The BCS actually stands for the "Bowl Championship Series." In short, it's the system devised to determine the champion of college football.
I love college football. And like any true college football fan, I hate the BCS.
There are few things in this world that I would say I truly hate. But this, my friends, is one of them. I hate the BCS almost as much as I love bashing it. So buckle your seat belts because here it comes....
Football is the only college sport that doesn't have a playoff system to determine the champion. I think some kind of playoff system would be the ideal route, but realize that it will probably not happen anytime soon. So I'm not going to argue the reasons as to why it should or shouldn't happen. What I am going to argue is why the BCS is lame.
(1) Automatic conference bids. My biggest beef (and the basis for a lot of my other complaints about the BCS) is the automatic conference bids. There are 11 conferences in the NCAA, Division IA. There are six "BCS" conferences. For these 6 conferences, the conference champion gets an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, no questions asked. Many of the below points expound on why this is such a bad idea. There used to be just four BCS bowls: that meant eight possible teams could play. Do the math and that meant there were two "add large" berths, in addition to the six automatic conference bids. There are now five BCS bowls, meaning there is room enough for 10 teams. So instead of being 2 at large spots, there are now 4. But there are still six spots reserved for those "special" conference champs.
(2) The money. Everyone knows that the BCS is all about money. That's why BCS bowls are such a big deal. The "small" bowl games have payouts on the order of $500,000, even up to $1.5 million (those are very few). The "New Years Day" bowls that are a slightly bigger deal payout of a few million, but no more than $4.5 million. The BCS games pay out anywhere between $14 and $17 million EACH. (That's THREE TIMES AS MUCH MONEY as even the priciest bowl.) Automatic conference bids mean that each of the "BCS conferences" is guaranteed this much each year. That is money to be used on better facilities, better coaches, better recruiting. In other words, the rich will keep getting rich and the poor will keep getting poorer. I'm not saying that I favor football socialism, I'm just saying I'm against wealth condensation in football. If Big Deal State happens to be that good every year, sure, let them go to a big deal bowl game every year. But when Supposedly Big Deal State has a three loss season, and The University of Small Town has an undefeated season, SBDS should not get to play in a $14 million bowl game while UST is snubbed.
Though apparently the BCS conferences do believe in football socialism...as long as they're dealing with the "non-BCS conferences." The multi-million dollars awarded to a BCS buster school are actually distributed among all the non-BCS conferences.
(3) The Big East. Okay, seriously. What team in the Big East is good anymore?? The Big East was only included as a BCS conference because it was home of Virginia Tech and the University of Miami. But then the two of them jumped ship (and probably smartly) to the ACC, and we're still stuck with the Big East. Come on.... If people are still insistent on automatic conference bids to the BCS bowls, at least get rid of the Big East's bid and make it an automatic bid for whichever team in one of the "non-BCS" conferences is deemed best. There is something wrong with the team that is currently ranked #16 this year (i.e., Cincinnati) playing in a big bowl when there's debate as to whether or not undefeated Boise State can be "squeezed in."
(4) The ACC. The only thing more annoying than the Big East this year is the ACC. I'll cut them a bit of a break since they haven't been as consistently bad as the Big East. I overheard someone at the gym recently say, "No team in the ACC should be ranked right now." I wanted to high five him because I agree. Right now the battle for the ACC is between #17 Boston College (a three loss team) and #25 (though unranked last week, with FOUR losses) Virginia Tech. Whoever wins, will be in a BCS game. Again....WHAT?!
