The BCS, which really stands for Bowl Championship Series, started in the 1998 season in hopes to give college football a true national champion. In previous years there would often be a split in the voting for a national champ. The two best teams would not play each other in a winner take all bowl game like we see now. In the 56 years prior to the BCS the #1 and #2 teams only played each other 8 times. So what we have now is clearly better than what we had before. College football does not have a playoff system to determine who is the nation champion, so whatever team wins the BCS national championship game is then named champion. The hard part is to make it to that game, not winning it. A teams strength of schedule, pre-season ranking and win total all play critical parts in a teams ranking in the BCS. I have been against the BCS ever since I started following college football closely. Here I plan to show how the BCS is wrong and is not what college football needs.
When the BCS started it was agreed that 6 conferences would be the primary participants in the BCS bowl games. The 5 BCS bowl games pay a lot more money and are considered to be very good games. Those bowls are the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Rose and then the National Championship Bowl game. The 6 conferences that are considered 'BCS' conferences are the SEC, ACC, Pac 10, Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East. Most of the traditional power teams come from these 6 conferences, and so in the agreement, the winner of each of these conferences would be guranteed a BCS bowl birth, as well as other teams that finish in the top 8 of the BCS polls. It sounds a little confusing if you are not familiar with how this all works, but this is just a little history on the BCS.
When the BCS first started most people were very excited and pleased with the results. #1 and #2 teams played most years and we had a true national champion. However there seemed to be some disputes as the years went on. Teams started to go undefeated and not be in the National title game. Or some teams would finish with the same record, but one team would play for the title and the other would not. Things like the teams strength of schedule and their rank in the polls(which is highly determined by their preseason ranking which is pretty much an educated guess). Teams started to feel left out, but most of the public thought it was good. People were happy that we had the #1 and #2 teams playing each other.
In the 2003-2004 season there was the first 'split' national champion. LSU won the BCS championship game, however USC which won the Rose Bowl finished 1st in the AP poll and was awarded the AP Championship. This is the first year that the BCS clearly failed, it could not give us a true champion and we seemed to have the same problem that plagued college football in the pre-BCS era. Things would even get worse as time went on.
The came the 2004-2005 season. This is the season that made people think if the BCS was fair. In this season we had a total of 5 teams go undefeated heading into the Bowl Season. USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah and Boise State each went undefeated. However under the way the BCS works, only two teams can play for the national title. Three of these teams Oklahoma, USC and Auburn came from BCS conferences, Boise State and Utah did not. Utah became the first team to play in a BCS bowl game that was not from a BCS conference(also called an AQ conference, automatic qualifier). Utah played Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl and blew them out. Boise State lost their bowl game, Auburn won their BCS game. USC beat Oklahoma to win the BCS championship. USC was announced as champions, but Auburn went undefeated and felt that they were wronged during the season. Although Utah was happy to play in a BCS game, it also felt discriminated against since they could not try and win it all.
In the 2006-2007 season Boise State went undefeated and upset Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, one of the best college football games ever played. Boise State felt that they could contend for the National Championship Game, which Florida would win. They had a solid argument too, they beat everyone on their schedule including Oklahoma. Many people seem to forget this, but if it weren't for an referee's mistake in a call in the Oklahoma-Oregon game. To refresh your memory, Oregon was losing late in the game when they kicked an onside kick. An onside kick is basically where the kicker has to kick the ball 10 yards and hope that his team can recover the ball. Oregon recovered the onside kick and went on to win the game. However when Oregon was kicking the onside kick a player for Oregon touched the ball before it went the required ten yards. This call cost Oklahoma a win and they went on to finish 11-1 heading into their Bowl Game. So if the correct call was made Oklahoma would have gone undefeated and most likely would have played in the Title game. So Boise State beat a team that should have been in the Title game. However thanks to the BCS they were not able to play in the title game.
Last season Alabama, Texas, Boise State and TCU all finished with a perfect record, but Boise State and TCU were not given the chance to play for the title. In the 2008-2009 season Utah finished undefeated but did not play for the title.
The simple solution is a playoff. This is nothing groundbreaking, but it is the solution. Allow the top 8 teams to go into a playoff and the winner of that will be the national champion. Sadly I don't think this will ever happen. Too many people like the BCS the way it is and like the 'tradition' of the Bowl Games. If by tradition I think they mean, unfairly deciding who is the champion. College football is a beautiful thing, I love watching it. But it is sad when you know there is not a fair way to determine the champion. Look at college basketball and the craze of March Madness. So many people watch all of the games, wanting to see who will and get to play on. Imagine that craze with college football. So many more people would watch the bowl games to see who will play on, and who will go play for the title. I know that I did not watch two of the BCS games last year, the Orange and Sugar bowls. Now I would have watched them if there was a playoff in place and I know that the winner would play again.
People that are anti-playoff claim that the BCS them more money than a playoff would, I beg to differ. More people would watch these games and more money would be. FedEx had been the sponsor for the Orange Bowl for many, many years, but has pulled its name due to a lack of viewers. The Orange bowl was hardly watched by BCS standards, a way to fix that. Make it a playoff.
I'm not saying I want a playoff because I am a fan of small schools like Boise State, Utah and BYU. I'm saying I want a playoff because I want the best games possible, and I want whoever is crowned the nation champion to deserve it 100%, no questions whatsoever.
No comments:
Post a Comment