Once again, the BCS has proven itself to be severely flawed, this time by allowing the human factor to carry too much weight in its ratings.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Florida playing Ohio State in the National Championship Game. I'd rather have seen a rematch with Michigan, but I can understand several points of view that argue the Wolverines don't belong there. The most compelling of those opinions is that Michigan had its opportunity in November and failed. Can't argue with that. In fact, had Michigan beaten Ohio State, he chances of a rematch might have been far greater than what turned out to be. It's hard to say if the pollsters would have leapfrogged Florida over Ohio State like they did with Michigan.
Which brings me to the main point of this column. The BCS needs to make up its mind — is it going to be a computer poll that is entirely objective based on stats, schedule, and record, or is it going to be steered by the human polls? In years past, BCS critics have pined over the computers screwing up certain schools' chances of getting to the title game. This year, they're bashing the voters for clearly colluding to keep Michigan out.
If the whole goal of the BCS is to ensure the two best teams meet in the season finale, then it has to come up with a better way to be entirely objective. Probably the best way to accomplish that is to take the human factor out entirely. That may sound impossible, since computers must be programmed by people, but the human factor can become so minor that it really is no factor at all.
For example, if one computer ranking system places more weight on statistics than other factors, and another program places more weight on schedule strength, and another places more weight on quality wins/losses, all put together, it might create the ideal ranking system that incorporates all the major factors without personal opinion. That's not to say that either Michigan or Florida would be the Buckeyes' foe in Glendale. With Boise State being undefeated...
Anyway, what happened with the coaches poll giving Florida such an inordinate number of points between the final week of the season and the SEC championship is an absolute travesty. What that did was basically render the BCS ratings entirely invalid. Why do computer rankings need to be included if the human polls can still dictate who plays for the national championship? Can't that be accomplished without the computers, as it was prior to the BCS? Of course it can, but those who like and support the BCS use the computers as a guise that they say assist in making accurate selections for the title game, "because the humans couldn't get it right in the past." Evidently, the humans still rule the roost.
Which brings me, once again, to cry out for a playoff. I mean, come on, if the pollsters can have that much sway in the final ratings so as to boost the number three team that, two weeks before, was a long-shot for the national championship into the number two spot, then why narrow their focus to just two teams? In a playoff, with the BCS ratings still in use, all we're talking about is seeds, baby! Who cares if Florida is a number two or three seed in the playoffs? They'd still get a home game in the first round and they'd play either Virginia Tech or Wake Forest in a 16-team format, or Wisconsin or Louisville in an 8-team format. Does anyone believe that the Gators would lose to any of those teams?
And don't give me any sob story about making the kids play extra games and cutting into their precious study time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it can work in the lower divisions, why can't it work in I-A? That's the point — it can. Plus, the current bowl structure can be incorporated into the playoff system and have several bowls to spare for those schools that don't make the tournament. (If you want a complete, detailed plan on how this would be set up, send me an e-mail or comment below.)
The bottom line is, until the wise choice is made to establish a playoff system, the BCS still needs some major tweaking. But, to correlate it to an automobile, how long do you put up with fixing a lemon before you trade it in for something more reliable? When it comes to college football, the time is now to get rid of the old beater and upgrade to a newer model.
December 19, 2006
Chris A. Curtis:
Here is the plan I presented for an 8 team play-off:
#8 Boise @ #1 OSU,
#7 Wisc @ #2 FLorida
#6 Louisville @ #3 Mich
#5 USC @ #4 LSU
These games could have been played the 2nd Sat in Dec. with round two at the higher seeds home field on the 3rd Sat. in December.
In my opinion if this play off would have occured the BCS would SHOULD have looked like this:
Orange: Boise vs Wake Forest
Sugar: Louisville vs Florida
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs LSU
Rose: USC vs Wisconsin
Nat Champ: OSU vs MICH
All 8 play off teams would be in one of the BCS bowls every year in my opinion.
A Play off would force the southern schools to play FAIR and play in the cold. THis way they would not always have their cake and get to eat it too.
This plan is simple and it only increases the season by only two games. Less games than the Championship Division and D-ii and D-III and even NAIA. Heck, even the NAIA can do a better job of crowning a champion than D-1A can crown a champion.
It would cause the season to begin on the 1st week end of Sept. or the last weekend of August.
It would accomidate the conferences that play a championship game and those that do not play a championship game. In short my plan makes all of the bowls and a play off both work equally!