The BCS is ruining the college football regular season. For the past few years, the few people who still fully support the system (aside from those reaping enormous monetary gains due to its implementation) have cited the excitement felt at every game as reason enough to continue relying on it. They say only giving two teams a chance at the national title makes every regular season game feel like a playoff game.
Until this year, while many disagreed with their ultimate conclusion, some believed the people who supported the BCS were arguing a valid point in asserting that every game matters. But now, more than ever, it's clear that their argument doesn't hold any water.
In 2007, it was Boise State. This year, it's TCU, Cincinnati, and Boise State again. All undefeated, all with at least two impressive wins, all without a snowball's chance at even being given an opportunity to win a national championship. The Boise State team in 2007 proved that they deserved that chance, as they beat an extremely talented Oklahoma team that featured Adrian Peterson in the backfield. But for some reason, the BCS supporters were unwavering in their belief that the current system was, and still is, the best available option.
If they were right, and if every game really mattered, the rankings would change drastically throughout the year based on the performance of each team every week, and this would include mixing up the top spots in the polls. But that won't happen this year. At the beginning of the year, most people said the top two teams would end up being the winner of the Florida vs. Alabama SEC Championship Game and Texas. Fast-forward three months, and it's still the same top three. We're still expecting the same formula for determining the national championship matchup.
If the ultimate goal of football, or any team sport, is to win the championship game, and only the top two teams in the nation will get a chance to win that game, why does every game matter for the other 118 teams this year? If Florida can win by 10 points against an unranked opponent, and TCU can win by 27 points against a top-20 opponent, all without any movement in the top five spots of the polls, what, besides a playoff system, can give TCU, or any of the other 118 FBS teams, a fighting chance this year?
Some will say that allowing a top team to drop in the rankings, despite being undefeated, is unfair. But these people must keep in mind that the initial rankings are based on an offseason poll. If we use the logic that being undefeated protects a team from falling from a top spot, we are then putting far too much stock in the preseason poll. We are saying that being impressive on paper, and then playing mediocre football during the regular season, is enough to earn a chance at the national title game, but winning against good teams isn't. We're playing the season on paper, rather than letting the players play it on the field.
I understand that right and wrong in sports is hard to determine. Bill Belichick will forever be questioned about his decision to go for it on fourth down inside his own 30-yard line on Sunday night. But an ultimate determination of whether that call was right or wrong cannot be reached unanimously. Some will say Peyton Manning was going to lead his team to a touchdown with two minutes left whether he had to go 30 yards or 80 yards, so it was the right call. Others will say you've got to trust your defense to not give up 80 or so yards in that situation, especially considering they had already intercepted two of Manning's passes that night.
The same basic idea is true of the BCS. We will never have both sides of the argument come to an agreement on whether the system is right or wrong. But, like Belichick, what we can do is use each failure as an opportunity to change for the better. If Belichick makes that call a few more times in his career, and it only works once, he'll wisely decide not to go that route anymore.
In a similar manner, if we continue to see that there are consistently multiple teams not getting the chance at the national title that they deserve, we need to change the way we do things. Even if there is occasionally a year that the team that is clearly the best wins the championship game, we need to look at the bigger picture. One successful year does not make the current system the best one, just like one successful fourth down conversion in an attempt like the one Sunday night doesn't mean it's necessarily the right call.
It's not a matter of right and wrong anymore. What really matters is that the BCS has failed so much more than it has succeeded — we cannot continue to rely on it. TCU, Cincinnati, and Boise State deserve much better than what they've been given this year. They've all earned at least a chance to play in the national championship game, and it's a chance they won't get.
November 18, 2009
Nick:
Paul - fantastic article. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the failure of the BCS. I honestly think that nothing outside a true bracket playoff system will determine a true national champion… and until then, all we have are hollow opinions, paper tigers, and a crappy poll system that, as you said, is fundamentally based on paper before a team even thinks about playing a real football game. I’d love to see the preseason polls abolished, and a true playoff established.
November 18, 2009
Mark Sargent:
I love your article, however you have overlooked some other obvious teams. Utah and Auburn in 2004, and Utah in 2008. Oklahoma was a talented team in 07 that Boise St. beat, but it certainly wasn’t close to the Alabama team that was ranked #1 for 5 weeks, and Utah destroyed. I know, I know, Bama didn’t want to be there. Whatever, don’t accept the invite then.
November 18, 2009
Brad:
To go along with what Mark said, how can you even write this article without mentioning 04 and 08 Utah? The 04 Utah team is what took the BCS discussions to the next level, and 08 Utah is what proved that the system is flawed.
November 18, 2009
mike:
The BCS is a cartel - solely to keep the rich rich. They enjoy ever increasing ratings and money, even with the controversy (or possibly as a result of it). I wish the non-BCS teams would start their own playoff, and then let the BCS teams watch the excitement with envy.
