This year is one of the most wide open years I can remember in recent college football history. There is no team with a schedule which makes you think, “they’ve got a good chance to be unbeaten.” Miami has trips to Tennessee and Florida plus home tilts with Florida State and Virginia Tech. Florida has to travel to Tallahassee. Texas has their own version of kryptonite on their schedule in the form of Oklahoma, not to mention a game at Nebraska. Oklahoma has Colorado on their schedule. Florida and Tennessee meet in Knoxville. Tennessee has to travel to Georgia. Michigan goes to Ohio State, Washington State to UCLA plus the always difficult trip to Hawaii, while Washington travels to Pullman for the Apple Cup. Nebraska and Oregon seem to be in transition phases with new faces at key positions.
Undoubtedly, this will be an exciting season with each weekend being enormously important. And with a strong possibility of there not being a team that goes undefeated in the regular season, the games will be all the more important, all the more interesting. And it also sets up another looming BCS controversy.
I am still unsure of how this system can be considered fair. I’m unsure of how some of these computer formulas manufactured by different people and organizations are any more accurate than me assigning each team a ranking based on my own gut feeling as to who is better than who. But I am sure that controversy follows this system.
Two seasons ago, Florida State finished No. 2 in the BCS and participated in the national championship game, the Orange Bowl. Getting the shaft was Miami. The Hurricanes finished No. 2 in both the AP and Coaches’ polls and beat Florida State head-to-head. Perhaps getting the biggest shaft of all was Washington, who, like Miami and Florida State, finished with only one loss. They finished No. 4 in the BCS and No. 4 in both polls despite beating Miami head-to-head.
Last season the situation was even more dicey. Nebraska finished No. 2 in the BCS, earning a trip to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl, the site of the national championship game. Nebraska failed to win their own conference, the Big 12, finishing third behind champion Colorado and runner-up Texas. One could argue that Colorado was no more deserving of the nod than Nebraska because, though the Buffaloes were the conference champion and routed Nebraska, 63-36, they had finished the season with two losses. The team getting the shaft this time, however, was Oregon. They finished with only one loss and with the No. 2 ranking in both polls yet, for the second year in a row, the Pac-10 champion got the shaft and was excluded from the national championship game. It must be that east coast bias.
It is of little matter that Oklahoma in 2000 and Miami last season, the deserving participants in the national championship games, ended up winning convincingly. Both were most deserving champions. The problem is that Washington or Miami in 2000 and Oregon last season didn’t get the chance they had rightfully earned to win the championship.
This season seems headed for another BCS debate. There seems to be no consensus as to who the best teams are, though about a half dozen or so each get much support from experts. And such a wide open mix leads one to believe that a controversy is yet again on the horizon.
Those who know me are aware of my stance on the BCS. I think it is a preposterous method of determining a national champion. If it were up to me, I would have an eight-team playoff featuring the champion of the six “power” conferences plus two at-large teams who would be selected using a computer formula, much like how the 65 teams of the NCAA basketball playoffs are determined. The exception would be if there was an undefeated team in a smaller conference in which case that unbeaten would get one of the at-large bids. Since college football seems dead set against a playoff, I would prefer the old way of having a bunch of bowls with certain teams assigned to certain bowls and two separate polls determining the champion or champions.
But the BCS is here. It’s here until at least 2006 whether we like it or not and so it is that we have to live with it. And since this system is in place, my only suggestion to chairman Mike Tranghese is to avoid change. Keep it the same every single year.
The BCS has been modified after every single season. The first season of the BCS, 1998, produced a Tennessee victory over Florida State in the national championship game. After the season, five more computers were added into the formula. After 1999, when the proper championship match-up resulted in Florida State defeating Virginia Tech, the overseeing of the BCS was changed, rotating from conference to conference. Following the 2000 debacle, two of the ratings used to calculate the BCS were dropped. In addition, a quality win factor was added to account for such situations as the Miami-Washington-Florida State situation.
For this season, even more change has taken place. Margin of victory is no longer a consideration and the quality win component has been changed. Teams now have to be at least 9-3 and in the top 12 of the final BCS to qualify for one of the BCS at-large berths.
Does any of that make sense to you? If not, you’re not alone. But one thing that does make sense is that the formula is constantly changing. There is no consistency. And that is a problem.
By consistently changing the formula to atone for the controversies created before, the BCS committee is admitting that the system is greatly flawed. They are admitting that, in contriving the idea, they failed to account for major issues such as conference ranking and head-to-head competition. One year from now, we will likely be discussing the latest change to the BCS formula created to atone for the latest fouled up championship match-up.
If this system really is the way to go, then why not stick with the formula? If the computer says Florida State is No. 2 or Nebraska is No. 2, then Florida State and Nebraska is No. 2. If the Miamis, Washingtons and Oregons of the world get the shaft, that’s just tough. But by constantly changing it to appease the angry fans and university administrations the committee is only showing that the system is folly and that the formula was put together without much thought.
Don’t make any changes to the BCS until 2006 when, one can only hope, a better method of determining a champion is created because by changing it each year the masterminds behind it are only making it look even more ridiculous than it already is.
