Print   Recommend

Ah, yes ... computers -- you can't live with 'em, and you can't live without 'em.

Not only has the University of Southern California been jilted out of the Sugar Bowl by the BCS computers, despite being ranked number one in both human polls, but my initial contribution to Sports Central has been derailed, as well.

I had this grand column all ready to go about the bowls and the mediocrity of the teams playing in them, with lots of stats and examples; but that has all been shelved thanks to the developments Sunday in the Bowl Championship Series.

Now, I'm not going to try to lobby for a playoff system in Division 1-A football, although I do advocate for one, but rather discuss some tweaking to the BCS system that could prevent a future travesty from happening again. As many coaches, writers, and experts say, "the BCS is the best system we have right now," but all agree that it needs some modification to work more effectively.

As it stands right now, the Bull Crap System has been responsible for keeping two legitimate title contenders from actually being able to prove their worth on the field. In 2001, Oregon thought they should have had the chance to play for the national championship against Miami in the Rose Bowl when they finished number two in both the AP and coaches' polls.

But Nebraska ended up number two in the BCS, sending BCS No. 4 Oregon to the Fiesta Bowl to play BCS No. 3 Colorado, whom they destroyed 38-16. The Rose Bowl wasn't much better with Miami handling Nebraska easily, 37-14. The Ducks finished number two in both final polls and really wanted another game against the Hurricanes to settle their differences once and for all.

Now, we have nearly the exact same scenario. Oklahoma is number three in both "human" polls while USC and LSU are No. 1 and 2, respectively. Those two should be playing in the Sugar Bowl next month. It's a travesty that seven computers can circumvent what dozens of writers, broadcasters, and coaches conclude unanimously. The BCS needs to be fixed right away before this happens again.

As a fan and eventual alum of Washington State University, I grew up despising the Trojans, with their smug demeanors, Barbie-doll cheerleaders, and that God-awful fight song and death march they play after nearly every down. The Crimson and Gray blood that flows through my veins is reveling in their misery, but the general college football fan in me is also sympathizing with them because the current system is truly ripping them off.

In years past, USC would face Michigan in the Rose Bowl, which is going to happen this season, and LSU would have gone to the Sugar Bowl as the SEC champion, which is also going to happen this year. Kansas State, as Big XII champions, would have gone to the Orange Bowl, leaving the Sugar Bowl to select the highest-ranking team available not locked into a bowl as conference champion. In this case, it would be Oklahoma.

So, then, has the BCS really solved anything it was created to do, namely avoid a co-championship? Of course not. All it is doing is further muddling the situation by creating as much if not more controversy than the previous poll system.

If speculations hold true, USC will beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and remain number one in the AP poll. The winner of the Sugar Bowl will be named number one by the coaches' poll because they have to put them there. So, we'll have a split championship again and cries for a playoff will be heard louder than ever.

Many solutions to the BCS problem have been presented in the recent past, including giving more weight to the human polls and bringing back the margin of victory component to the computer ratings. A couple of modifications might take some of the controversy and unfairness out of the process.

First of all, the computer ratings should be used only for tie-breaking purposes. For example, if USC was number one in both polls, LSU was number two in the AP poll, and Oklahoma was number two in the coaches' poll, then the BCS computers would be used to determine who would play the Trojans in the Sugar Bowl.

This year, the computer average has Oklahoma number one and LSU number two. Therefore, Southern Cal would play Oklahoma for the championship and LSU would go somewhere else. If the two human polls agree on who is numbers one and two, regardless of order, then those two teams should automatically advance to the title game.

Secondly, the margin of victory component should be re-introduced to the computer ratings, but with one primary modification. The MOV should only be used when determining the so-called "quality win" adjustment and factored when the teams are both ranked in the polls. For instance, Oklahoma's 77-0 win over unranked Texas A&M would mean nothing, but their 34-13 win over then-24th-ranked Missouri would gain them an additional half-point or something like that.

Depending on where the team was ranked that the other team defeated would determine how many percentage points they would earn. Kansas State, ranked No. 14 and winning over the No. 1 team, would receive 1.5 points for beating a team ranked more than 10 places higher and maybe a bonus half-point for beating the top-ranked team.

Finally, the computers should also take into consideration "quality" losses, or even upset losses. Here, LSU would have more percentage points deducted for its 12-point loss to an unranked Florida team than USC would for losing in overtime by a field goal to unranked California. Oklahoma would have less than either of those two schools subtracted for their loss in the Big XII championship game against Kansas State, ranked 13th in the polls.

In the end, though, no matter how you slice it, USC is getting screwed and, despite my hatred for the Men from Troy, I hope they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl just so everyone will finally see how completely unreliable the BCS actually is. I know that we have a couple more years to contend with this system, but I hope that some modifications can be made for next year that will at least make it a little more palatable. After that ... bring on the playoffs!

Have something to say? Visit the message boards and discuss this article. Comments? Agree? Disagree? Send in your feedback about this article.