Hey, buddy, you’re watching the wrong kind of football

Unbuckling the mailbag:

Question: Years ago I decided to start watching the English Premier League (soccer) and stopped watching college football. The champs in the EPL get that crown by winning on the field. Wow! Whoever came up with that idea?

Pete Ventura

Centerville, Ohio

Answer: You should be ashamed — and then deported — for living in Centerville, Ohio, and not bowing to the altar of college pigskin.

Jim Tressel knows where you live — but please don’t move to Ventura.

Using soccer as a reason to not watch college football is a pretty flimsy argument given that your favorite sport won’t even use instant replay to get plays right in key events like, say, World Cup qualifier matches.

Call me green, but I’ll take football at Notre Dame over handball against Ireland.

FIFA makes the Bowl Championship Series look like the Dead Poets Society.

Also, when a college football player gets injured on the field, he’s really hurt — unless it’s a Stanford player trying to slow down Oregon’s breakneck offense.

And don’t get me started about using penalty kicks to decide the outcome of games.

At least if the BCS title game is tied after regulation, they don’t have a field goal contest to determine the national champion.

Q: It is my understanding that you oppose a playoff. If that is true, then should you tell your readers that? If I am in error, then I beg forgiveness.

Robert

San Diego

A: I don’t necessarily oppose a playoff. I think the Plus One model could work in conjunction with the BCS standings and not threaten the bowl system. The debate is over the Plus One model. Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive proposed a “seeded” playoff a few years back that would have matched the top four teams in the final BCS standings. No. 1 would play No. 4, and No. 2 would play No. 3. Of course, No. 5 wouldn’t be too happy, but neither would No. 17 in a 16-team playoff. Slive’s model was shot down because the word “seeded” scared university presidents, who thought it would lead to a more expanded playoff.

Left on the table was the “unseeded” plan, which would re-calculate the BCS standings after the bowls and then play off the top two teams. The unseeded plan would at least add another layer of games to boil down the top schools, but it is not foolproof.

What if No. 1 and No. 2 are playing in the Rose Bowl? Why would the winner want to play another game?

Any move toward a playoff will be incremental. You need to build off of the Plus One and see where it goes. Jumping straight to a 16-team format is not going to happen.

Q: Why do we need a national championship? The fact that we have one in basketball but not football argues as strongly for eliminating the basketball championship as it does for adding one in football. What does either a football playoff or the BCS add to the education of the students?

Kevin M. Minihan

Los Angeles

A: What, are you looking to start a riot? I did propose a few years ago using the BCS standings for college basketball with the title game being played in the Rose Basket Bowl, but it didn’t get much positive response.

Q: What’s to love about the BCS?

Matthew Gaskill

Boston

A: How do I love the BCS? Let me count the ways. Look, I’ve admitted to being selfish about this. I understand how a fan would be frustrated with the current system, but for a sportswriter the BCS is the gift that keeps on giving. Losing the BCS for me would be like late-night television joke writers losing Paris Hilton.

Where else can you lampoon writers voting their alma maters No.1? Or voting coaches who demand accountability from their players but won’t make public their weekly votes?

Where else can you find folks like BCS computer operator Peter Wolfe who, when not breaking down college football scores, is trying to cure infectious diseases?

Q: By giving all 11 conference champs a playoff invite, you are allowing completely undeserving teams into the dance. And likely leaving out teams from power conferences who can’t get an at-large bid under that plan. You mean to say that the third- or fourth-best SEC team should be given less credence than the winner of a minor conference?

Neal Kendall

A: That seems like a pretty good argument to me. It’s a misnomer to even suggest the best teams make the NCAA basketball tournament. You have to give automatic bids to champions from very weak conferences at the expense of better teams from power conferences.

Sure, the little guys get a chance…to get clobbered. Since the NCAA tournament was expanded in 1985, the 16th-seeded schools are 0-104 against top-seeded schools. No. 15 is 4-100 against No. 2.

It’s not even true the best team always wins the NCAA basketball tournament, because that’s hard to prove in a single-elimination event.

Trust me, if there were a 16-team playoff in football, people would start crying about the SEC team that got left out because the Sun Belt champion got in.

Q: How do you love a system that anoints two teams and “decides” which two are “most worthy?”

Tony Prock

A: How do you love your child when he spills grape juice on the carpet or, years later, pierces his navel and his nose?

You just do.

Q: We are now two-and-a-half years into Rick Neuheisel’s tenure. Is it fair to make a judgment at this point? Do you think Neuheisel will eventually be successful at UCLA or just another sad chapter in our recent history?

Robin Joshi

P.S. Your 4-8 or 5-7 prediction is looking a tad optimistic at this point.

A: I don’t mean to be mean when I make these predictions — just honest. It is entirely fair to make a judgment on Neuheisel in his third year. UCLA should be better than this, and the off-field problems should be a concern to Bruin fans. That said, Neuheisel has had to deal with numerous injuries and the Pac-10 is a bear this year — as UCLA just found out at Cal.

I still think Neuheisel gets five years, which is what Karl Dorrell got. And with Pete Carroll gone, and USC ranking No. 100 in total defense this week, there’s still a chance for UCLA to re-take the town.

Q: Wow. You guys sound so disappointed that UCLA suspended only two players. Were you hoping for more?

Bruin Nation

A: I would have been happy with zero.

Q: Are you a reporter or a cheerleader?

Karen Magee

A: Both. Yesterday I broke the story-planning meeting with, “Two, four, six, eight, who should we investigate?”

Q: Boise, Utah, Texas Christian are all going to be in the top 12 of the BCS rankings. Why doesn’t MWC have an auto-bid?

Brian Gailey

Las Vegas

A: 1) Boise State doesn’t join the Mountain West until next year, and 2) There was no Mountain West when the BCS was formed in 1998, so it couldn’t give an automatic bid to nothing. There is a formula by which the Mountain West champion can earn a guaranteed spot in the BCS, and the league was on track to earn the seventh automatic bid. However, the loss of Utah and Brigham Young next year compromises that goal.

Q: Conspiracy? The Gamecocks were No. 19 and ‘Bama was No. 1 when they played. ‘Bama fell seven spots and SC is up nine. Sounds about right.

Jason Morton

Tuscaloosa, Ala.

A: It’s refreshing to receive occasional questions from neutral observers who are just looking for honest answers and not just trying to blindly defend their hometown teams.

As you state, the polls got it “about” right — but not quite.

Here’s the precedent for why South Carolina should be ranked ahead of Alabama:

In 1996, No. 17 Arizona State shocked No.1 Nebraska, 19-0, in Tempe. Arizona State moved to No. 6 and Nebraska dropped to No. 8. Sounds about right.

Q: I’m starting to worry about things you might do to yourself if Boise loses a game.

Dexter Fishmore

Hollywood

A: Not to worry. I’ve got a reversible, souvenir jersey from last year’s Fiesta Bowl ready to be turned inside out to TCU.

chris.dufresne@latimes.com