COLUMN: Split championship is only beginning of BCS problems
The Bowl Championship Series failed this year. It was formed in 1998 with the intent to place the No. 1 college football team in the country with the No. 2 team. This year, it succeeded in putting No. 2 in the championship game with No. 3.
USC was ranked first in both the ESPN/USA Today Coaches poll and the Associated Press poll, but found itself playing Michigan in a meaningless consolation bowl game instead of the Sugar Bowl, which crowned its winner as the national champion.
The reason we have to deal with the BCS in the first place is because everyone was annoyed when Nebraska and Michigan had to share a championship in 1997 because they couldn’t be matched up in a bowl game. But here we are, seven years later, dealing with the same problem. The only difference this time is that we were supposed to have a program that was designed to keep a split national championship from happening.
Obviously, if the BCS is ever going to be taken seriously again, it will have to undergo quite an overhaul. BCS officials say that it will be tweaked with over the offseason.
The system currently works something like this: It takes a team’s average in the two “human polls” (the coaches’ poll and the AP poll), then adds it to the average of seven more “computer polls” (polls that are made based on formulas), then adds the team’s strength of schedule rating, then adds a point for every loss, then subtracts fractions of points for quality wins. The team with the fewest points is No. 1.
The reason USC was first in the human polls but not the BCS poll was because of the computer rankings. But if you take a closer look at those polls, it makes you wonder how some of them were ever given any credibility.
For instance, in the Jeff Sagarin computer poll, USC is fourth but Miami of Ohio is ranked third. Miami of Ohio is also ranked fourth in both the Peter Wolfe and Anderson & Hester (I swear I’m not making these names up) computer polls. In the New York Times computer poll, USC is first but Oklahoma is fifth, which is one spot behind Texas, a team who Oklahoma beat 65-13 in Texas’ stadium.
When the BCS is refined over the offseason, much more emphasis must be given the human polls because, as you can see, the computer polls are not very accurate. But priority number one for the officials making changes should be to define what a champion is.
Every other major sport defines its champion as the team/player that is the best at the end of the season. College football does not agree with that, seeing that it does not have a playoff system. It tends to believe, instead, that the champion is the team that was the best over the course of the season, not just the end.
But it has been very vague on its exact definition, seen by the various reasons it tells teams they are not the champion.
In 2001, BYU was 12-0 when the BCS told them to go home because they did not deserve to be champion, due to their easy schedule. The same year, Colorado, who had lost two games but was still ranked third in the human polls, and Oregon, who had an easier schedule but was ranked second, were also told they could not compete for a championship for the same reason: They did not deserve it. And the same reason was given to USC this year.
So basically what the BSC is saying is the champion is the team who most deserves it. But in 2001, the BCS selected Nebraska to play in the championship game even though they were ranked fourth in the human polls and did not even make it to their conference championship game. And this year, Oklahoma played for a championship even though they did not win their conference either.
If a team can’t even win its own conference, then how does it deserve to be champion? And if the champion is supposed to be the best team over the course of the season, why does a team’s strength of schedule matter? If they are the best, then it doesn’t matter who they play.
The most simple solution to the BCS’ dilemma is to make a tournament. But despite all the logical reasons to make one, nearly every top official in college football has been vigorously opposed to the idea. But none of them have yet to give a legitimate reason.
The only reason that comes close is that players would have to miss more class time in December, a month that is considered crucial to students because of finals. But college basketball plays clear through that month and no one complains about it.
The BCS is in turmoil after a split national champion this season. The only way it will ever be given any credibility again is to make sure that doesn’t happen again and to make up its mind as to what its champion should be.
Bryan Hinton is a junior majoring in journalism. Comments can be sent to bhhinton@cc.usu.edu.