The End Of The BCS?

On November 5, 2011 two of the best teams in college football met for what was dubbed, “the game of the century.” Number one Louisiana State played number two Alabama. Louisiana State won the game, but that was not the end of it as the two teams would meet up again in the national championship game. This time Alabama won and was crowned number one. This brought up a huge debate that since Alabama lost they should have never played in the title game. This has become the “final straw” in the current BCS system and has created a called for change.

Put together with a computer, the BCS rankings are designed to create the best possible match up for the national championship game. Though the BCS rankings were created in 1998, the first championship only game was first played in 2006. In next six years, a team from the Southeastern Conference (SEC) has won every championship game. The question hasn't been whether the team who won should have be the overall number one team, the debate has been which teams should have been playing in the game.

In the next six years during the new BCS system there has been six teams that finished their season undefeated; only two of those teams won the national championship. This has brought up a huge debate that teams like Boise State and TCU go undefeated and don’t get a chance to play for the championship. Teams from other conferences who have one or even two losses have gotten a pass over the other teams and have played for the right to be number one.

However, teams from the SEC and other automatic qualifiers will argue that teams like Boise State are not even on the same playing field as them. One of the main arguments against smaller schools is the fact that they play a much softer schedule then a team from the SEC. Another argument is that teams like Boise State don’t have the same amount of talent and play in much smaller stadiums.

Bill Hancock, Executive Director of the BCS, argues that the current system is fine the way it is, for two reasons. Saying that, “First, we have the best regular season in sports—the most meaningful and the most compelling from start to finish. The second reason is that we have a bowl system that rewards 70 groups of athletes with a remarkable experience at the end of the year. Those two things are worth fighting for.”( http://failuretomonitor.com)

Recently a new proposal has come up where the top four teams would play each-other for who would play in the final game. A plus-one system. This system makes sense, if the number one team plays number four and two would play three. If this system was used in the past few years, teams like TCU and Boise State would have a chance.

So what is the right answer? Should the current system stay in place? Or should the system change? Personally, I think the plus-one system is a great substitute for the current system. It would keep the idea that, “every game counts,” give teams like Boise State a chance to win the national title, and would still keep the current bowl system in place. The games would be great television and would, I believe, truly find the real overall best team in college football?

Sources:

"BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock on conference expansion | Failure To Monitor." Failure To Monitor | Violating NCAA bylaws since 2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://failuretomonitor.com/2011/10/07/bcs-executive-director-bill-hancock-on-conference-expansion/>.