 |
|||||||
|
By thale, Section College
Every year, without fail, the pundits rip the BCS. I have always felt this was unjustified, since the BCS does exactly what it was designed to do. Until a playoff is created (and that looks unlikely) the BCS is the best way to choose a national champion.
Along with these glad tidings, this season also brings much heartache, and not a few bellyaches. In seasons past Auburn and Southern Cal carried the torch of programs that were slighted by the final BCS poll, naming the national title participants. Auburn went undefeated and was kept out of the title game due to their high pre-season poll position. USC was voted number one in the final human polls a few years ago, yet the computers favored LSU and Oklahoma. This year, Michigan has picked up the torch of programs who feel they deserve to be in the championship game. As is an annual pastime for the sports media, there has been an outcry that the BCS, as usual, does not work. The only solution, they cry, is a playoff system. Fair enough, say I. Perhaps a playoff is the only way to crown a national champion. But those who contend that the BCS "does not work", or that it doesn't somehow do what it was designed to do, merely parade their ignorance for all the world to see, and are quite proud of doing so. One need only look at the history of college football, and why the BCS was created, to see why these people are mistaken. Before 1998, the first year the BCS decided the national champion, the champion was chosen solely by voters. Regardless of poll position, programs would head to their respective bowl games, play the games, and the next day the writers, coaches, and various other agencies would crown a champion. Often this resulted in more than one champion, such as 1997 when Michigan and Nebraska were both crowned champion. Rarely did the number one and number two teams meet in the bowl. In fact, at one point in history, voters named a champion after the regular season but before the bowls were even played. And they talk about bowls being pointless today! Then various important people got together and decided that this was lunacy. The need for a playoff was there, but the will to create it was lacking. Instead of a playoff, some brilliant person said, why not a system using computers and polls to decided who exactly the best teams in the country are? It would take into account the human polls, but also computer models and formulas using strength of schedule, opponents strength of schedule, points scored, and other very important factors to decided just who the two top teams were. Then, these two teams would face each other, number one versus number two, and the controversy would be gone! Right? Well, not exactly. But the BCS, despite its bad rap, has done exactly what it was designed to do. In lieu of a playoff, the BCS decides who the best two teams are. On the rare occasions when both teams are undefeated, such as last year's Rose Bowl with Texas against USC, the BCS is not needed. But in most cases, such as this year, there are not two undefeated teams. When the answer is not obvious, the BCS is able to decide who should play for all the marbles. Michigan and Florida did not play each other this season, so we cannot know for sure which team is better. So, we turn to the BCS to make this decision. Whether the BCS is a good system for deciding a champion is not up for debate right now; most agree it is not. But until there is a playoff, the BCS is still the best method of choosing who will be playing for the national title, and who will be playing for school pride. Or whatever those losers play for. Story writing contestLog in or create an account to vote for this story!
All trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective leagues and associations. The Rest © Sportscolumn.com / Cow Hollow Media, LLC. Please read our Terms of Service. Sportscolumn.com is powered by Scoop.
|
Related Links |
||||||
