college football

Every year, the NCAA Basketball Division 1-A National Champion is decided through a massive, month-long 65 team tournament that is full of dynastic storylines and thrilling upset victories. “March Madness”, as it is called by many, is one of the most exciting times all year for both die-hard sports fans and casual audiences alike. People pay thousands of dollars just so they can follow their teams around the country as they advance through the aptly-named rounds, going from the round of 64 down to the round of 32, then onto the “Sweet Sixteen”, the “Elite Eight”, the “Final Four” finally reaching the pinnacle of the college basketball season; the National Championship Game. If they win this game, they become the best of the best; the undisputed champion of the highest level of amateur competition in America (some would even argue of the world). The amount of buzz and hype generated by this yearly ritual generates millions of dollars of revenue for the schools involved in terms of sponsorship, endorsements, and national exposure. It’s a win-win for all parties—the national networks who broadcast the games get hundreds of thousands of additional viewers, the NCAA earns money to keep it up and running, the fans get hours of entertainment, the players get to prove their worth on the court, and, as previously noted, the schools receive funding that goes towards paying for scholarships and making a better educational experience for their students. If this playoff format works so well for our college basketball teams, why then, are our football teams not given the same opportunity to prove themselves as national champions?

Since 1998, the national championship of the NCAA Football Division 1-A is determined by a single bowl game, it participants determined at the end of the regular season by a selection committee from the BCS. Using computer formulas and human votes, the BCS committee decides which two teams are the most deserving of a chance to play for the national championship based on strength of schedule, reputation, national exposure, fan base, quality of play, and overall record. Therein lies the problem. The BCS method of determining the teams who play in the national championship game is too subjective for such an important matter. Over the years, we have seen this problem exposed repeatedly in the form of teams who arguably deserved to play in the national championship game being snubbed by the selection committee because of their weak conferences, poor schedules, or other such factors.

From its inception in 1998, there has only been one year where there was little to no controversy over who deserved to play in the BCS National Championship game (the 2005-06 season). The other 10 seasons—including the current one—has been marked by heated debate over who should or should not have had a chance to play for the national championship. The inaugural BCS postseason ended in controversy when one-loss Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings, and yet was passed over for participation in BCS bowl games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and two-loss Florida (8th). Instead, the Wildcats played in the far less prestigious Alamo Bowl against Purdue. Although they arguably deserved to play in a BCS bowl game, the Wildcats were ignored for consideration due to the unsound structuring of the BCS system. Not only were the 11-1 Wildcats passed over, the undefeated Green Wave of Tulane was snubbed by the BCS committee because of the lack of quality opponents in their conference, the Conference USA.

The following year was again full of contention over who deserved to play in the National Championship game against undefeated Oklahoma. Florida State (12–1, ACC Champions) was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma (12–0, Big 12 champions) in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their loss coming to another one loss team, the Miami Hurricanes (11–1, Big East champions), that was ranked #2 in both human polls. Adding to the controversy, Miami's one loss came to yet another one loss team, the PAC-10 champion Washington Huskies, leaving three teams with a legitimate claim to play Oklahoma in the National Championship game. Florida State lost to Oklahoma 13–2, while Washington and Miami both easily won their bowl games, adding more fuel to the fire. Proponents of both Miami and Washington argued that their respective teams both deserved a shot at playing Oklahoma more than did Florida State. As a result of the controversy, the BCS was tweaked in the off-season. A "quality-win" bonus was added to the formula, giving extra credit for beating a top ten team.

The peak of the BCS debate came during the 2003-04 season when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss: Oklahoma, Louisiana State University, and the University of Southern California. USC was ranked #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but was burdened a weaker schedule. Meanwhile Oklahoma, after an undefeated regular season, was beaten by Kansas State, 35–7, in the Big 12 Championship Game. The loss dropped Oklahoma to #3 in the human polls, while the computers still had them at #1. LSU had earned a stronger computer ranking than USC and a #2 human poll ranking, and went on to claim the BCS championship with a 21–14 win over Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, retained its #1 ranking in the AP Poll, leaving two different teams ranked number one. The split in polls left many LSU (13–1) and USC (12–1) fans displeased, as USC was named the AP national football champion, while according to the BCS design, LSU was the national champion. Confusing? I think so, too.

As you can see, the BCS system is full of dispute, and almost every year, someone is left feeling like they weren’t given the opportunity that they deserve to play for in the national championship game. Fortunately, there is an easy solution to this dilemma. Instead of allowing the subjective judgments of human polls and weighted computer formulas to decide who gets the chance to play for the championship, we should implement a playoff system similar to that of college basketball’s “March Madness”, thereby eliminating the debate of who should get picked and who shouldn’t by allowing the teams to play it out on the field; the objectivity of winning or losing cannot be denied. The solution is this: a 16 team field, with each of the 11 conference champions receiving automatic bids and 5 at-large teams being invited based on merit and record. These teams will be seeded by a selection committee of coaches and writers, and will be matched up accordingly, with number 1 facing off against number 16, 2 with 15, and so on down the line. This way, the teams who deserve a shot at the national championship can earn it through their play on the field and not the computerized formulas of the BCS. This will all but eliminate the controversy over teams being snubbed for the game as everyone has an equal opportunity of playing their way into it.

Advocates of the BCS system like to point out the importance of bowl games—after all, they have been around in some shape or form for more than 100 years, and are a huge revenue earner for the sport. Attendance at the 2008 season bowl games was nearly equal to each stadium's capacity, in some cases exceeding it. For example, the Rose Bowl capacity is 91,000 and attendance for the 2008-09 matchup between USC and Penn State was 93,293, more than 2,000 people over capacity. Another aspect that BCS supporters repeatedly use as support is the fact that the BCS conferences really do have stronger teams in them. An undefeated or one-loss record in a BCS conference should mean more than the same record in a weaker, non-BCS conference because the teams are not facing opponents of the same quality. The BCS rankings consider strength of schedule in the computer rating formulas, and the human voters account for it as well.

Although the validity of these points cannot be denied, the playoff system is still a much better way of determining the national champion of college football. The money issue that BCS proponents harp about doesn’t reveal the whole picture; a playoff system would presumably generate as much (if not more) hype that March Madness does for college basketball, and as previously noted, Madness produces millions in revenue each year for both the colleges and the NCAA itself. A playoff system would likely earn more than the current bowl system does for all parties involved.

The argument that undefeated non-BCS teams play a weaker schedule and therefore are not as good as their one-loss BCS counterparts has definitely been proven wrong on several occasions, perhaps the most emphatic one being the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, in which an undefeated Boise State team from the WAC (a non-BCS conference) beat an 11-2 Oklahoma team from the Big 12, 43-42 in overtime. Utah is another good example of a team from a weaker conference that has proven that it can still compete with strong teams from BCS conferences, winning in both the 2005 Fiesta Bowl against #15 Pittsburgh 35-7, as well as in the 2009 Sugar Bowl against SEC powerhouse Alabama 31-17, becoming college football’s only undefeated team that season.

By replacing an outdated and broken model of the BCS with a playoff system, we are making college football a better sport, both for the players as well as the fans. On so many occasions, players have been left disappointed by the BCS system because they weren’t given the shot they deserved to play for a national championship. With a playoff system, however, the champion of each conference, no matter how weak their schedule, will be given a fair shot at the title, along with 5 other worthy at-large teams. Fans will be treated to the excitement that comes with the opportunity of watching their favorite teams battle their way to the top of the college football world. Cinderella stories, usually only associated with March Madness, will now have an opportunity to develop and thrive in the world of college football as well. With a playoff system in place, the possibilities for college football become limitless.