The Retort

To BCS or Not to BCS?

November 18th, 2011 by Cory Lovec Of The Retort Staff

To be or not to BCS? That is the question - that is, the question that arises at the end of every college football season. And, here we go again…with the end of the season in sight, and most teams having only a few games left, the question of whether or not the BCS is truly the best thing for college football comes up once more.

Each year, the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) chooses 10 teams in the nation to play in a series of five different BCS Bowl games. These games are typically the ones that are, of course, the most-hyped, and include the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, and BCS National Championship. The BCS does not get criticized for having “bad” games; in fact, they regularly have good match-ups and the games tend to be exciting. However, the problem most people have with the BCS system is HOW teams are picked to play in these BCS Bowls.

The BCS uses a distinct set of rules (which most people do not know or understand) to determine which teams will earn the right to compete in the BCS bowl games. Certain teams are guaranteed berths into these bowl games, based on which conference they are in, and whether or not they won that conference. For example, winners of the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big East conferences will automatically earn bids into BCS games (the actual guidelines for which teams play which bowls are somewhat complicated - and will not be delved into greatly here). Sometimes (rarely), these rules work brilliantly, and the games are the exciting game we all hope for. However, there are many times that this system has major flaws.

It seems as though the BCS makes at least one glaring mistake each year. For instance, last year, the Fiesta Bowl - following the BCS rules - featured the champion of the Big 12 (Oklahoma), and the Champion of the Big East (Connecticut). Both teams received their automatic bid. However, Connecticut was only 8-4 going into the games, and lost 48-20. Connecticut (8-4) made it into one of the BCS bowls - which are supposed to be reserved for the 10 best teams in the nation - while other teams that had two or three losses didn’t even get a chance to compete. Connecticut, with a final record of 8-5, actually didn’t even finish in the Associated Press Final Top 25 Ranking! This seemingly obvious mistake is just one of the many.

Now, aside from the improper assumption that the winner of a “BCS conference” is one of the Top 10 teams in the nation, many people believe the system for deciding who plays in the National Championship is also flawed. The BCS uses its “special formula” to decide the Top 2 college football teams, and a one-game National Championship is played. There is seldom agreement with which teams should be chosen to play in the National Championship. For example, the 2004 BCS National Championship pitted USC against Oklahoma; the outcome: the most lopsided National Championship game ever, with USC smashing the Sooners 55-19. Both USC and Oklahoma were picked by the computer system to play. However, there were actually five teams that finished the 2004 regular season undefeated (Boise State, Utah, Oklahoma, Auburn, and USC), yet Oklahoma and USC were chosen as the “Top 2” teams. Once again, this is just one example of the many. If there had been a playoff system, would we all have seen a better Championship game? Is it fair that teams can have an undefeated regular season and not go to a BCS bowl while teams with four losses can?

A playoff system for college football would help teams like the Boise State Broncos (who are in a Non-BCS conference). Boise State has lost more than one game in a season only twice since 2002. In that span, Boise State claimed the Western Athletic Conference eight times, and won five bowl games, including two BCS Bowls. But the Broncos were never really in the conversation for a National Championship, for the reason that they don’t play as many “contenders” or “good teams” as other BCS conference teams do. That is what a playoff system could potentially solve.

If the winner of each conference was guaranteed a playoff spot and a bracket was set, there would not be near the amount of controversy every year. Of course, there will always be controversy with whatever system is put into place. Right now, the NCAA membership has not even voted for the creation of a playoff. The main reason why: they do not know how to determine a “true” national champion while still allowing for the classic rivalries and tradition that draw many people to college football. The U.S. Congressional House Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman called the Bowl Championship Series controversial and “deeply flawed,” and actually held a hearing on the system. Most people would agree that eventually a new system will be developed. There is simply too much disagreement each year over the current BCS system; but whether a “better” system - one that satisfies more people - can actually be developed remains to be seen.