(5) Redistribution of Talent. For a long time in college football, there were good teams and there was everyone else. Upsets weren't nearly as common as they are today. It seems like upsets were really something to get excited about back when BYU beat Miami in 1990. But in recent years, there seems to be an upset or two almost every weekend. I believe the reason for this is a redistribution of talent. Instead of the best recruits going to one school and sitting on the bench for the entirety of their 4 years of NCAA eligibility, they'll go to a school where they can actually play. And play they do. There are a lot of good teams out there. Everyone is beating everyone else, even when they're not "supposed" to. The result: there's no way a computer can predict who will win and who won't with a small enough margin of error to justify the continuation of the use of that computer. Who would have thought that a couple seasons ago, when everyone was in love with Troy Smith and the undefeated Ohio State Buckeyes that they'd completely choke in the title game? And that same year, little Boise State managed to bust into the BCS and play big deal Oklahoma and BEAT them in a game that was way more exciting than the OSU/UF blowout. That year BSU ended up being the only undefeated team in the country....and not only were they not awarded the national title, they didn't even get a SHOT at the title. (BYU fans take note: had the BCS been in place in 1984, I guarantee you, they would not have been awarded the national championship.) In short, there's little justification for excluding teams anymore. Just because you don't want to play with the poor kids from the wrong side of the tracks who are outside your playground clique, doesn't mean they can't kick your trash.
(5) Favoritism. The BCS is set up to favor teams in the so-called "BCS Conferences." (Have I made this point clear enough yet?) This favoritism is based largely on historical reasons: "We'll keep taking Big Name Tech seriously, despite the fact that they haven't had a winning season since 1994." This expands into the idea I expressed above that small teams are not taken seriously enough to even be allowed to play for the title.
For example: as of this writing there are 4 undefeated teams in college football: Alabama, Utah, Boise State, and Ball State. Alabama (a member of the SEC, a BCS conference) is ranked number 1. The other three are ranked 6, 9, and 12, respectively. Am I saying that even a 10-2 Ohio State or a 10-2 TCU is better than an 11-0 Ball State? I'll be honest...I don't even know where Ball State is. But I do know that if you accomplish everything that is asked of you in one season, you should be rewarded with something better than a trip to the PapaJohns.com bowl. (And I really love their garlicky butter sauce!)
Additionally: it should be noted that even if Alabama loses to Florida in the SEC title game, there is not a snowball's chance in Austin of undefeated Utah playing undefeated Boise State for the title. In fact, BSU will be considered "lucky" if they make it into the BCS at all. I mean, there are 3 loss teams to include people!! (That is, whoever wins the Big East and ACC.)
(6) Winning your Conferences vs. Playing for the National Title. I believe that if you don't win your Conference, you shouldn't be allowed to play for the national title. You may remember a few years ago when Kansas State upset Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship game. K-State and their 3 losses headed to the Fiesta Bowl while Oklahoma took an at large berth (pretty much stealing a spot that would have otherwise gone to Texas) and played LSU for the title. (And lost.) Should OU have played for the title when they couldn't even win their conference? No. If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't play for the title. This, remember, was the year that USC got the royal shaft to play for the title, and ultimately it ended with LSU on top of the BCS and USC atop the AP poll...a split national championship! This was the EXACT scenario the BCS was created to avoid! Had there been a rule in place to not allow OU to play for the title because they failed to win their conference, USC would have played LSU and we would actually know who was the best football team in the country.
(7) Pandering/Politicking. Football is about a big green (or blue, if you're Boise State) field, two teams, one ball, and 4 "15-minute" quarters that really last 4 hours. It shouldn't be about pandering to the voters, politicking your team's case, coaches and players making "please pick us" speeches, blah, blah, blah. It should be about who beat who on the field. Not about whose coach is so good at making a speech that they are being recruited to write speeches and run campaigns for several congressmen.
(8) Style Points. Since when did college football become a beauty contest? I've heard the phrase "style points" more in the past few weeks than I ever have before. Apparently we're not only deciding who to crown the best football team in the nation, the running for Miss Congeniality is wide open as well. Teams have to not only win, they have to win big and they have look good doing it. A game with cool moves is more fun to watch than one without, for sure, but again, at the end of the day, all that matters is that there's another "W" on your schedule.
(9) Good Sportsmanship. A large portion of the BCS rankings are determined by a computer. The computer takes into account many things, including a team's "margin of victory." That is: "Big Deal State didn't just beat Rivalry State, they beat them by 72 points! They are therefore awesome." This idea makes sense in theory. What is the result in practice? Teams were running up the score whenever they could to impress the computers. What ever happened to being a good sport? Instead of just graciously winning a game against an apparently far inferior opponent, teams would run the score up, adding insult to injury.
