10 Flaws in the BCS System
The BCS has punted college football into a new stratosphere of popularity. It has been an excellent facilitator of debate, attracting fans who previously may not have paid attention to the sport. In almost every season of its existence, multiple teams have been excluded from a shot at the national title or a slot in a BCS game. Despite the fact that it’s widely regarded as a superior system of determining a champion compared to the previous systems , it’s far from perfect – below are 10 flaws in the BCS system.
- Influence of money
The BCS remains alive and well thanks to its new television contract with ESPN. In the fall of 2008, an agreement was reached in which ESPN will pay $125 million annually through January of 2014 to broadcast the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls, and the BCS Championship Game – the network already had the rights to the Rose Bowl. During the reign of the BCS system, the major conferences have received hundreds of millions of dollars in television contracts to broadcast regular season games from ESPN, CBS and Fox Sports.
After the completion of the 2010 college football season, the BCS distributed $142.5 million of revenue from its five bowl games to the 12 conferences and independents in the FBS, according to the Sports Business Journal. The BCS conferences received $115.2 million of the total, and the payouts will be even higher during the first year of the ESPN deal. As long as the BCS continues to distribute large quantities of revenue to the conferences, it won’t be a priority for the university presidents to scrap the system and implement a playoff. Fairness takes a spot way below money on their list of priorities.
- Power of the Rose Bowl
“The Granddaddy of Them All” has interest in promoting the long-term survival of the BCS. The Big 10 and Pac 10 conference are contractually obligated to send their champions to the Rose Bowl unless those teams are competing in the BCS championship game. The Rose Bowl is opposed to a playoff because the New Year’s Day game currently generates more money than any other bowl game, so the Pac 10 and Big 10 commissioners are in no hurry to explore the viability of a playoff. Both conferences feature brand name programs that are crucial to the success of college football, and the powers that be want to keep them happy.
- Favoritism toward Notre Dame
Notre Dame has finished in the top 10 in one poll since 1993 and hasn’t won a national championship in more than 20 years. Because of its recent struggles, many college football fans have deemed the Fighting Irish as irrelevant, though the four BCS bowl directors seem to disagree. An aura of prestige still exists around the storied program, and TV ratings and tickets sales still spike when Notre Dame is the showcase. So when the Fighting Irish are ranked between ninth and 14th at the end of the football season – they automatically qualify when they’re ranked in the top eight – it’s assumed they’ll receive a spot in a BCS game, regardless of their weak schedule, lack of significant wins, and the presence of more deserving teams.
- Overreliance on tradition
More so than any other American sport excluding baseball, tradition has a great influence on how things operate in college football. Admittedly, it’s a big reason why most of us watch it week-to-week. Rivalries like Alabama-Auburn and Texas-Oklahoma feature longstanding histories and student-athletes who’ve faced off since high school. It’s still an honor to compete in the prestigious Rose, Orange and Sugar Bowls, even though a national championship isn’t on the line. For those reasons, people are opposed to change. They think the importance of regular season games will diminish, the bowls will die and rivalries will become less important.
However, most proponents of a playoff system advocate only limited change that would preserve tradition. A four-to-eight team playoff would ensure regular season games remain important – one loss could affect your ability to make the playoffs or earn a favorable seed. The conferences would remain in use and rivalry games would still determine who competes for a national title – the upset would not die. The playoffs could be played at the four major bowl sites, and the teams that don’t make the playoffs can finish their seasons competing in the already established bowl games. In the end, fairness would take priority over staunch traditionalism because it’s what’s best for the sport.
- Coaches have a say in the rankings
The coaches’ poll may be the most absurd component of the BCS rankings, and that was proven by LSU head coach Les Miles’ comments during the 2009 season. During a press conference, he let it slip that he couldn’t tell which teams were the best each week because he didn’t have time to watch them play. This was hardly news to anyone who closely follows college football, but it did broach a topic that needed to be discussed. Why are coaches given say in the rankings when they don’t have time to watch the games? It isn’t the USA Today Football Support Staff and Sports Information Directors’ Poll. And when the coaches do vote, how many put aside their biases? Their votes directly affect their own teams, conferences, buddies and rivals.
