This is a bit of a ramble on, and takes a look into my thought process more than anything. Comments will be taken into consideration and my plan modified accordingly. Unlike other writers I realize that I can't be everywhere at once and understand everything so I am sure I overlooked something here that needs to be adjusted. The BCS has taken a beating, and everyone tries to throw out the word "playoffs" as if it will cure cancer. I am here to propose what I feel will be a fair way to crown a true champion without ditching the BCS or moving to a playoff format. It is a "dream" scenario so treat it as such.

The first change (that will never happen) is Notre Dame finally caving in to join the Big Ten. I realize having twelve team is a little silly given the name of the conference but who put "Big" in there in the first place? On that same subject, this wouldn't be a problem had the Southwest Conference simply kept their name in place when it expanded from 8 teams.

The second change is equally far fetched, but the Pacific 10 conference would add Utah of the Mountain West and Fresno State from the WAC. You see, in this system having all the conferences feature two divisions of six with a championship game is the fair way to go.

In the Big 10 you could put Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State into a North division with Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue and Notre Dame in a South division. That seems to make more sense than East/West given that you couldn't put Michigan, Ohio State and Notre Dame all in the same division.

In the Pac-10 (easily renamed the Pac-12 or simply the Pacific Conference) you would have a very difficult split with five teams being paired up in four states geographically. That would force both new teams to join the new Southeast division comprised of Arizona, Arizona State, Fresno State, Utah, USC and UCLA. The Northeast division would be Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California and Stanford. If perhaps you think that isn't fair, I give you the Big XII North and inform you that even the weak existing Pac-10 teams generally are better than Fresno State or Utah. If your argument is that these added teams will get killed, well maybe at first but realize that recruiting for a team added to the Pac-10 will bolster their prospects immensely. These two schools seem to make sense from a geographic standpoint and both have had flashes of solid play.

With now 5 monster 12 team conferences (Big 10 supersized, Big XII, ACC, SEC and Pac-12) you will get just as many solid teams deserving of a trip to the BCS after enduring a tough conference schedule and winning a championship game. That leaves one conference out of the mix, plus the "mid majors" as they are called but not to worry.

The Big East in its current form has 8 pretty weak teams while Conference USA and the MAC are already prepped for my new championship format. The Mountain West and WAC would have 8 teams after each lost one to the Pac-10. In a bold bit of marketing there would be an "East-West" grudge match which is between the conference title game and bowls, sort of like an NCAA basketball "play in" game. The highest BCS rated C-USA, MAC or Big East winner would face off against the highest rated MWC or WAC conference champion. If any conference is uninterested in being involved they can be cut out of potential BCS profits a game like this would generate, which I sincerely doubt. The winner of this tilt would be the sixth entrant in the BCS and be assigned a seed like everyone else.

Now with 6 solid BCS champion tested teams to choose from, there will be 2 spots assigned to the highest rated BCS teams left, regardless of conference affiliation. Those spots would be occupied by a hard luck undefeated team who lost in their title game, etc. If you think after all this football there will be a controversy well you are probably right. However, by reducing the required conference games to let's say 7 (5 against your division, 2 rotating against other division) and 4 non-conference opponents we might start on a road towards equity.

Projecting this out, you would wind up with the same result for an ACC (Florida State? Virginia Tech?) Big XII (Texas? Texas Tech?) and SEC (anyone's guess) champion. The Pac-10 would probably boil down to a title game between California and USC. The Big-10 is another tough one to call, but it sure would be interesting. The Big East champ would probably be the regular entrant in the East-West game, but if this policy was in place those three conferences would be scheduling a ton of games against each other trying to get one over to gain BCS points. I would take West Virginia as the cream of the crop this season. As for the MWC/WAC (which would be sans Fresno State and Utah) it still might wind up being TCU. That would leave West Virginia vs. TCU and if you think you know who would win that game you are lying because football is a strange game. Perhaps the Big East team wins their win in, but at least they have to win an additional game against a quality opponent after proving they have a superior BCS qualifying mark against two other conferences.

If you put a gun to my head (please don't) I would take USC, Florida State, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State and West Virginia as the entrants in this system as conference champions. Virginia Tech, California, Georgia, Tennessee and Miami, FL would probably be vying for the two at-large bids. I still see it being USC vs. Texas for all the marbles, leaving Florida State vs. Alabama as a very important game behind it because in my system the BCS #3 plays #4. Ohio State vs. the best at-large sounds like the #5 vs. #6 game leaving the other at-large to meet #8 West Virginia. No discussions about which game is the best for television, just the best teams playing the best teams.I think the idiots running college football would be surprised how many people would watch (and show up) if that was their primary interest.

If this same system had been in place last year, Boise State would have met Pittsburgh in the "play-in" game or possibly (assuming they perhaps weren't the MWC team to move) Utah would have beaten them therefore saving a BCS bid for a team that would actually play ball. Either way, controversies would have been lessened right off the bat. My system would have had USC vs. Oklahoma (as happened) Auburn vs. Texas (would Vince Young have beaten them?) California vs. Utah (Alex Smith vs. Aaron Rodgers anyone?) and Georgia vs. the Boise State/Pittsburgh winner. I really think Texas might have beaten Auburn, making their whining a moot point. Utah could have used the Texas Tech game plan to derail Cal, but we don't really know because the coaching staff is different although my inclination is that they would have, making a serious argument as co-champs with USC. See, I said this might not solve the problem. Georgia blowing out whoever they met would prove nothing, but sometimes upsets happen and on a year to year basis you just don't know.