To their credit, the BCS realized this was probably not a good idea and got rid of the margin of victory from their program. However, there are still "style points" to earn, if you remember. The computers may not be impressed anymore, but the humans sure will, so when you have the chance to win big, you better take it. So again, good sportsmanship loses out.
(10) The BCS Breaks When There Are More than Two "Best" Teams. The system is basically a "two team playoff," allowing the two "best" teams in the country to go head-to-head and use the field to determine who really is the best. This works at times when the question really does come down to just two "best" teams in the country (for example, USC and Texas, in 2005). They play each other and awesomeness ensues. (And even though the computers--and Matt Leinart--thought USC was the better team, Texas pulled off the win. Hence, we don't need computers to tell us who's best, we need those 22 men on the field to prove it to us.)
But what happens when there are more than two teams that equally deserve a shot at the title? The BCS lets their computers decide who's better (why bother with actually playing football when you can let a computer decide?), and you get a situation like 2004 when USC, OU, and Auburn were all undefeated at the end of the season. The BCS said OU and USC should duke it out, and Auburn was left to play Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl . The result? USC mops the field with OU, beating them by almost 40 points. Auburn also won their BCS game and we were all left wishing they'd played USC instead. Oh, and don't forget: Utah was undefeated that year too, but being a "non-BCS conference team" they should just be grateful they were given permission to ride on the bus, even if it was in the back. They destroyed Pittsburgh (the winner of the Big East and ranked #20...20!!) in the Fiesta Bowl...a match up that was insulting to non-BCS schools everywhere. (Why does the Big East have an automatic conference bid again?)
(11) Did I Mention the Automatic Conference Bids? As you can see, I believe the root of most of the problems in the BCS are the automatic conference bids. Get rid of them.
Okay, so if The Man is still adamant about not having a playoff of any kind, I would at least beg them to consider and implement this change: Get rid of automatic conference bids!! There are 10 BCS spots. Take the top 10 teams of your little BCS poll. Period. Stop letting teams that are unranked or ranked below #20 play in the BCS. Seriously. Fine, let #1 and #2 play each other for the title. (And we'll keep complaining about your choices.) But then match up the other 8 teams in some sort of logical way. (Auburn should have at LEAST played Utah in 2004...undefeated vs. undeafeated is way more satisfying than what actually happened. Especially when both teams are irritated and have something to prove.) Make teams and conferences earn their way. No more free loading! (*turns an evil eye toward the Big East*)
Of course, changes to the system would mean that commentators and fans would have a lot less to talk about come December. College football might start making sense. What would we talk about and puzzle over? The actual games that were played? That's just crazy talk.
(Please feel free to comment! I love this discussion. And if you want to have it with me in person, I'm always up for some good BCS Bashing!)
19 comments:
I agree with almost everything you said, with one strong exception. The ACC has actually shown itself to be consistently worse than the Big East. The ACC hasn't won a BCS Bowl in 8 years. It is 1-9 in BCS Bowls. The Big East is 6-4 and has won the last three BCS Bowls its played in. Granted, a lot of those have been against the sorry ACC, but still.
I agree, there shouldn't be automatic bids. At the very least there ought to be exceptions. You have to be in the top 12 for an at-large bid, so make a rule that if your conference winner is outside the top 12, no automatic invite. Sadly, because of the power of the major conferences, they'll never go for a plan that can cost them money.
Sorry, meant to attach this. Great article chronicling the weak ACC.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3407067
Ah, thanks for the point about the ACC (and the article). I didn't realize they were that bad in their BCS games. (I think the smoke and mirrors of the system deceived me!) All the more reason to do away with them! And good point, taking away automatic bids for being outside the top 12 is a must.
You can't see me, but I'm giving you a standing ovation!
Yeah, and I love how Notre Dame gets an auto-bid if they're, what, in the top 25 or something...? Great. :)
I like to see the USC-OU-Auburn fiasco remembered by someone other than us! We're still crying over it. That Auburn team was the prettiest, most disciplined, smoothest football team I've ever seen! And USC was... awesome.... Would have been a GREAT game (and Auburn SO would have won! :)).
