Enough already with the constant pleas for a playoff system in major college football. Folks, as much as it may pain us all to accept, we're stuck with this system for no fewer than six more seasons, despite President-Elect Barack Obama's alleged involvement in pressing the issue. It is far better we learn to live with the imperfection, much like we cope with a nasty spousal snoring habit or a co-worker's annoying tick.
The more vexing issue, at least from my perspective, is the bowl selection process itself.
I will spare you from another full-blown commentary on the evil that is the BCS and its oft-criticized ranking system. Having made that clear, though, I will submit a brief comment on this subject: using the USA Today and Harris polls as they do just makes no sense. Roll those polls into the computer rankings and go with those results. That eliminates the unjust power these polls hold over the system (without eliminating the polls altogether) and helps remove a bit of the criticism that can be interjected relative to coach cronyism or media bias.
Moving past this minor suggestion, the BCS ranking system has done just fine since its inception in 1998. There will always be "should have been" and "could have been" scenarios, as there is this season with Texas, but for the most part, you can't argue against the logic of the ranking system and its results at least don't miss the mark by much.
Of much more importance is the relatively arbitrary yet all-too-predictable method of each BCS bowl selecting the actual game participants. To me, this particular item needs to be visited if for not other reason than to bring fairness and a sense of satisfaction into the equation for all those fans desperate for a system that gives a shot at glory to all those that deserve it.
If one was to assess the BCS bowl landscape in 2008, one would see some very disconcerting things, regardless of school affiliation. For example, that Orange Bowl matchup of Cincinnati and Virginia Tech surely doesn't whet the appetite of most casual fans looking for a high-level contest. Not to take anything away from either school's accomplishment in winning their conference, but neither the ACC nor the Big East deserves a BCS-seeded team. Surely, there has to be a more effective way to eliminate sub-standard performing conferences in a given year than the current mechanism — which for the record is some nondescript language in the BCS by-laws that allows a major conference to be dropped based on some subjective assessments of past performance (seems that for whatever reason a league should be judged based on history rather than what has occurred in a given season these days, but I digress).
At the root of this issue are two totally unnecessary culprits. The first is the BCS qualification guidelines. The second is the team-selection procedures. We'll start by looking at the former.
BCS Qualification Guidelines (Automatic Qualification)
The parenthetical element in the heading above truly sums up the problem here: automatic qualification. While I fully understand the sensitivities around the move to the BCS in the first place — particularly those relating to the almighty dollar — it just makes no sense to guarantee bids to all those league champions. The first flaw in this logic is not all of those conferences play a conference championship game. The second is that there are no guarantees that a given conference will be good in a given season. The only guaranteed qualifying condition should be finishing in the top 10 of the BCS rankings.
This solution would create a pool of teams that were eligible; the top eight remaining teams in the BCS rankings after the title game was set. You could allow for certain conditions, assuming they are met by this pool of teams (i.e. if one of those eight is the regular season Pac-10 champion, then they play in the Rose Bowl), satisfying the contractual elements the bowls have with the conferences. Not only would this methodology restore some trust with the fans that the NCAA really does care about putting the best possible product out there for your viewing pleasure, but it would also hold conferences accountable for remaining competitive. I can assure you that the first time an ACC school is not part of a BCS bowl, that conference will be greatly improved the following year; you can bank on that.
Team-Selection Procedures
These dovetail with the aforementioned issue of qualification, however, to allow a bowl game brain-trust the freedom to select whomever they wish (providing a team is BCS bowl eligible) is asinine and compromises fans' trust for the system. For Ohio State to be selected to play the third-ranked team in the country is simply ridiculous and an obvious pandering to the piles of monies that Buckeye Nation brings to a given contest. I get it, OSU has a large, strong, prideful following of fans and alumni across the nation, but this does not make them more deserving of a BCS bowl game berth against a top-drawing opponent than teams that are quite clearly better than they are. Utah, a champion of their own conference and an undefeated unit, deserved a shot at Texas. Period. There should have been no other team put into this game, which should be billed as the third-place game and for Ohio State to usurp the publicity and grandeur of playing against the 2008 Longhorns simply because of a greed-filled money grab is an insult to the process.
