Winning Isn’t Everything, Especially In The BCS

So we have all this talk about the college football BCS system; you know, sports’ most useless, botched, computer-memory-wasting way of getting 120 teams to fight their way to the title on the basis of filling in mathematical formulas.

Yes, it does succeed in bringing about bragging rights for the higher ranked over the lower ranked, but it doesn’t truly succeed in bringing about the match-ups to back those bragging rights up. The BCS system has flawed college footballs organization since 1998, and what do you know? With teams like Kentucky, Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida and Missouri all cracking the top 25 this year, it is on the brink of bringing about even more questioning.

The BCS system grades teams on four primary factors: subjective polls, computer rankings, strength of teams schedule and number of losses. You can throw out the subjective polls and computer rankings; the computers should only be football associated when keeping count of the number of yards, completions and touchdowns Hawaii quarterback Colt Brennan throws per game. Last time I checked, football was played for the win-loss column; for the mindset of getting one step closer with each win. But that wasn’t the case for last year’s Boise State or 2005’s Auburn, where each team finished undefeated but never reached the championship.

Those teams didn’t step closer to the championship with each win; they stepped closer to hearing they had zero control over their own destiny. Auburn in 2005 trailed USC and Oklahoma the entire year, who were given control of their own destiny before the season even started by being placed first and second in the nation.

USC and Oklahoma, both playing in somewhat mediocre conferences, had a much better chance of going undefeated than Auburn with its lethal SEC schedule. Auburn took the SEC and finished undefeated, but USC and Oklahoma kept their top two rankings and arranged a date in the national championship.

Only in a playoff can you play to win and be guaranteed another game. Yes, there is the opportunity to play for a bowl game at the end of the season, but deep thought says every team plays for a national championship; if not, then the season could be considered unsuccessful for many programs.

Considering college football teams can choose their out-of-conference schedule, it is reasonable to suggest the BCS works well with not awarding teams who are hunting for a college football equivalent Miami Dolphin team to add to their schedule and play all 12 times a year. The BCS weighs strength of schedule heavily in determining the rankings, which should be the premiere factor in deciding how good teams really are.

There’s been enough of Florida State vs. UAB and Florida vs. Troy. Teams need to schedule at least three out-of-conference games against opponents who ended their previous season bowl eligible. If you’re USC, you shouldn’t be given the chance to put together a measly out-of-conference schedule when you know your Pac-10 schedule has you going undefeated.

Under the BCS there is only one place where what occurs on the field is more important than what comes out of math formulas; that is the number of losses. What the BCS fails to do is differentiate between multiple undefeated teams. If four teams finish undefeated, then there should be a way to advance two of those teams to the championship game, and not just on the basis of who is ranked first and second.

Watching a college football playoff throughout the month of December, you know, the best month of college football for the wives when no college football is played at all, would energize the fans and show them why football is played solely for the win-loss column. If you win, you move on. Not, if you win, well you still have a shot at the Orange Bowl.

Going to the playoffs is about given chances. Do well during the year and you’re awarded the opportunity to fight for a title. If you blow that chance then you’re hunt for a title is over. In college football not every team is given a chance, even if they take care of every opponent on their schedule. Their point value is their chance; not the football, the football field and their football team that makes football worth winning to play another game.  

The BCS is an example of a failed experiment trying to bring in too much technology into a game based merely on crossing a goal line. What are your 2006 Boise State and your 2007 Hawaii getting out of going undefeated? Well, let me tell you, it’s not a national championship.