(I don't, however, like to see the USC-UT fiasco remembered.... Hehe. :))
Remember when there was talk of Congress attacking the BCS for anti-trust issues? Maybe they'll pick that up again. Ha ha! That would be GREAT. Also, Barack Obama says an 8-team playoff is in our national interest and that he'll "throw [his] weight around" to see what he can do about it. "It would be better for everyone." Ha! So, hey, with the president on our side...? Ha ha! Maybe those college presidents will get on-board finally....
Sorry, I actually have two more comments. First is on point 6 about winning the conference. I agree that someone who doesn't win their conference shouldn't be playing for the national championship, but I think that the stronger argument on that point is doing away with conference championship games. ESPECIALLY with the automatic berth system. In the year you referenced, USC lost early to a very weak 6-6 Cal team, and griped about not going to the national championship ahead of an Oklahoma team that was punished by a late loss in a conference title game to a solid Kansas State team. The number two team in the Big 12 shouldn't have gone, but that means that they shouldn't have a title game. Punishing them for that loss while rewarding USC for having a pathetic early loss is absurd. There is a big problem with the system when only three of the six BCS conferences have title games. Do away with that problem by doing away with conference championship games.
Also, about the style points - the BCS was actually supposed to do away with those. And it was doing a decent job, at least when it eliminated margin of victory as part of the equation (I think in 2002). The scenario only recently reared its ugly head because the SEC and Big 12 stand head and shoulders above everyone else this season.
"there's no way a computer can predict who will win and who won't with a small enough margin of error to justify the continuation of the use of that computer."
It's true, psychohistory only works on large scales. On small scales, such as a single game, it is very error prone.
By the way, Auburn, y'all should stop complaining because your team's strength of schedule did it in that year. If you wanna make the title game, you've gotta come up with tougher schedules than that. Seven of your 11 games were at home. You scheduled non-conference games against Louisiana-Monroe, Citadel (a I-AA school) and Louisiana Tech, and you didn't go on the road for any of them. You played three ranked teams, and only one was on the road. They played a tough SOS, but lower than Oklahoma's. They need to stop saying playing in the SEC is SOOOOOO tough and start scheduling some respectable non-conference games. If they hadn't played Citadel, it probably would have been enough to move them ahead of OU and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Complain about the BCS if you want, but almost all problems are brought upon teams by themselves.
Austin, I agree about the conference championships. If they're going to have automatic berths, they should be done away with, or at least decided the same way among the conferences. Some shouldn't have a conference championship game (adding another game to a team's season) while others don't. That's one more week/game that could go towards a REAL playoff!!
Rock on Elizabeth! the BCS stinks, is totally unfair and why hasn't some overzealous fan snuck in and broken that stupid computer yet anyway?
Hehe. Oh, not complaining. Just crying. (Oh, the PAIN!) It would have been the BEST game! I'm pretty sure of it. I'm clairvoyant that way. ;)
I'm with Elizabeth, though, that the BCS is a sham. But it's not really their fault--it's the stupid college presidents who refuse, refuse, refuse to let their football players participate in a playoff. Something about it compromising their learning...? Yeah, 15 games would just be ridiculous. A lot worse than their basketball players being on the road so much.... (I don't get it. Fools.)
I'm with you Auburn! 15 games WOULD be horrible. I mean, we need to extend the season with, for example, play meaningless Big 12 championship games. (Yeah, because having Missouri playing OU for the Big 12 title when Texas beat BOTH of them makes a TON of sense. But I digress, that's a Big 12 problem, not a BCS problem.)
I saw that clip about Obama rallying behind a playoff. I thought it was great. (And almost referenced it here. Maybe they WILL declare the BCS unconstitutional! :)
My beef: 1-A teams start the season knowing there is nothing they can do to win a national championship. They're already locked out before they even start.
Well, I guess I have to comment at the risk of sounding crazy.