To fix this issue, as I mentioned, you let your BCS system create a pool of 10 and only 10 teams — the BCS top 10 (you'd think that would make sense to most logical folks). You drop the stipulation of only two teams from a given conference being afforded the right to play in a BCS bowl (which I want to point out also has a loophole that could potentially allow three from a given conference anyway, but that's so confusing that it is a different article in and of itself). The top two play in the BCS National Championship Game. The Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta get their contractually committed teams, should they qualify. Having lost the ridiculous "automatic berths" for conference champions that fall outside of the BCS top 10, you free up tons of possibilities without over-complicating the whole thing, which coincidentally is a large part of the current problem. Bada-boom-bada-bing, problem solved.
While I would love to leave this article at that, I just know that would leave a void within any self-respecting reader. What about all those loose ends? If, Heaven forbid, my advice were taken by the BCS, what would this year's games look like? Well, I'm fully prepared to answer that question and have done just that in the lines that follow:
BCS National Championship Game — Seriously, do I have to put this one in there? Um, yeah, in case you weren't paying attention, it would stay the same.
Rose Bowl Game (presented by Citi) — Even by my "fuzzy math" and "broken logic" (just anticipating some of your comments), this still pits the fifth-ranked Trojans of USC against the ninth-ranked Nittany Lions of Penn State. The grand tradition of Pac-10 versus Big Ten lives on and we don't have to see Ohio State get creamed in another national championship game. 2008 was a good year after all.
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, part one — They get first pick, having lost out on their "contractually obligated" Big 12 champion (and based on some other BCS-mandated stipulations about the date their game is played on relative to the BCS title game). They pick Texas.
Allstate Sugar Bowl, part one — They get next pick, having lost out on the SEC title holder (and also subject to those same BCS mandates). They pick Alabama.
FedEx Orange Bowl, part one — No ACC champ equals no obligations. They pick Ohio State (see earlier diatribe about Buckeye-related monies).
Fiesta Bowl, part two — While I would absolutely reward Utah here if I were the bowl organizers, I am clearly not. Who could resist a Texas/Texas Tech rematch on a neutral field? They pick Tech.
Sugar Bowl, part two — Utah is undefeated and Alabama was at No. 1 for some time. Let's test those Utes. They select Utah.
Orange Bowl — Boise State is the one team still left out there, and the Orange Bowl could do far worse than an Ohio State/Boise State showdown.
Final Bowl Matchups
BCS Championship: Oklahoma vs. Florida
Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. Texas Tech
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. Utah
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Penn State
Orange Bowl: Ohio State vs. Boise State
The very purpose of running through the exercise of playing out my scenario was to demonstrate the point of my argument: the BCS isn't far off from where it needs to be, but remains miles away from creating a trustworthy system.
As you can see, three of the matchups would stay exactly the same as they currently are in the "real world." Only now, the "red-faced test" is passed. That bowl favorite Ohio State, a team that quite literally remained in the BCS top 10 by the skin of their teeth (and some very generous ranking in both the Harris and USA Today polls), remains in the mix, but now plays in a game much more representative of their in-season performance. They wind up playing a team that would present a far more intriguing game and certainly one that would be more competitive than the stomping UT is going to put on them. A team like Boise State gets another shot at a perennial college football juggernaut, which they certainly deserve.
Even using this method, the major conferences are well-represented and the smaller conferences that the BCS is so sensitive to "guaranteeing" a berth to actually place two teams. The only losers here are the ACC and Big East and frankly, they don't deserve BCS money in 2008 based on their on-field product. Those three Big 12 teams could quite easily be three SEC teams in 2009 or three ACC teams in 2010, but the onus gets put on the conferences and schools themselves to ensure they meet the requirements that they have to meet to gain the rewards of a BCS bowl showcasing. By any measure, this would create a solution that, while not perfect, could be lived with.
It is true that we have to live with the BCS and its imperfections, zits, and warts for at least the short term. But that doesn't mean we can't give it a makeover, dress it up nicely, and make it feel pretty once in a while.
Leave a Comment