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.
December 10, 2008
Jim Adams:
As I see it, one of the major problems with the BCS is not needing a “Playoff” system, but needing a “Play-In” system.
I think the top twenty schools in the final BCS voting should all be REQUIRED to play in a “Play-In” game; #1 vs #20, #2 vs #19, #3 vs #18, etc. It shouldn’t matter what conference a team is from nor how many from that conference qualify - everyone gets an even shot. After that “Play-In” game the 10 winners advance to the five BCS games. There would have to be one additional BCS vote o determine the #1 and #2 teams that would play in the National Championship game, but the other BCS Bowls would have to select the remaining 8 winners from the “Play-In” games.
The remaining bowls could still be active and take the losing schools and other bowl eligilbe schools. This would be a fair way to settle the problem of a few schools that always feel like they have been “over looked” in this BCS mess. In my suggested way teams would have to show up and play to qualify and be given the opportunity to participate in the big payday bowls and not be discarded as “they play in a weak conference” or “we only allow two teams per conference to play.” This gives every team an opportunity to compete on a little more level playing field.
In the AP Top 25 voting this year a total of 77 different schools received vote at one time or another! That is a lot of human guessing and/or hoping that a big name school will be successful. The end of year (last 4-5 weeks) voting of the BCS seems to be a somewhat fair means of identifying the top 20 to 25 teams. I think my “Play-In” suggestion would solve a great deal of the questioning we have at the end of each season.
December 10, 2008
Andrew Jones:
Jim - Your play-in idea is an interesting one. It would eliminate the conference champions, the limit of teams per conference and would essentially separate the contenders from the pretenders but it wouldn’t satisfy the problem of who gets to go to the National Championship.
I agree it would be better than the current system.
Would you get rid of Conference championships altogether? I would.