I propose one of two solutions: First - force the creation of a twelfth conference. Each conference champion gets an automatic bid to the playoffs (just like the NFL playoffs where the best 4 records get a first-round bye). If you play in a tough conference, tough crap (see Yanks, Sox, AL East, etc.) This would treat each NCAA 1-A conference very like an NFL division. No divisions in conferences (sorry Big 12). No conference "championship game". The best record wins, then best conference record, head-to-head, etc. You play 11 regular season games, with up to 4 postseason ones.
This will NOT guarantee the best football game in the national championship game. If anyone follows the Super Bowl, they will agree that some of the worst NFL games are the "biggest" - see Steelers-Seahawks and Colts-Bears for recent evidence. Of course, some are classics, like last year's game.
What my system does is give every 1-A team a shot at the title. Not an equal shot, because of the differences in size and quality among conferences, but this even plagues pro sports (In MLB there are 16 NL teams, and 14 AL. Both leagues get 4 playoff berths).
My other solution is far more radical, and perhaps un-American. Eliminate the "national title". i won't go into that one with such strong football fans.
Anyway, 1-A fans are just jealous of 1-AA's awesomeness. I am biased, as I've never attended a Division 1-A school despite being one week away from completing my third degree at my third school. 1-AA all the way, baby!
Derek, I actually think that's not a bad idea!
Derek's plan sounds pretty good on the surface, but the problem is that you can't compare pro sports to college football. Conference champions, where teams like Boise State (who played the 115th schedule in the country) are put on equal footing with teams like Texas (who played the 7th)? In pro sports, teams play a lot more common opponents, making it a lot more fair to just send the conference winner to the playoffs. And there's a reason they instituted Wild Cards. How long before people start screaming for more teams in the playoffs in college football?
Then you have people playing weaker and weaker non-conference schedules so as not to mess up their chances at winning the conference and going to the playoffs, meaning instead of a season full of good games, we get one or two a year. The BCS, for all its faults, has made strength of schedule important and has forced some teams to actually go and play some respectable out of conference opponents. Like Oklahoma this year overtaking Texas despite head-to-head record because they played Cincinnati and TCU. I don't think an automatic berth system into the playoffs by conference would work. Gotta be the top 8 if you're going to do the playoffs. Small schools don't like it? Start playing tougher teams and building some respectability. All schools have had to go through the growing pains at one point or another.
Ah yes, in this lies the rub in a college football playoff: how many teams do you invite?
Austin, you are spot on: I do err in oversimplifying the comparison of pros to college teams. There is no comparison. Right now 12 of 32 NFL teams play at least one postseason game. Right now 68 of 119 NCAA I-A teams get a post-season game. Now we'd cut that number to 8? Out of 119? I just think the top 8 is too limited - but no matter how many teams qualified you'd have people complaining to expand the field. Even a four round 16-team tournament (which I've seen postulated elsewhere) might not be "enough".
I would like to institute two rules, regardless of whether or not the BCS remains intact. To play for the national title AT LEAST 50% of your games must be played on the ROAD. And second, if you play any team below Division I-A, you can't be national champion. Yes, there are TONS of problems with this second rule, especially because so many lower-division teams get bribed to play patsy to a Big Sixer.
So fine, play one game only against a team no lower than I-AA, but it's got to be on the road (not at "The Horseshoe" or "The Big House").
I am leery of the whole "strength or schedule" rankings. I agree that not everyone plays equal competition, but how on earth do you quantify this?
The trouble is, NONE of these plans would generate anywhere near as much money as the current bowl system for a good while. We all know that's why the BCS exists anyway.
12. The Pac-10...seriously...
I just got this story e-mailed to me and I thought it was appropriate for this forum. Enjoy.
BCS declares Germany winner of WWII
US Ranked 4th
AP - After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work–including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule–our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories–Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests–they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."
German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.
United States head coach Harry S Truman was criticized by many as having poor taste for scheduling a "politicking" interview during halftime of the German bombing raids over Great Britain.
In that interview, Truman stated, "Any way you look at it, there is going to be a really good military force that gets left out. But when you come right down to it, our head-to-head victory over the Germans has to be the deciding factor."
A US fan also made the point that "Germany is getting all the style points right now because of their sexy offense, which continues to obliterate weaker opponents and show off their might after the battle is already won. But what about defense?"
Post a Comment