Do you have any idea how hard it is to make the Bowl Champions Series system fair? Stephen Hawking was hired as a consultant, then fired just as quickly. The almighty genius, whose IQ is apparently just one point short of infinite, couldn't apply his knowledge of all things interplanetary to fix a system that attempts to please everybody but'since its inception'has pleased hardly any.
But fixing the current BCS system is complicated. So much so in fact, that Dennis Miller is working it into his next HBO Special; his original plan for a diatribe on payroll tax increases for social security and its moral and socioeconomic merits seemed too... simple.
So the question is can BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg possibly develop a scheme to improve this system? The truth is, he already has.
Ultimately, the fans want an indisputable champ, while conference commissioners and schools want money. The latest changes to the BCS don't necessarily please the fans, seeing as how there still isn't a playoff system (which isn't feasible anyway) and there is still no guarantee that the two most deserving teams will meet for a national championship game'but the changes do provide opportunities for a number of lower-revenue schools to compete on a level they once could not.
Starting in the 2006 regular season, there will be a fifth game added to the BCS, subsequently expanding the field to 10 teams with the top two teams competing in the BCS National Championship Game, which is scheduled for January 8, 2007. The old system, which consisted of the major six conference champions receiving automatic bids and two at-large BCS berths, will be overhauled.
Starting in two years, a conference's champion will receive an automatic bid depending on whether that conference is strong enough for its champion to be considered worthy of a BCS shot; the number of conferences whose champion will get an automatic bid will range from five to seven, opening up three to five at-large bids for schools from lower-revenue conferences to claim. They will gauge the legitimacy of a conference championship by looking at how many teams from that conference have finished in the top 25 over a four-year period, rather than simply rewarding the traditionally-elite Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, Southeastern, Atlantic Coast and Big East conferences.
The new BCS system would have worked beautifully had it taken effect this season, because West Virginia would never have gotten an automatic bid for winning such a weak Big East conference, and a team like Oregon, which went 10-1, would have received the at-large bid it deserved.
You're not convinced? It's human nature to reject a solution that you don't think is as good as it possibly could be. Believe me, I understand.
Let's say put some average, everyday guy in a room with three doors and tell him that he can take whatever is behind Door No. 1, Door No. 2 or Door No. 3'but the catch is he won't be shown what's behind Door No.3 until he makes his decision.
Now Door No.1 doesn't have to be overwhelming'maybe a dinette set and a vacuum. But let's say Door No. 2 is much harder to pass on, offering perfect health until the age of 95, enough money for five generations of irresponsible spending and, best of all, 'TiVo.' Some of you'those who value health, wealth and the true meaning of intelligent design'may be wondering why there is even a need for the third door, but an even greater number of you want to know what's behind it.
If you understand that determining a champion in college football is inherently complex, then you know that the BCS is currently the best option'and you probably settled for Door No. 2. If you took Door No. 3 thinking there was a flying car or a scantily-clad Brooke Burke (or Brad Pitt if that's your thing), then you probably want to get rid of the BCS until it's perfect, don't you? You greedy bastard.
You probably identify with Chuck Klosterman, who once wrote, 'I would rather understand an old problem than feel alienated by a flawed solution.'
But you need to get with the program, because BCS officials have done even more in the way of system improvement. They have also begun to look at replacing the recently-withdrawn Associated Press poll from the BCS rankings with a focus on the integrity and accuracy of the new poll and the other two existing determinants of BCS bids: the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll and computer rankings. They are working to make sure that individual coaches' polls are public to ensure accountability (thus fairness) and are hoping to improve accuracy by delaying polls until several weeks into the season'placing less emphasis on projections and hype and more on results.
Surely there is still work to be done, but all changes to date'while financially driven'have reduced the systematic exclusion of lower-revenue schools and conferences from participating in the BCS.
So many practical and positive amendments have been made to BCS rules that the system appears almost, dare I say, comprehensible in its goals and the means by which they're being achieved.
Weiberg and company have done all of this with a blatant and stony disregard for Dennis Miller's waning supply of material'not that you have to worry about Dennis. He'll always have politics.
As for all of you who cast aside Door No. 2 in the hopes of a recording contract or a lifetime supply of Rolling Rock? Ironically, your preference for greener grass on the other side of the fence has ushered you into the spring of your discontent. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Door No. 3: a Blockbuster Gift Card and a basket of body lotions.
Merry Christmas.
