![]() |
| The controversial BCS |
Moving to a
playoff system in the Division formerly known as 1-A is all the rage these
days. Everyone, from U.S. Senators to NBA owners
(of all people) has thrown their ideas out into the open. Now, while the BCS is not a perfect system by
any means, I think it has taken some unnecessary heat. All I would like to do is defend the current
system a little bit, so people can stop complaining and whining for a playoff
system, and just enjoy the great game of college football.
To everyone that thinks the BCS is
the worst thing that has ever happened to college football, what did you think
of the pre-BCS years? There was no designated National
Championship Game. The conferences were
very tightly bound to certain bowl games.
Now, bear with me, because conference names have changed a bit, bowl
affiliations basically amounted to the Big Ten champion (see: Ohio State or
Michigan) playing the Pac-10 champion (also known as USC) in the Rose Bowl, the
SEC champion playing an at-large bid in the Sugar Bowl, the former Big Eight
champions meeting an at-large in the Orange Bowl, and the South West Conference
champions playing another at-large in the Cotton Bowl. The ACC as we know it now (with Florida
State, Miami, and Boston College) was not intact yet. These at-large teams were either second place
teams in major conferences or independent teams that may have played a very
weak schedule (PENN STATE).
Now, getting to those top two teams,
that is a completely different story.
There is the AP Poll, the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, ESPN Power
Rankings, etc, etc, etc. Everybody ranks
teams. What the BCS decided to do was
take the two biggest polls and average them out with a computer generated
ranking to cancel out any bias. On
paper, does that not sound like fantastic idea?
You can’t just take the human polls, because people will vote for who they think is best. If a reporter covers the Big Ten, how many
Pac 10 or SEC games do you think he or she watches every week? If I was given a choice between Ohio State
and a team with completely identical statistics, I would think Ohio State is
better every time.
People have bias,
whether it is intentional or not.
Computers can’t decide the champion on their own, either. There is a difference losing a game on a
blown call by a referee or losing the game because your team made
mistakes. Humans can judge that,
computers can’t. All computers can do is
look at your record and at the records of the teams you beat, to determine if
your wins are really all that meaningful.
But, by combining the two you can determine the two teams that the majority of people think are the two best teams in the
country, and then let those two teams settle it on the field.
Again, I want to reiterate that I do NOT think the BCS is the solution to all our problems. It won’t cure diseases or create world peace. But what it does do is produce a national champion in college football that more people can agree on than in any other time period in the history of the sport. And how Ohio State fans, of all people, can complain about the BCS is just beyond me. The BCS has been kinder to the Buckeyes than it has to any other institution. Ohio State has appeared in three national championship games and eight BCS games overall. There are also immense financial implications of switching to playoff system, but that is another post for another time.
I believe the idea here is that Brady will respond to my post, and then I, in turn, will write another beautifully crafted article with superior arguments to his. Which is fine with me; the financing of major college football is more than enough for a post of its own.


