B.uilt to C.onstantly S.uck, or Why I Hate the BCS

It is the muggy summer practices in the swamps of Florida. It is the biting autumn chill on the fields in Pennsylvania. It is the gripping leather snap on the 50-yard-line in Oklahoma. It is the Bowl Championship Series. It is college football.

In the 100 years since the NCAA was created, the national champion in football has been decided in many different ways. The newest, and arguably the most controversial, is the Bowl Championship Series, or the BCS.

In all NCAA sports besides football, the national champion is decided by a playoff or tournament system. For instance, in basketball there is a "March Madness" playoff tournament and in baseball there are divisional playoffs leading to a college World Series. In football, however, the championship process is run by an association of six conferences, four bowl games, and Notre Dame and includes no playoff or end of the year tournament system.

For the past 10 years, the BCS has gone through several changes, all in the name of producing the most accurate ranking system for all involved. However, in that quest, the officials of the BCS have only covered up the problem, not dealt with it head on. Teams start out on different playing fields and are punished for inconsistent standards. Bowl games become more about making money for television channels and corporations and less about showcasing the best and most athletic players in the game.

Below is a brief history of the lead up to the BCS and an explanation of the problems within the current system, followed by examples of teams hurt by BCS decisions.

Prior to 1992 - College football had no system that attempted to match the top-ranked teams in a post-season championship game.

1992 - Bowl Coalition
The Bowl Coalition was created to force a National Championship game between the top two ranked teams. This system consisted of five conferences, six bowl games, and Notre Dame. This excluded all other conferences from having the ability to have a team in the National Championship game and did not include the Big Ten or the Pac-10 champions, as they were obligated to play in the Rose Bowl.

1995 - Bowl Alliance
The Bowl Alliance, a restructured Bowl Coalition, consisted of five conferences and three bowl games. The National Championship game rotated between the three bowls for host each year. (Note: The Big Ten and Pac-10 champions were still not part of this system.)

1997/1998 - Michigan and Nebraska split National Championship according to human polls.

1998 - Bowl Championship Series
Because of the previous season's intense debate over the divided National Championship, the Bowl Alliance was reformed into the Bowl Championship Series. Beginning in the 2006/2007 season, the National Championship game was created separate from the other four bowls, resulting in five BCS bowl games each year. This system consists of a complex averaging of two human polls and six computer polls to create a ranking system (released mid-season) and to help determine BCS bowl berths (at the end of the regular season).

The first problem inherent in the BCS system is the double emphasis on quality wins and strength of schedule. Mathematical experts, like those employed by the BCS to study the algorithms in their rankings, notice flaws in the system. Because of the controversy each year, mathematicians from Georgia Tech studied the BCS ranking system and concluded in 2004 that the problem was not with the computer rankings, but rather with the "BCS formula of polls, computers, schedule strengths, losses, and quality wins." Since the human polls already account for quality wins and strength of schedule, the current BCS system places a double emphasis on these things, making it harder for non-BCS conference schools to make it to a major bowl game. The teams competing for these highly coveted bowl berths have already been classified as the biggest and best athletic schools in the nation. They should not be further classified by allowing some of them a leg up against competition and letting others fall by the wayside.

Because Notre Dame's football team is independent from any conference, they have a special clause in the current BCS system. As long as they finish in the top 8, they are guaranteed a bowl berth. On the surface, this may not seem like a bad idea -- they're a top 10 team, they should play in a BCS bowl game. However, this clause leaves open the possibility of Notre Dame being chosen over a team ranked above them (as happened in the 2005/2006 season -- see below for details). By not joining the Big East conference (along with all of Notre Dame's other sports teams), ND football makes themselves an outcast in the BCS.

Finally, even though the BCS was created to establish a clear-cut national champion, this system is still not officially recognized by the NCAA to grant that title. This makes football distinctly different from all other college sports. There is debate as to whether a "Plus-One" or playoff system would be best to help solve this problem, however one thing is certain: the BCS is doing the players, coaches, and schools a disservice to continue an obviously unfair ranking format.

Although there have been a plethora of controversies in the lifetime of the BCS, I have selected a few to discuss below. See more examples and explanations of controversies at the links above.

1998/1999 In the first year of the BCS, one-loss Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings but was passed over for a BCS bowl berth in favor of Ohio State (#4) and two-loss Florida (8th). The Wildcats played in the Alamo bowl and ended up losing to Purdue. The following season, the BCS created the "Kansas State Rule," which insured that the #3 team would receive an invitation to a BCS bowl game. Since 1999, this rule has been utilized four times.

2003/2004  By the end of the 2003/2004 season, three teams (Oklahoma, LSU, and USC) had finished with one loss. These teams all had varying rankings in the BCS and non-BCS polls. However, because LSU and Oklahoma had higher computer rankings, they went on to the National Championship game, while USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl. USC ended the season with a #1 ranking in the AP poll, although LSU was the official BCS champion.

2004/2005  Five undefeated teams were left at the end of the 2004/2005 regular season. However, despite the perfect record three of those teams (Auburn, Utah, and Boise State) were denied the opportunity to play in the National Championship game. Most of the controversy this year centered on Auburn, because although they beat #9 Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, they were undefeated in the SEC, the conference with the most BCS bowl game showings.

2005/2006  This season played host to the first BCS-era Notre Dame controversy, with Oregon getting the short end of the stick. At the end of the regular season, Oregon was ranked #5 and Notre Dame #8. Because Oregon was not the Pac-10 champion, USC was playing in the National Championship game, and Notre Dame was in the top 8, the Ducks were overlooked for a BCS bowl berth. Oregon went on to lose to Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl, 17-13.

2007/2008  Hawai'i was the only undefeated team in the nation, going into the 2007/2008 bowl season. However, like other non-major conference teams, the Warriors were not given the National Championship berth because their schedule was deemed too weak. Hawai'i went on to lost to Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.

2008/2009  As opposed to the above controversies, Utah felt the brunt not of a bowl berth problem, but an end of the full season ranking problem. Utah, one of three undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, was selected for an at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl, defeating also undefeated Alabama. Boise State lost to TCU in the Poinsettia Bowl, leaving Utah the only team in the nation to have not lost in the 2008/2009 season. However, they still ended with a #2 ranking in the AP poll (behind Florida) and a #4 ranking in the USA-Today poll (behind Florida, USC, and Texas).