Why The BCS Just Flat Out Stinks

The Bowl Championship Series is college football’s way of sorting out elite teams to play each other at the end of the season, including a national championship game. The BCS was instituted in 1999 and has caused controversy every year since (unknown 1). The BCS was initially formed to match up elite teams in bowl games, and supposedly have a national championship game to decide the national champion (unknown 1). The problem: how do you decipher the number two team in the country from the number three, four, and five teams in the country especially when they have the same records? How can anyone tell what win is better than another win another team had? How is one team’s 12-0 better than the next? Humans can not even really tell so how can we expect a computer to. So is a playoff system the best bet for college football or would it mess up traditions and turn out to do more harm than good?
The BCS consists of the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls and rewards all of the major conference champions, but what makes a “major” conference (unknown 1). The BCS the way it is leaves to many teams without a realistic chance to play for a national title. A team like Utah in 2009 or Boise State 2007 who beat teams like Alabama and Oklahoma where undefeated but were not considered national champions. When Boise beat Oklahoma they were the only team that was unbeaten and were not national champs. However, then we see a team like Hawaii go unbeaten in the regular season but they got manhandled by Georgia. So how can one tell when a small conference unbeaten is a legit national championship game participant? Alabama had one loss all year and that was to eventual national champ Florida in the SEC Championship. Utah then beat Alabama in the Fiesta Bowl so why shouldn’t Utah be able to have a shot at a national title? Oklahoma played Florida in the title game as Big 12 champions but had one loss and Utah had none, so what makes Oklahoma better than Utah? It seems like teams get in based on their name alone, Utah is not known as a “football” school with a lot of tradition as Oklahoma is. Also the BCS knows that they will draw in more money if Oklahoma plays for a national title than if Utah did. Boise State was the only unbeaten in the 2006-2007 season but did not even sniff the national title game. It seems like that the “little” schools get unfair treatment when it comes to playing for a national title. What if a Utah or Boise State truly is the best team in the country? With the current system we will never know if they are or where because a “little” school will never get a chance to play in a national championship game.
Another problem that comes up with the BCS is when three or more “big” schools go unbeaten or have the same record. The 2004 season is a perfect example, Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC where undefeated but only two teams get to play for a national championship. USC was a “clear” number one but why? Oklahoma was 12-0 as was Auburn, so what makes Oklahoma’s 12-0 better than Auburn’s? First thing people look at is strength of schedule, but if you look at who Auburn beat that year they beat three teams that were ranked in the top ten one of which being on the road while Oklahoma didn’t have any. USC beat Notre Dame on the road and Oregon but where those teams as good as LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee? We do not know that either and if you want to go by the “rankings” the three where ranked higher than any team that Oklahoma or USC beat. So how does the BCS decide that USC and Oklahoma play for the championship instead of Auburn and Oklahoma or Auburn and USC? Wasn’t the SEC considered the best conference in football, then how does the “computer” not put in a undefeated SEC champion in the national championship game? Doesn’t seem to make sense, especially since the Sooners got annihilated in the championship game against USC. There has been only one year in recent memory that the BCS has seemed to have gotten it right, and that was when Texas and USC played for the title in 2005. That year those two teams were clearly the two best in college football, but every other year it seems like there is another team out there that has a legit argument to play in the national championship game.
So what is the solution? A playoff sounds pretty good to me, and several other college football fans, coaches, and players. I mean every other division in college football has a playoff system, as does the NFL, and High Schools. So what is major college football’s problem? Anti playoff people argue that it damages the bowl games, and that it decreases the importance of the regular season, but doesn’t everyone want to know who the best team is? A simple solution is to have bowl games with in the playoffs and teams who do not qualify for the playoff but are what is now considered “bowl eligible” can play in smaller bowl games. That way you have a clear champion and teams that are bowl eligible can play in a bowl game. Then anti playoff people say that it will hurt college football financially. Have they seen the revenue that the NCAA basketball tournament has? Football is more popular than basketball and if the NCAA basketball tournament makes that much money just imagine what a football tournament would bring in.
College football is too good of a sport not to have a clear cut champion and to be a guessing game in December. Let the kids play for a spot in the national title game instead of having to see if the computer gives them a shot in the title game. Can we finally get a playoff system that gives smaller schools just as good of an opportunity to be national champions as Oklahoma or USC, it is only fair. If I were a player at a school such as a TCU, Boise State, and Utah I would feel that I was not be given as equal as of an opportunity to play for a national championship as a fellow student at Oklahoma no matter how good my team’s record is. A contrary argument is that a playoff is not necessary, and that it is clear enough to determine the top two teams by season results and conference championship games (Hooper). Wait a minute, so having six teams with no losses is easy to determine two of the six teams twelve wins is better than the other four. Exactly how does that work, to me it seems like that philosophy is about as strong as the BCS system itself. College football is rich with rivalries, upsets, passion, and pride. Adding a playoff would only make college football bigger than it already is, not to mention the fact that if you have a bad game in the regular season you do not feel that you no longer have a chance at a national championship.
I have looked at past BCS championship games trying to find when there was a year when two teams were clearly the two best in the country, the only ones that seemed not to have controversy was when Texas played USC in a game that was a classic, and Virginia Tech against Florida State. The key thing during both of those years was that they were the only unbeatens. Every other year there has been a third or fourth team with the same record than the second ranked team who played for a title. So for those that say the BCS works as it is must think that being right two out of ten times is a good percentage. Two and ten, coaches lose their jobs when they have a record like that after a couple of years, but the BCS continues operating on its current system almost never making everyone feel content. I will finish up with this, if a coach loses his job for having a dismal record after a season or two can the BCS be fired after being unquestionably right two times in the last decade? Give college football what it needs and deserves, a playoff. That way it is fair for everyone and everyone who goes unbeaten has a chance to prove to the country that they have the right to be called national champions, let the kids go play!
-Kyle