs. No. 2 for all the marbles, and it has done just that. This isn’t to say the system is perfect, because it surely isn’t (see below). However, any flukes or absolute voting catastrophes from biases created by a playoff system would be gone. The voting and computer procedure is just fine. This year is another confirmation to the true powers in football, and the strength of schedule that the computer rankings provide is a necessary door. Voting among coaches and media members has always been and always will be terribly biased. The only way to solve that is to put an objective system in between the two to mediate what both parties are feeling in their polls and truly find the numbers that matter.

The biggest thing that drives the current bowl system is money, and that wouldn’t change with conference redistricting (see below) and new tie-ins and bids to bowl games. If anything, money would flow more equitably to smaller schools, as strong performances at the mid-major level would be more likely to be recognized and rewarded as opposed to just getting beat down year after year in a tough conference.

Playoffs are the wrong idea

President-elect Obama said on the Nov. 3 “Monday Night Football” telecast that he wanted a playoff, and since then, every one and their mother has protested that the BCS is wrong and a playoff is the right way to settle everything. That seems to be the only thing Pro-Playoff Planners (PPP) agree on. No one can decide on a number of teams to include — eight, 16, 64? A four- or eight-team playoff doesn’t really give anyone else a chance, and what would be the formula for selecting teams? Conference champions? Top rankings? The BCS does that now and everyone is whining. If the number of teams gets larger than eight, it would devalue the regular season, and fans would still be left with lopsided picks and conferences being misrepresented.

The BCS does what it is supposed to do, even this year, when Texas got set aside: Decide which teams are No. 1 and No. 2. Oklahoma and Florida are the two hottest teams in the nation, and both deserve to be where they are. To have playoff games during final exams and the dead of winter just to get to where we are now is silly. Playoff fans don’t like conference championship games either, because they’re viewed as another excuse for the conference to get money and to grant an overmatched team another chance at a superior opponent. A playoff system would do exactly the same thing, minus all the revenue from a big sponsor, because the debate for home-field advantage or a neutral site is never-ending. Never mind the fact that traveling to an extra two or three games would kill fans’ pocketbooks. If playoff fans want to have teams play in what are now the BCS games and just work their way to a National Championship, who would be able to attend those games? Would the term “student-athlete” mean 0anything? If playoff fans want the teams to have home-field advantage, I’d like to see a show of hands of who thinks a game in the cold over winter break against Penn State at Happy Valley is good for anyone.

The argument for the BCS and for student-athletes is complemented and defended by…

Conference reconstruction

A problem plaguing college football, almost as badly as the idea for a playoff, is the current state of conferences in the FBS (formerly Division I-A). While old rivalries are great, conferences across the country are in disarray, with odd-numbered groupings, major conferences with eight or 13 teams, and terrible overlapping of boundaries simply for what some people call consistency of scheduling. This is ridiculous. History is great, but we have passed the time when the Big Ten always plays the Pac-10 for the Rose Bowl. We should also be past the time when teams travel 1,000 miles on a Tuesday night so they get their one-shot on ESPN and Notre Dame stays independent. In 2009, there will be exactly 120 schools in the FBS, as Western Kentucky jumps through hoops to be an independent and conferences stay muddled.

With six regional districts housing 20 teams that would include eight major teams (BCS berth) and 12 mid-majors (possible at-large BCS berth), these schools would have new opponents, chances for better non-conference games, less traveling, and more rivalries for recruiting and scheduling. I know this is radical, but conferences have become an excuse for a unifying logo and a chance for big-time schools to beat up on the same old competition. I’m doubting football fans without any money on the game lost any sleep over Boston College and Virginia Tech — both 5-3 conference teams — playing in Tampa in front of 10,000 people to decide a bowl berth with tie-ins worth $9.5 million.

A problem with major conferences (BCS-qualifying schools) is that large conferences like the Big 12 have to adjust their schedules to play their divisions and alternating teams from the other division.

This effect can create gauntlet schedules one year and cakewalks the next. The mid-majors could stand to be thrown into larger groupings, and they should be given a conference championship to determine their worth. Ball State getting thrashed by Buffalo in the MAC title game on Dec. 6 proved that, and the mid-majors could stand to be matched in tough conference games against non-traditional opponents. These unorthodox matchups would be aided by the fact that “old powers” that haven’t been good in years would be classified as mid-majors and would be playing for pride and a shot to earn back their prestige and power.

The best solution for the conferences, recruits, regional sponsors and fans would be to localize conferences and establish boundaries by geographic locations.

Texas and Florida have a combined 17 teams, in seven different conferences — an absurd number that finds low-budget teams UTEP and Central Florida in the same conference and Florida Atlantic and North Texas butting heads on certain years. By encouraging local and nearby games and rivalries, states and players would buy into the system, and with possible bowl bids on the line, formerly meaningless games would be translated into late-season television matchups.

Based on my formula with strength of schedule, poll rankings and record over the last two years, I put teams into regional districts with a chance to move up-or-down with mid-major and major conference teams over a two-year span.

The major conference’s seven-game conference schedule would eliminate the silly three-way tie the Big 12 saw through mathematical impossibility. Any close rankings or debates could be solved with better nonconference matchups and bowl games people would want to watch.

The top conference by region, with a BCS berth, would play those seven games against the other top competition, giving them four or five games to play rivalries, out of conference, or mid-major teams from the same conference that would count as neutral on the conference schedule.

Messing with history

An objection to the reconstruction is the way a massive shakeup would kill old conference traditions and the bowl games associated with those conferences.

The way tie-ins for bowl games are now has already shaken everything up, and while there may be those who enjoy nonconference rivalry games, rivalries that take place with a lot of pride and a conference championship at stake provide the backdrop for primetime television (see: Michigan before Rich-Rodriguez vs. Ohio State). The new conferences would be for regional pride as well as conference standings.

Quelling, money complaints

The conference shakeup would provide close locations for road games, meaning less stress on expenses for athletic departments, and with each of the six conferences boasting top teams, advertising and game revenues would increase. Attendance would undoubtedly increase, as playing a nearby school every year would inspire more fans to travel to games they may not have ever gone to. Iowa State playing every year against Northern Illinois would definitely get fans to travel and boost city and university incomes.

Positive of close competition

The best reason to argue with the regionalizing of conferences is to get teams closer to all their games and let the players be student-athletes and not the other way around. While Texas and Oklahoma have had two of the best records in the country the last few years, they also have the worst graduation rates in the Big 12.

Success on the field doesn’t necessarily mean success in the classroom, and schools should be rewarded for academic performance. What better way to let them excel academically than to let them stay at the university longer and give them rewards at every level for schooling improvements? The close proximity of the conferences would also create new rivalries between schools in the same area, but that may not play every year. All three schools in Dallas are in different conferences and don’t always meet up. In-state rivalries could be reborn or even just created, and that kind of pride would bring revenue.

Conclusion

I understand the idea is radical, but from a by-stander who doesn’t have millions at stake through bowl berths, I’m trying to provide an objective solution for the game I love. Please don’t let the “elite” at ESPN make up our minds for us — this proposal would bring more fans to a game that gets more exciting every year.