We have all heard solutions to the BCS. I admit, the BCS is a complete cluster !@#$%. It presumes that arm chair viewers can determine who are the two best teams instead of deciding it on the field. In addition, people will have a cow if the bowls are scrapped. My personal opinion is that the bowls are silly. The only decent argument I have heard for keeping the bowls is recruiting. However, I have a solution that keeps all but one bowl a year intact and still has a playoff.

Solution 1#: Least impactful

Have the top four teams play a single game (two games total) in the first week of December using ranking to determine home field. That intensifies the regular season as the rankings would be more imporant than ever. After that game is played, those two teams play in the championship game scheduled about when the current BCS championship game is schedule. Thus, that could be on January 1st or could be a little later. The bowl seeding would then work exactly as it does now accounting for host bowls losing a team. This does not push the season any longer. If it were, teams could cut back one game in order to accomodate. That would make the season as short as it was two years ago.

Solution #2: Better 

Same idea as above, except that you play two weeks of games in the first two weeks of December. You seed the top eight teams and after both games are played everyone gets seeded into bowls as they would have normally.

Both solutions keep the bowls intact, have the least impact on the schedule and might actually produce a champion on which everyone can agree. Of course, it also maintains the big six conference's strangehold on all the money.

The Patriots are probably the luckiest post-cap team in the NFL. They managed to fill the most expensive, hardest to fill, position by a sixth round draft pick that is unselfish. The biggest reason for the Patriot's dominance over the past seven years or so is Tom Brady. Don't give me the nonsense that Belichick is some sort of genius. If that is the case, he'd have draft Brady earlier than the sixth round to ensure that no one else got him. Being able to draft your starting quarterback in the six round is an advantage of epic propotions. Even if Brady were only good instead of great, it would still be a huge advantage. On top of that Brady is not (as) selfish. He should be the highest paid player in football and yet he realizes that in order to win Super Bowls he can't be. The worst possible situation is having to draft your starting quarterback #1 overall like the Raiders and Colts. Sure, Manning is great but the biggest reason for the Colts struggle is that they cannot consistently assemble a running game and now are lacking receivers and that is a direct result of having to pay an enormous chunk for Manning.

The NFL really must address rookie salaries. They need a one or two year set salary schedule for rookies based on draft position and play position. That would enable struggling teams to actually improve. As it is now, drafting in the top 10 is only good for every pick after the first round.

So, today Al decided to sign DeAngelo Hall for $70 million with $24.5 million guaranteed. Potentially, it could give the Raiders the best corners in football. However, I think it is more likely to expose their swiss cheese run defense in addition to showing that Hall, while serviceable, is not one of the best corners in football. What incentive does Hall have to play at peak performance? He's bagged his pie in the sky. He's damn near as rich as Russell.

The modern NFL is all about maximizing value. The pre-cap NFL was about maximizing talent. In the pre-cap days, you could afford to pool talent and potential talent and take time to develop it. The days of say the 1970's Cowboys with a starting quarterback like Staubach and backup like White are gone. In the post-cap NFL, you must do more than maximize talent. You must maximize value. You must get the most for the least because you are limited in what you can pay. Want the best quarterback in the NFL? The price is money, less team talent and and less depth. The only exception to the rule is a "big push." It works by selling your soul (your franchise's future) to the Devil and getting as much talent in a short period of time in the hopes of making a run at the Super Bowl. Whether you make it or not, the fall out is that you lose draft picks and cap room and end up decimating your franchise for four or five years. 

It looks like Al is making a big push. He's 80 and it looks like he's using the new money infusion he got by selling a stake of the Raiders to stock the Raiders with more than enough talent to make a run at the big show. IMO, if the Raiders do not get the Super Bowl in the next two years, they'll fall lower than they are now.

I've seen more than a couple of mock drafts that predict the Raiders will take McFadden with the #4 pick. The logic is entirely based on the assumption that Davis still thinks it is 1977 instead of 2007 (I'll concede all points regarding the sweatsuits and hairdo) and that you should always draft speed regardless of whether they fit into your system. This of course ignores many years of Davis drafts.

The Raiders currently have four backs on their roster all of which could probably start or share starting time for most NFL teams (Vargas, Jordan, Rhodes, Bush). IMO, drafting McFadden, beyond his extensive off the field issues, would be a galactic mistake.

The Raiders just lost Sapp. They desperately need linemen both offensive and defensive. If Dorsey is not available, then they should take Sedric Ellis.  Forget all of the USC relations and such, Ellis is the first or second best defensive lineman in the draft. I can see arguments for trading down, but if they cannot and Dorsey is taken, then Ellis is the right fit.