BCS Works This Time … Sort Of

Once again, the BCS has left a sour taste in the mouths of college football fans, especially those on the West Coast. Once again, a Pac-10 team gets the short end of the stick when it comes to getting a BCS nod and, once again, a couple of not-so-deserving teams get to play in one of the big four bowls thanks to conference alliances.

In the past, I've railed against the "Bull Crap System" and have presented ideas that, in my mind, would be better and fairer than the current system. This time, I won't be campaigning for a playoff system (like three other NCAA divisions have -- seems rather contradictory) or explaining how the rating system could be more fair. Instead, I'll be making one suggestion to the current situation that, to me, would prevent some of the better teams in the nation (according to the ratings) from being left out in the cold.

With the announcement that USC would play Oklahoma in the FedEx Orange Bowl, nearly every college football "expert" sang the praises of the BCS. "It did exactly what it was supposed to do," they said. "It put the top two teams together to play for the national championship." But at the same time, it left three undefeated teams out of a shot at the title and two of the top seven teams in the country out of BCS games.

In reality, the BCS did exactly what it was supposed to do on the surface, but in a deeper sense, it was just a messed up as it was last year. Ask the Cal Bears if the BCS was fair; ask the Georgia Bulldogs if the BCS was fair; ask Boise State if the BCS was fair. I'm sure every coach will give the same politically correct cliché that "we're extremely disappointed but that's how the system is set up so we'll have to live with it. We're just happy to be playing in a bowl game." Give me a break.

If Jeff Tedford at Cal tells you his team is less deserving to play in the Rose Bowl than Michigan is, he probably also has a nice piece of property in North Dakota overlooking the Pacific Ocean he could sell you. If Mark Richt at UGA says his team is not much better at 9-2 playing in arguably the toughest conference on the planet than an 8-3 Pitt team that plays in a league that is barely above mid-major, then maybe the moon really is made of cheese. And if Dan Hawkins at Boise State suggests his undefeated Broncos would get absolutely shellacked against any other BCS contender, then the sport of college football should die a quick death and fade into the sunset of sports history.

My point is what is the point of having a rating system that penalizes the schools that have done what it asks by going undefeated, or that have proved their worth by finishing near the top of the list? There is none and, in the end, it is no different or better than the old system of having automatic conference berths to certain games and inserting the at-large bids wherever the best matchups exist. Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with the BCS this year.

I don't have any quarrel with USC and Oklahoma playing for the national title. I've been convinced that they were the two best teams in the country this year. No offense to Auburn, Utah, or Boise State, but the Trojans and Sooners deserve to be there. I don't have a problem with Utah being a so-called mid-major making it into a BCS game. They finished near the top and are worthy of a bid. Texas, Virginia Tech? You betchya. Pitt and Michigan? How'd they get in there?

That, by the way, was a rhetorical question. I know how they got there -- conference alliances, which is the main reason the current system isn't fair for all teams involved. In order to have a true "bowl championship series," the automatic bids must go. Although it hasn't been expressly stated, the whole reason for the creation of the BCS to begin with was to have the best teams in the country squaring off in the four biggest bowl games. Yes, Pitt and Michigan are conference champions, but their computer rankings on which the whole system is based couldn't help them even break the top 10.

In order for the BCS to become a true BCS, the automatic bids have to be dropped and the top 10 teams in the final BCS play in the four major bowls and the one "double-hosted" bowl beginning in 2006. Obviously, the top two teams would play in whatever game is the championship game for that year and the rest of the bowls would matchup 3 vs. 10, 4 vs. 9, 5 vs. 8, and 6 vs. 7. One of two exceptions would be the Rose Bowl where the Big 10 or Pac-10 (or both) teams rated highest in the BCS -- other than numbers one or two--would get an automatic berth.

The other exception would be if two teams from the same conference ended up in the pairings, the lower-rated team would be adjusted with the next highest rated team. Under this year's system, Cal would play Utah in the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl would still have Auburn vs. Virginia Tech, and the Fiesta Bowl would pit Texas against Georgia.

If that system were used this year, Boise State and Louisville still would miss out on a BCS game, but under the "double-hosting" scenario both would get in. Since the Orange Bowls hosts the championship game between USC and Oklahoma, it too would host an earlier BCS game. This would be the 6 vs. 7 matchup, being Utah and Georgia. The Rose Bowl would have Cal vs. Virginia Tech, the Sugar Bowl would be Auburn vs. Louisville, and the Fiesta Bowl would be Texas vs. Boise State. Pretty intriguing matchups, I'd say.

The only other real problem I have with the way the computer ratings are determined is the inclusion of the coaches poll. These guys, of their own admission, pay absolutely zero attention to teams outside their own conference. How on Earth, then, can they make a legitimate decision on who should be ranked where? The same holds true for most of the sportswriters and broadcasters in the AP poll. Unless a person has nothing better to do than tape every game on TV and watch them, there is no way to tell who's best, other than by the scoreboard.

The latest BCS ratings tweaking involved taking out the margin-of-victory factor; but, in reality, the margin of victory still holds its place in the two human polls. A coach or writer looks at the scores in the Sunday morning paper and sees a team win by 40 points, then assumes that team is real good. Or, if a team squeaks out a one-point victory, they think that team wasn't as good as they first thought.

Both the Pac-10 commissioner and Cal coach Tedford this week called for making public the coaches' votes. I can't say I blame them. With Texas being named to the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 conference gets a fat paycheck that the Pac-10 feels it deserves. And why did Texas flip-flop with Cal in the BCS standings? The coaches’ poll changed dramatically in the Longhorns' favor.

Without coming right out and crying "conspiracy," just think about this for a moment. Obviously, the Big 12 has more coaches and, therefore, more votes than does the Pac-10. Between Thanksgiving weekend and the last weekend of the season, Cal lost 28 points in the coaches poll while Texas gained 15 points. It didn't change their rankings -- Cal remained ahead of Texas at No. 4, but it did change their percentage in the BCS ratings. That's why folks on the West Coast would like to see exactly who changed their vote from Cal last week to Texas this week.

It's a fair request, as far as I'm concerned and, if the coaches don't want to make their votes public for fear of repercussions within the conference, then let's just do away with the poll altogether. College football survived many seasons without the coaches poll and it can do it again.

So, while the BCS may be the best system we have at this time, it still is not the best system available. And, until the presidents at the 1-A schools allow the blinders of tradition drop off their eyes, the Cals and Boise States and Georgias of the world will just have to swallow the bitter pill they've prescribed to themselves. Maybe eventually they will see the merits of a system their brothers and sisters from 1-AA down have adopted many years ago -- a playoff.