Well, I guess it is that time of year again. As if I don't have enough to complain about during the winter, spring, summer and early fall, late fall is always a doozie with the unveiling of each week's BCS standings leading up to the announcement of the bowl selections in early December. It's a time of year when football reigns supreme, and while I detest the sport, I try my best each and every year to get over it, but somehow the BCS ruins that attempt without fail.
This year is going to be no different. But instead of ranting on the need to get over our national obsession with football, I will instead focus my inner anger on the BCS system—the most blatantly corrupt use of statistics in modern society.
Let me start out by letting those of you who don't already know that one of the BCS ""computer"" polls has Wisconsin ranked No. 17 in the country. Oh, and that poll has Penn State ranked No. 15 and Nebraska No. 16 .So you see where this is heading.
The BCS has problems that go beyond the statistical ineptitude of that poll's creator, Kenneth Massey. First and foremost, the BCS is organized in such a way that makes it essentially a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But I've already walked down that path and I think that point has been made fairly well.
Now it's time that I rail on the poll itself. Here's the problem: The poll doesn't confine itself to judging the best teams this season, but rather it serves simply as a barometer of the current standing of each of the programs in major college football. The top teams in the BCS are inevitably among the best this season, but they are not necessarily the best. Instead, the BCS ranks teams based upon their performance over the span of four or five years.
This is a serious problem. This is why the Boise States of the world are faced with the yearly injustice of going undefeated only to find themselves eliminated from the national title race in the first week of December by a vote rather than a loss (notwithstanding the loss to Nevada Boise endured last season after ""missing"" a game-winning field goal down the stretch). So if we are going to keep avoiding the inevitable move to a playoff system (or at least, a ""plus-one""), let's at least have a system that identifies the two best teams in the current season, program history set completely aside.
In the 13 years since the BCS system was born, there have only been 14 teams that have competed for the title. Among the six ""power"" conferences (no non-power conference has ever had a team qualify), the SEC accounts for five of these 14 teams, winning all seven titles that one of their member teams competed for.
While the 7-0 record has been used by many as evidence of the SEC's dominance and as justification for the clear advantage given to SEC teams in the BCS polls, it is a ridiculously small sample size. Also, not one of these SEC defenders mentions the fact that SEC teams have always (until this season) enjoyed an advantage in bowl games by ending their season in early December rather than late November, thus eliminating the rust that other teams always seem to carry when they head to bowl games.
How about this? Boise State is undefeated in BCS games. Why doesn't this give them the same benefit of the doubt that SEC teams enjoy?
Because the BCS is not about rewarding teams for dominating on the field, it is about rewarding schools for dominating the donor lines. The big schools founded, developed and continue to manage the BCS right down to the formulaic details. Do you think the SEC commissioner wants to tweak the system to give Boise State a chance?
No. And it isn't because they want the trophies to themselves. It's all about the money. The payoffs for BCS teams are outrageously high, and national championship qualifiers are even better rewarded.
The reason that the system is designed to reward consistency over the years is because that is what ultimately keeps the power conferences on top. It is easy to say Alabama has a tough schedule with numerous BCS top-25 teams, but who decides what constitutes a top-25 team? I would challenge you to tell me that Ole Miss is a quality opponent and the same goes for Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and even Florida this year.
Oklahoma gets credit for a non-conference schedule that included a road game against Florida State—at that point ranked in the top-10 in the country. But FSU has lost three of its last four, and at this point, that should not be considered a higher quality win than Boise State's beating Georgia in Atlanta.
The bottom line is that money is the motive behind the BCS, and as long as the system succeeds in its objective of funneling bowl money directly to the schools at the top, nothing will change. So as much as we all want a playoff, the BCS is here to stay, and while it does, no national champion can truly say it is are justly crowned.
Do you feel that the BCS provides an equal opportunity to every team, regardless of its conference's standing? E-mail Max at max.sternberg@yahoo.com.
