Defending the BCS
This article may come as a shock to a lot of people, but I am going to stand up and defend the BCS. Don't take that as selling out to the ads which I am sure are gracing the side of this article. I am still a big proponent of using the BCS standings at the end of the season to run a playoff of 16 teams. The playoff would utilize the bowl games to keep both the tradition of the bowls and increase the chance of finally crowning a champion that includes all teams and is decided on the field. Still, without the playoff, the BCS should be applauded.
Yes, the BCS has been bashed over the past few years, especially as competition in Division 1-A football increases to even greater levels. How many times in years past have their been teams from smaller conferences, such as Utah, Boise State, and Louisville, who could honestly compete with the big teams? There might have been one team a year with this status, but not three. Last year, we had Miami of Ohio, Utah, and Boise State with impressive seasons and several more close behind. This year, we also have teams gaining ground in the MAC, Fresno State, and UTEP. All the increase in competition has done is to increase the argument for inclusion in the final round of big bowls, something that will most definitely happen in a couple years, and looks likely this year with the perfect season from Utah and Boise State knocking on the door.
But let's leave the smaller teams out for a moment, as when the BCS was created, there was little thought that a team from the other conferences could honestly compete with the big teams for a National Championship. And for this whole discussion, let's for a moment assume that Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC all win their final 4 games between them. That would leave us with three undefeated teams and according to the critics, a mess.
Let's step back in time for a moment to 1997. There was no BCS, but there was the Bowl Alliance. Under that system, the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls worked together to provide us with the match-up which would appeal most to the voters and fans for a National Champion. Remember that year, #2 Nebraska won the Orange Bowl over #3 Tennessee while #1 Michigan won the Rose bowl and they split the National Title. Things under that system wouldn't have been much different last year. Because the PAC-10 and Big 10 did not participate in the Bowl Alliance, USC would still have played Michigan in the Rose Bowl last year. Oklahoma and LSU would have played just as they did and we would have had the split champion. This year, we are looking at the same circumstances under the old system. USC would again have gone on to face Michigan in the Rose Bowl (On a side note, do I detect a rivalry?). Oklahoma and Auburn would have met, most likely in the Fiesta Bowl, as Oklahoma would have been rated higher. So, again, we are left in the situation where most likely, assuming USC wins, we would have a possible split champion.
The split championship only occurs because the coaches are forced to vote for the winner of the BCS game as their champion. Last year, it was clear that USC deserved both titles, especially since they led the coaches poll going into the Bowls. This year, things wouldn't be any different in the BCS. Under the Bowl Alliance, there was always the possibility of the split champion. As we saw in 1997, with Michigan as the leader going into the final game, anytime that a Big 10 or PAC-10 team competed for the title, we were in for trouble. This year would have been the same with USC most likely having to share a title should they win against Michigan with the Oklahoma-Auburn winner.
The BCS guarantees us one thing. We will see two teams competing for the title play in the final game. According to the BCS Media guide, prior to the Bowl Coalition formed in 1991, it had only happened 8 times in 56 years. That is not exactly a great track record. While the BCS leaves open the possibility that there may be a third deserving team, such as last year, we are guaranteed that among the top conferences, all of the champions are considered for a shot at the title. Never before have we been guaranteed that much. Under the Bowl Alliance, the PAC-10 and the Big 10 were left out. Before that, under the Bowl Coalition, the PAC-10 and Big 10 were still left out of the picture. With the BCS, at least those two conferences are considered.
A number of people have trouble with the way the two teams are selected. In the past, the blame has always fallen to the computers. People who favored a certain team would say that the computers were against them. I may be biased here as I run a computer poll myself. However, I believe that by having a computer help with the decision, you take some of the subjectivity out of the final selection. If you relied only on the national polls, you would have voters who are obviously biased voting based on their preferences. In addition, it is impossible for all of the voters to see every game. I watch these games every week to the best of my ability and I still can't see more than 4 or 5 games in full, and maybe pieces of 3 or 4 others. You have to imagine that the coaches who vote in the polls can't see more than 2 or 3. These voters are biased toward what they see while, if you bear with me, the computers are not. The computers "see" every game. They, based on the algorithms developed by their creators, take into account a number of factors which help them to be more objective in evaluating all teams equally. The BCS does put some restrictions on what they take into account(They can't use margin of victory, for example, which is a big piece of the MRI and Jeff Sagarin's total rankings), which I disagree with. However, adding in the objectivity of the computers in the final decision is the right move. They also have chosen a computer average which in the past years has included as many as 8 computer rankings. This is a big step up from the first year when only three were used. They have made a case where one rating would not skew the ratings unfairly. The computers are not the problem.
Imagine the debate we would still be having under the old system. Three teams, and no way that USC, the #1 team all season, would be able to play either of the other two. We wouldn't even be having a discussion about Utah. They would be stuck playing in the Liberty Bowl. Even so, there wouldn't be the lure of 14 million dollars for them to complain about. This year, the only debate will be which team was the deserving #2, and I am more apt to believe that the added discussion will only add to the popularity of college football, not subtract from it. It helped make all holiday season last year a discussion of the merits of Oklahoma, USC, and LSU. This year, the only differences are a different team from the SEC and all of the contenders are perfect.
What changes would I make to the BCS? I would take away the automatic vote from the coaches. While the reasoning may be close to correct, the automatic vote takes away the one thing that makes the vote important, and that is a choice. Like last year, it stops the voters from choosing who they want as the champion. The fact that a certain bowl game paired the #1 and #2 teams in the system should not matter. If in the voters' eyes someone else is deserving, they should be able to vote for them. After all, the trophy is for the winner of the poll, not the winner of the one game.
Second, I would let the computer polls take into account what they will. While removing scoring margin was in theory a smart move as it avoided coaches running up the score, the situation hasn't changed this year. By making the polls and votes more important, you have led teams to believe that they need to have "impressive" wins to get votes, and they still run up the score. I would let them consider margin of victory, but install a hard cap (The MRI does employ a hard cap).
Other than that, short of a playoff system, I would leave it be. Let it run for a few years with the same rules. Don't change anything for 4 years. See what the results are. We haven't seen more than two years in a row out of 7 with the same rules. You need consistency for a system to be accepted. When the four year have run out, let's see if there are a majority of champions that we can't agree with. Only then should we make changes, but I doubt that we would have to. Until Division 1-A can develop a playoff, we need something. The BCS may not be perfect, but it is the best system that has been developed in the last 20 years. Let's stop complaining and give it a chance.
We might be surprised at how much we like it.
