Monday, December 8, 2008
Where the BCS is Truly Flawed
Many people have problems with the BCS because of the lack of a playoff in college football. While I agree that a playoff system would be exciting in many ways, it does not truly depict the biggest flaw of the BCS. The current BCS matchups look like this:
Rose Bowl: Penn State vs. USC
Orange Bowl: Cincinnati vs. Virginia Tech
Sugar Bowl: Utah vs. Alabama
Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State vs. Texas
BCS National Championship: Oklahoma vs. Florida
Doing the best we can with the current system, there are three main unfortunate things.
1. Texas has no shot at a national title.
Okay, yes, if Texas blasted Ohio St. 84-3 and the Oklahoma vs. Florida game ended 13-10 with 6 turnovers per team, there might be some sympathy votes for Texas, but let's face it, whoever wins the Florida vs. Oklahoma game is the champ with very little dispute and Texas has no say.
2. Texas Tech lost one game — game to the potential national champions — and they aren't even in a BCS game, while Ohio State, a two-loss team, makes it in.
This is the result of the ruling that there cannot be three teams from the same conference in BCS bowl games. I think the most unfortunate thing about this situation is that what happened in the Big 12 was dependent upon the schedule more than anything. Oklahoma lost to Texas, then Texas lost to Texas Tech, then Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma. If the order of those losses had been reversed, it is very likely that Oklahoma would have been out of the BCS and Texas Tech would have been in the championship game (perhaps Texas, it's not possible to know for certain). Losses being more detrimental in November than in September seems silly to me.
3. The absolute worst thing about the BCS in this season is the fact that Ohio State was chosen over Boise State.
Let us be serious. Boise State is ranked above Ohio State in the BCS rankings, so why would Ohio State get the nod? Could it be because the BCS selection committee is biased toward the Big Six conferences? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
If I would have been part of the selection committee, I would have lobbied for the following schedule of events:
Rose Bowl: Penn State vs. USC
Orange Bowl: Cincinnati vs. Virginia Tech
Sugar Bowl: Utah vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl: Alabama vs. Texas
BCS National Championship: Oklahoma vs. Florida
Can you imagine two SEC vs. Big 12 games? That would have been fantastic. How about the two undefeated BCS busters taking each other on? I would have loved a Utah vs. Boise State showdown.
The choosing of Ohio State over Boise State or Texas Tech is very disappointing and I think it came into being simply because Alabama lost to Florida. It is my belief that the BCS does not want to have an undefeated team winning a BCS bowl game that is not the national championship. If Utah beats Alabama and Florida beats Oklahoma, Utah will have a very compelling argument that they should be the national champs. It won't get them anywhere, but it will be compelling nonetheless, especially if they win big.
But I don't think I can overstate the sympathy I feel for Boise State. How can they do any better? They go undefeated and aren't even rewarded with a BCS game even though they own the biggest upset in BCS history by defeating Oklahoma on January 1, 2007 in the Fiesta Bowl.
While the entire state of Texas will beg for a playoff, I will simply ask for this: no more restrictions on who is in the BCS. Virginia Tech at 9-4 does not deserve a BCS game. Texas Tech at 11-1 and Boise State at 12-0 do deserve a BCS game. There should be no restrictions. The top 10 teams should be taken and matched up, plain and simple. There should be no automatic bids for conference champions or a limit how many teams in a conference can get in. Until there is a playoff instituted, it should be the top 10 teams and that is all, no regulations required.