- Use of computer polls
The people who created the algorithms used by the six computer polls don’t seem to know whether they want to determine which teams are consistently the best during the course of a season, or which teams are the best at the moment. Should a Virginia Tech team that’s undefeated with an unimpressive average margin of victory be ranked first, or should a one-loss Florida team that has beaten its last four opponents by three touchdowns be ranked first? Should margin of victory be ignored? Is a 48-7 win over a top 25 team equal to a 17-14 win over a top 25 team? Ultimately, the computers are at the mercy of their programmers. When the computer rankings differ from the human rankings, the humans change the method used by the computers to better reflect what the humans are thinking, defeating the purpose of having an objective computer rating process.
The computers’ biggest flaw is their lack of common sense. During the 2009 season, Boise State convincingly defeated Oregon in week one by the score of 19-8 in a nationally televised game. But the average BCS computer rankings still slotted Oregon higher during weeks two and three of the BCS standings, even though Boise State had yet to lose. Can you objectively say that Oregon was better after it was settled on the field?
- It matters where you start
Teams with weaker rankings to start the season inherently receive less respect than the teams that begin with better rankings. Remember, coaches – or their staffers and sports information directors – who vote in the preseason coaches’ poll have little evidence on which to base their rankings. In most cases, perceived talent, prestige and previous years’ performances are taken into consideration. Even though most human voters acknowledge the worthlessness of preseason polls, the original rankings still seem to carry weight during the course of the season. So an undefeated team in November that began the season ranked outside of the top 25 will have a difficult time supplanting another undefeated team that began the season ranked inside of the top 10. This ultimately affects BCS positioning.
- If you aren’t in a BCS conference, it’s almost impossible to win it all
The BCS system engages in iniquity, favoring teams from the BCS conferences while keeping down the little guy from the MAC, WAC, WCC, C-USA and Sun Belt. Until there’s a playoff, Boise State may never get a shot at proving it’s the best team in the country, even though it recently joined a marginally better conference than the WAC – the MWC. A resume that includes wins over teams like UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado State isn’t impressive to the voters or computers. And if it’s true that no major teams want to schedule the Broncos, how are they supposed to enhance their resume and prove their worth during the season? Teams in BCS conferences have little incentive to play Boise State or other non-BCS powerhouses because they don’t want to commit to a home-and-home deal and sacrifice the money they would make with an extra home game. Plus, a loss to Boise State could dash their national title hopes.
Additionally, because Boise State lacks the all-around athletic program, academic prowess and an attractive market that BCS schools possess, it likely won’t be invited to join a BCS conference any time soon. Why should the football program be penalized because other aspects of the school aren’t up to par? Its best shot at making the national championship game in the coming years would be for the MWC to become a BCS conference. Similarly, TCU – another non-BCS power – isn’t seen as a must-have school for BCS conferences, even the Big 12. Their best hope to win a national title would be through participation in a playoff system.
- It’s not settled on the field
Not only are non-BCS programs like Boise State, TCU and Utah – now transitioning to become a BCS program – not afforded the opportunities to compete for a national title, but several BCS powers have also been denied their rightful shot at an undisputed title through the years. In 2000, one-loss Miami defeated rival Florida State during the regular season, but it was FSU that got the shot at the national title in the Orange Bowl. Washington also had one loss that year, and it proved its worth by defeating Miami during the regular season. In 2003, Oklahoma played for the national championship despite losing its conference championship game by four touchdowns. The result was a split championship for LSU and USC – the two teams that should’ve played in the Sugar Bowl. In 2004, undefeated SEC power Auburn and undefeated Utah weren’t given the chance to play for the title, and USC and Oklahoma – which suffered a blowout – matched up instead.
In almost every year the BCS has been in existence, at least one team has cried foul as they were excluded from a shot at the national title. Although the decision to leave them out in some instances was more clear-cut than others, doubt usually lingered. Opponents of a playoff system argue that the selection process would be controversial as well, and there’s truth to that claim. However, controversy related to which team should be the last admitted into an eight-team playoff is better than controversy related to which team deserves to compete in a single national championship game. In other words, the margin for error is far greater with a playoff system.
- It’s still just a mythical national championship
Because the championship isn’t purely determined on the field, the college football national champion is still dubbed a “mythical” champion by many fans. The NCAA doesn’t officially recognize the champion each year -the national championship game is a non-sanctioned event, unlike the FCS playoffs. If the sport weren’t so ingrained into our nation’s sports culture, it wouldn’t be taken seriously. But we keep watching and the television networks continue to supply the BCS with money, so don’t expect an upheaval of the college football landscape any time soon.
Leave a Reply