Since it was introduced in 1998, we have all learned to despise the Bowl Championship Series. What was supposed to be a way to get the champion of college football decided on the field and not in the newsroom has instead turned into a system that simply uses quasi-mathematical formulas to guarantee that the big names end up in the big bowls.
And honestly, there seemed to be nothing wrong with that. At the very least, the addition of a definitive championship game was a step toward the playoff system that myself and everyone not working as a major university President or TV executive wants to see.
Boy were we wrong.
Rather than bringing us closer to a playoff, the BCS has created a mess where the façade of a ""championship"" game has hidden the basic reality that a title is being determined not by wins and losses, but by reputations and observations.
While the BCS has undergone several refurbishments, the system has, if anything, only gotten worse. First of all, the computer rankings, supposedly mathematical and thus completely objective, are now so poorly assembled that many in the statistical community are calling for a boycott. One of the ""computer"" rankers isn't even a mathematician, and the BCS (in a revision of their original rules) bars rankers from taking margin of victory into account.
In addition, the existence of pre-season polling has introduced a level of subjectivity that should never be involved in determining a national champion. Although the argument could be made that pre-season polls address where a team is in terms of returning starters and recruiting success, the reality is that reputation plays a part in this and thus gives the ""big boys"" an advantage that only grows as the season progresses.
Just imagine if we gave the Red Sox and Yankees a 10 game lead in the AL East at the start of the year just because they appeared to be the best in the division.
So that brings us to the Badgers. After a big win against Ohio State, the first truly quality victory of the season, Wisconsin opens the BCS season as No. 13 in the nation. While I would say that this position is probably not far off, I do have a problem with the position relative to some other teams— notably Ohio State themselves.
The Buckeyes, even after a sound defeat at the hands of an emotionally-charged Badger squad, rank No. 10 in the first BCS poll of the season, ahead of the very team they just lost to. Now, I understand that ranking cannot be confined by a single head-to-head game; but in this case, why exactly would OSU rank ahead of the Badgers? Ohio State's best win is a home victory over then-No. 12 Miami. Since then, the ‘Canes have gotten blown out by Florida State and open the BCS unranked.
OK, but the Badgers have struggled even in some of their victories, and that is a factor in the human polls. Well, the fact that the Buckeyes didn't exactly look stellar in their win against Illinois and blowouts against Ohio and Eastern Michigan really don't tell us that much about what is supposedly a top team. Even if the strength of OSU's wins were better than those of the Badgers, explain how the computers place the Buckeyes ahead of Wisconsin as well?
Clearly the system is flawed. How can we call this a way to determine a champion? Championships need to be won on the field, head-to-head, mono y mono. The BCS doesn't give college football this opportunity, and as a result cannot hope to provide us with a true national champion.
Do you support the BCS? E-mail Max at max.sternberg@yahoo.com.
