The BCS Mess From 20,000 Feet
It’s hard enough in college football to be perfect, and thus a 10-1 record--like that of the Oregon Ducks--is admirable. Oregon is no less deserving of a BCS invitation than Auburn or Ohio State or Notre Dame. Arguments can be made for and against the qualifications of each of those teams, and maybe even a few others on the peripheries such as Miami and UCLA. Yet I say peripheries not because that is my perception but rather the way the rankings have dictated. (I'd venture that Ohio State, having faced six ranked teams and lost to two teams--now in the top three--by a combined six points, has a fairly solid argument).
One thing most college football fans can agree upon is that the BCS is an arbitrary and often inequitable way to decide football’s national championship. However, it isn’t an independently organic quagmire; rather it is the Frankestein of any number of self-serving conferences and independent schools.
Because of this inequity, some have felt the need to argue their case to the respective Bowl officials. To anyone who feels this is “undignified” or belittling, I ask you: what’s wrong with wanting to be good? Criticizing fans who want the best for their team—a la, a better Bowl bid—is like criticizing parents who petition the local PTA to hire better teachers. What’s wrong with wanting the best, as long as you play within the rules? Living near Washington, D.C., I see this ever day. Lobbying is a multi-billion dollar business, and it effectively dictates how our country is run. The only comment I would have on such efforts vis-à-vis schools interested in promoting their lot would be in the timing—not much will be gained from actions launched near the end of a season. The system at that point is already in place.
Ah, and what a grand system it is. Fans can argue all they want about rankings and the BCS, but they have no one to blame but their own schools and conferences. Several times the BCS has been adjusted and each time the major conferences and other involved parties had an opportunity to change the manner in which BCS teams are selected. The options were to keep the tie-ins with conference champions--thus guaranteeing that the Pac-10, Big 10/11, SEC, Big East, ACC and Big 12 all would send at least one team--versus merely requiring the BCS to take the top eight teams, regardless of conference. Fearing that a conference with a powerhouse year and several teams in the top eight would keep other deserving schools not in the top eight out of the mix, the conferences took the lesser of the two evils, thus ensuring that at least one team would go to the BCS. The Big East this year is a perfect example; without the BCS tie-in, WVU doesn't even sniff the chance to play after January 1.
The process also provides for two at-large selections, provided such teams have qualified to be selected. To qualify:
All Division I-A college football teams are eligible for at-large selection provided they meet both of the following requirements: 1) Have won at least nine regular season games. 2) Are among the top 12 teams in the final BCS Standings. If a team chooses to count a game played against a IAA opponent for BCS selection eligibility, such game must be declared as a countable game to meet post-season requirements per NCAA regulations.
That's it. After that, the selections are simply that...picks. The respective BCS bowls get to choose from that pool of qualified teams, and it has nothing to do with merit, deservedness, justice, etc. Fans who are unhappy--and who are the lifeblood of each school--should be free to voice their opinions as often and loudly as they want.
As an ND grad, I’m well aware of the perceived preferences—real or otherwise—that ND may receive in such scenarios. It’s blatantly obvious in some circumstances; the BCS qualifications even cite ND explicitly for certain qualifying standards. But in other scenarios, it is less thinly veiled and more ingrained in reasons quite obvious: money. ND’s following is unprecedented, and sponsors, networks and host cities alike can hardly contain their glee at the imminent windfall.
I would prefer to see some type of playoff, since that would effectively mitigate the argument of not settling the national championship on the field. However, the problem with a playoff is obvious: how many teams get to play, and how are they chosen? If you say 'Four', then teams who are ranked #5, #6, etc. will be unhappy about how they were arbitrarily ranked. If you say 'Eight', it's the same argument; such an arrangement would currently leave schools such as Auburn, Miami and Georgia out of the playoff. Once you get beyond eight teams, it becomes a lengthy process. The reason the NCAA tourney works for basketball is because it casts such a wide net (65 teams) and games can be played in much shorter order. Realistically, if it weren't for CBS' desire to hit prime-time weekend games, the whole tourney could be played in 11 days. So basically a playoff would only push the argument about who gets in (and who doesn't) to a different level.
For now, enjoy the competitive opportunity for one more chance to show the rest of college football, “we told ya so.” Every additional victory helps, regardless of whether it’s in Pasadena or Orlando or Boise. At the end of the day, it’s the system we’re stuck with.
For 10-1 Oregon, it’s a great chance to go to 12-1 and finish as one of the top 10 teams in the country, though it could be much worse. Be thankful you’re not in a position like UCLA. The Bruins could possibly edge USC on Saturday, but not enough to keep USC out of the title game against Texas. With a USC victory in the Rose Bowl, UCLA could be kept out of the BCS mix and yet have the honor of being the only team in the country to beat the eventual national champions.
It's gonna be a long season. A real, real, REAL long season.