November 18, 2009
Vegan:
Montana and Montana State have (very good) D-IAA programs, what are now called FCS programs… They have plenty of good fans, fans that follow Grizzly or Bobcat Football and pay to sit in Montana fall weather to watch and cheer for their team.
However those fans must realize and accept that their team will never play on a big stage and the pageantry and history of “Big Time” College Football will be something they never participate in.
Fans of D-IA programs (or FBS if you prefer) are playing on the bigger stage… If you are a fan of a D-IA team you probably dream of mixing it up with the big names. For some schools that is not very likely, at least not likely in any given year. At other schools it is almost a given every year.
I seems to me (and lots of other people) that the BCS system is NOT about just getting #1 and #2 to play against each other at the end of the year. At least it has never been only about that.
It has been about something the “Big Boys” have wanted for decades… Separation, a glass ceiling that permanently divides the haves from the have-nots…
It is not that the 60-some Big Boy schools want the 50-some non-BCS schools to give up football… They still want their “minor leagues” as a ground to develop coaches for them to hire away and easy home games to pad their schedule with.
You see 60 teams is too few to be really healthy, but a club of about 90 would do nicely. If you are a school like BSU, BYU, TCU, or Utah and you can’t make the cut you risk becoming Montana… That is not a knock on Montana football, but there are non-BCS programs and even a couple of non-BCS conferences aim hirer and refuse to become “house-slaves” for the Big Boys.
Penn State, Florida State, West Virgina, Miami, Virgina Tech, Miami, Oregon, and Oregon State were all “small-time” programs that have become major national programs in my lifetime… The BCS is by intent or not (and I think it is intent) trying to make it impossible for any other school to dream of doing the same thing. I don’t want to sound ridiculous, but at some level that really is un-American, isn’t it.
I would like to see the BCS replaced with a system that provides the opportunity and access for all… I also want to make sure the school I root for is on the safe side of the line.
I know I will still argue against the iniquity of the BCS system even if Utah is “in the club,” but the cold hard fact is as long as Utah is outside the club we are vulnerable to forces that piss-ant schools/programs like Baylor, Vanderbilt, Kansas St, Mississipi St, Duke, and Iowa St are not.
Right now Schools like Boise, Utah and TCU look like they can compete for BCS berths on a yearly basis…but before 2008 that did not look like the case. Without a more fair system for all Utah and the MWC must demand, fight and threaten the apple cart for their rightful seat at the table. (how about that for mixing metaphors?)
If a non-BCS D-IA school decides that it wants to go the root of the Montana schools so be it. But for quality programs outside of the BCS to be told that is your God (BCS) given status in life is simply not acceptable.
November 18, 2009
Nick:
Great article. One other thing to keep in mind is at the beginning of every college football season, only 65 of the 118 teams have a chance to play for the national championship. Since you must be a member of a BCS conference to play for a national championship, only the 65 teams that are members of a BCS conference have a realistic chance of playing for a national championship. So if you’re Utah or Boise St, what’s your recruiting pitch. Come play here, you’ll never win a national championship, but at least we get to play in the Fiesta Bowl.
While playing in a BCS Bowl is huge for schools like TCU, Boise St and Utah, in what other sport are you officially eliminated from championship contention before the season even starts? Also, a team like UC gets penalized because they play in what is called a weak Big East. How is that UC’s fault? Do they have any control over how good other teams are in their conference? Before the results of last weeks game, the Big East had 4 teams in the Top 25 and the SEC had 3.
And I completely agree with you that national championships are decided on paper, not on the field. Preseason rankings determine who plays for the national championship. It’s very disappointing.
November 25, 2009
Jeff:
Why don’t they start ranking teams in week 2 or 3? You get a chance to see how everyone shapes up by then. I agree with the previous post about the Big East. The only reason they are in BCS consideration is because the conference used to house Va Tech and Miami. Now the BCS could be “stuck” with a possible champion out of a conference they don’t really respect, but they made the rules so they can live by them. I also agree with a previous post concerning the obivous favoritism of the BCS toward the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC and Pac 10. For teams like Utah, BYU, TCU and BSU, they have the unfortunate circumstance to be placed in conferences that the BCS doesn’t deem strong enough to create a national champion.
Why can’t all D1A teams and their schedules be subjected to the same formula? Margin of victory, quality of opponent, ranked opponents, all the usual criteria. Wouldn’t this force teams to schedule top competition so they would stay at the top of the polls if they consistently win? So Ohio State would face Penn State one week and then USC and then LSU instead of PSU, Akron and then Western Kentucky. Would certainly make every week interesting to watch.
November 28, 2009
David Ridenour:
Outside of the National Championship game, the BCS, like the NFL’s Super Bowl, has very little to do with football. All these teams are worried about is the multi-million dollar payouts they get for playing in the game.