COTTRELL COLUMN: What happens if No. 1 isn't Top Dawg?

Well, we now have both preseason polls out for the 2008 college football season, and Georgia is the favorite of both the media and coaches to win the national championship.

But what if the Bulldogs falter?

There are numerous teams just waiting in the wings for such an outcome. Teams like USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma and West Virginia, just to name a few.

But what if 2008 winds up a lot like 2007?

Let’s just say we have another year where everyone has two losses. How are you going to pick who goes to the title game?

Numerous factors are obviously at play here, such as when teams lost, who they lost to, etc.

But it all comes back to one problem: Certain teams have an advantage coming out of the gate.

SEC fans are all too aware of this, as Auburn was left out in the cold by this scenario in 2004, and LSU was rewarded for two months of underachieving last season.

Starting high in the polls gives you an inherent advantage over teams that start lower or start out not ranked at all.

Take Kansas last year, for instance.

The Jayhawks were one of only three teams in the entire country to lose less than two games in the regular season. It’s true that they didn’t win their conference, but they did beat a good Virginia Tech team in the Orange Bowl.

Who’s to say the Jayhawks didn’t deserve a shot?

But since Kansas started unranked, they weren’t able to recover from losing their last game of the season, even though they had moved to No. 2 in the poll by the time they lost to archrival Missouri.

Preseason polls are a problem.

Now, TV networks would never allow the AP or USA Today to drop their preseason polls (it would be bad for ratings) and I don’t think fans would actually enjoy it all that much if it happened, but something needs to be done.

That something is that the BCS needs to revert back to its old formula.

Back when the much-bemoaned system started in 1998, it not only featured the human and computer polls, but also featured a strength-of-schedule barometer and a penalty for losses.

The formula actually even improved in 2001 when they added the quality win component.

But all of that was dropped after 2004, which was a terrible move.

If you’re going to be in the business of crowning a champion, and you’re not going to let that championship be played out on the field, you need to find a system that’s as fair as humanly possible in determining who gets a shot at that championship.

Devaluing the human element is the best way to go.

Pollsters know their football. I’m not questioning that. But you’ve already got a bias for teams you thought would be good at the start of the season, so if the year ends in a jumble like last year — or even one not quite as bad — you’re probably going to give your preseason darling the benefit of the doubt, if a case can be made that it deserves it.

But if you can go back to a system where the human element doesn’t play as much of a role (the polls make up two-thirds of the current formula, as opposed to one-fifth of the system used from 2001-2004), you’re giving everyone a better shot at getting a piece of the pie.

Because when you have as many as seven teams with a case for being in the title game like last year, you need to have some solid criteria for who gets there.

Or, we can just keep hoping for two clear-cut, undefeated teams.

Which one seems more likely to you?

Next week
BCS conference predictions.

Tim Cottrell is sports designer of the Opelika-Auburn News. He will write a weekly column on college football during the season. You can also read him on the O-A Sports Blog at oanow.com. He can be reached at 737-2511 or by e-mail at tcottrell@oanow.com.