What's Really Wrong With the BCS

The title is not a question. There are many reasons to dislike the BCS system, and some reasonable arguments in favor. By scouring the internet and various sports magazines you will find numerous experts proclaiming that the BCS system is the best possible way to produce a real national champion in NCAA football..."Outside of a playoff system". They always throw that in at the end.

Whenever you run across someone saying that the NCAA won't go to a playoff system and that the BCS system is just fine and dandy, just listen real close to how they make the argument. They don't say that the BCS system is better than a playoff system, they tell you how hard it would be to come up with a playoff system that would work. Their argument always comes down to "It would be too hard, so let's just stick with the BCS." In case you doubt me, just go to the BCS Website and look at some of the articles in the Media Coverage section.

Here is a perfect example of what I mean. Just the title of this piece makes my point. "Want a playoff? Then tell me how it works! It could be great for college football, but it doesn't translate." It would be too hard, so just forget it!

It's a good thing these guys weren't around when the founding fathers were trying to form a more perfect republic. "It's too haaaaarrrddd! And what's wrong with having a king, anyway?" "Do they really expect us to vote every two years?!?!" "Soldiers kicking in the doors occasionally isn't so bad!"

Making excuses is easy, making things right requires effort!! And having teams like Auburn and Cal getting flamed by a few voters who haven't even watched them play is just plain wrong. If the NCAA wants a champion crowned they should do the right thing and start a playoff, no matter how hard it is.

Now, here are the reasons the current BCS system is bad for football.

1. True football championships are won on the field!!! Frozen, muddy, wind-swept, snow-covered fields!! Save your votes for figure skaters, gymnastics, and diving.

2. The BCS incorporates strength of conference in its computer rankings. Strength of conference?!? Please. That is like arguing that the Pittsburgh Steelers aren't really that good because they play in a weak division. Ridiculous. Is Auburn's talent really diminished by a weaker conference? BTW, Auburn is the only team in the top 10 to go 2-0 against other top 10 teams. How does their weaker conference affect that?

3. It used to be big-time taboo to run up the score on other teams. USC recently ran a fake punt late in the game against Notre Dame when they had the big lead. Nobody even blinked!! And Notre Dame fired their coach the following week. Do you think being embarrassed by their arch-rivals that way on national TV had a little something to do with that? If there is any justice, USC will lose by 4 TDs to Oklahoma, who also had a chance to run up a few scores and declined to do so. Look here for more on that.

4. It used to be that football coaches wanted their teams to get better as the season wore on. How many times have we heard how important it is to be playing your best ball at the end of the year? That is no longer the case. It is now apparent that a team can't lose a single game and hope to have a chance to win the BCS. A team that wants to win it all can't even afford to lose a close game against a highly rated rival on their rival's field on a last second 60-yard field goal. If they do, they are out.

5. Tradition. One of the great things about college football is the tradition. In no other sport do you find rival teams playing for the honor of hoisting brown jugs, giant axes, bronze pigs, or some other unique piece of hardware. And while traditions like those will never be affected by the BCS, other traditions are affected. The most glaring example is the Rose Bowl. Traditionally, it pitted the PAC-10 and Big 10 champs and, over the years, provided some of the most entertaining games in college football history. The Rose Bowl was dragged into the BCS partly on the promise that it would continue to get PAC-10 and Big 10 teams in the years it did not host the BCS Championship game. That has not happened, and this year it became even more of an issue when Cal was passed over by a trivial margin and not allowed to play in the big game it wanted. The BCS has become so rigid that it will not even allow this grand tradition to continue, even though it may anger the very people who could withdraw from the BCS if angered further.

These are the five areas in which I believe the current BCS has failed miserably. I have not even touched on some of the more egregious shortcomings of the BCS, such as the computer rankings.
In future posts I will take a closer look at the BCS computer rankings, polls and their voters, and other issues. The goal here is not to eliminate the BCS. Some positive progress has been made by the BCS and I would, grudgingly, admit that the current system probably comes closer to choosing a real nation champion than the old system. The goal here is to come up with a system that works and that decides its champion on the field, not the ballot box or the CPU.

Next week I will look deeper into the BCS rankings. What are they, where do they come from, and what do they really mean? I would also welcome any comments, suggestions (please keep it clean), and especially any links to more information concerning the internal workings of the BCS and who the individual people are in the BCS. I am not looking to criticize any individuals, but to have a complete picture of the BCS and its value to the sport of football, we need to know who is running it.

And to those who say "Tell me how you would fix it!", in January I will post my two options for a playoff system and describe how they would deal with problems critics say are the impediment to a playoff system. I will then plug in the teams that I believe might have played each other, and give my opinion as to how it might have progressed. And I will crown a champion, too. If the BCS can do it their way, I can do it mine.