Example of the Different Polls: Harris, Coaches, BCS

BCS Standings - Updated: December 6, 2009
RK	Team	W-L	Harris			Coaches			CPU %	BCS
			RK	Points	%	RK	Points	%		Prev	Avg
1	Alabama	13-0	1	2841	.9968	1	1470	.9966	1.0000	2	.998
2	Texas	13-0	2	2721	.9547	2	1409	.9553	.9200	3	.943
3	Cincinnati	12-0	4	2467	.8656	4	1280	.8678	.9300	5	.888
4	TCU	12-0	3	2579	.9049	3	1336	.9058	.8400	4	.884
5	Florida	12-1	5	2395	.8404	5	1240	.8407	.9100	1	.864
6	Boise State	13-0	6	2358	.8274	6	1216	.8244	.7800	6	.811
7	Oregon	10-2	7	2130	.7474	7	1096	.7431	.7800	7	.757
8	Ohio State	10-2	8	2081	.7302	8	1077	.7302	.5100	8	.657
9	Georgia Tech	11-2	10	1787	.6270	10	921	.6244	.6900	10	.649
10	Iowa	10-2	11	1772	.6218	11	918	.6224	.6100	9	.618
11	Virginia Tech	9-3	12	1569	.5505	12	829	.5620	.5900	12	.568
12	LSU	9-3	13	1384	.4856	13	718	.4868	.6400	13	.537
13	Penn State	10-2	9	1800	.6316	9	950	.6441	.3200	11	.532
14	Brigham Young	10-2	14	1349	.4733	14	702	.4759	.4100	14	.453
15	Miami (FL)	9-3	15	1173	.4116	15	611	.4142	.5000	17	.442
16	West Virginia	9-3	18	730	.2561	17	429	.2908	.4600	23	.336
17	Pittsburgh	9-3	16	995	.3491	16	506	.3431	.2500	15	.314
18	Oregon State	8-4	19	722	.2533	20	368	.2495	.3600	16	.288
19	Oklahoma State	9-3	17	839	.2944	18	404	.2739	.2200	20	.263
20	Arizona	8-4	24	381	.1337	23	237	.1607	.3800	0	.225
21	Stanford	8-4	21	625	.2193	21	253	.1715	.1500	24	.180
22	Nebraska	9-4	20	631	.2214	19	391	.2651	.0100	22	.165
23	Utah	9-3	22	511	.1793	24	183	.1241	.0700	25	.124
24	USC	8-4	26	124	.0435	27	42	.0285	.2900	18	.121
25	Wisconsin	9-3	23	409	.1435	22	247	.1675	.0500	0	.120

Polls Explained: Harris, Coaches, BCS

I. Harris Interactive Poll (1/3rd)
Replaces the AP Poll. The first poll will be released September 27, then weekly through December 6. A team's score in the Harris poll will be divided by 2,850, which is the maximum number of points any team can receive if all 114 voting members rank the same team as Number 1. Example: 2,850 / 2,850 = 1.0. If a team receives a total of 114 voting points, an average of 25th place, their BCS quotient of this component would be .04. (1.0 / 25 = 0.04).

II. Coaches Poll (1/3rd)
A team's score in the USA Today poll will be divided by 1,475, which is the maximum number of points any team can receive if all 59 voting members rank the same team as Number 1. Example: 1,475 / 1,475 = 1.0. If a team receives a total of 59 voting points, an average of 25th place, their BCS quotient of this component would be .04. (1.0 / 25 = 0.04).
(Better understanding the polls: In both human polls, voting members fill out their own top 25 rankings ballot. Each team receives 1-25 points in reverse order of the way they are ranked. The 25th place team on each ballot receives 1 point, 24th place gets 2 points, 23rd receives 3 points... first place receives 25 points. This inverse point order is also applied to the computer rankings.
In the Harris Interactive College Football Poll and USA Today Coaches Poll, a team will be evaluated on the number of voting points it receives in each poll. The number of actual voters, which can vary and has varied in the past, is figured into the computation on a weekly basis in stating each team's percentage of a possible perfect score.

III. Computer rankings (1/3rd)
The computer rankings percentage is calculated by dropping the highest and lowest ranking for each team and then dividing the remaining total by 100, the maximum possible points. (Example: the 6 rankers have Team A ranked 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, and 4. Take away the 2 and 4 which leaves an average of 3rd place. The BCS quotient of this component would be 0.92. (23 / 25 = 0.92).

Simplifying the formula
The percentage totals of the Harris Interactive Poll, USA Today Poll, and the computer rankings are then averaged. The teams’ averages are ranked to produce the BCS Standings.
A = Team is No. 1 in Harris Poll with all voters = 1.000
B = Same team is No. 1 in Coaches Poll with all voters = 1.000
C = Same team is No. 3 in Computer Rankings = 0.920
Result: (A+B+C)/3 = Total Score of 0.973

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/polls

The Case of the "Mythical" Champion

This can lead to alot of problems for the BCS. Here's a situation: LSU beat Oklahoma 21-17 but USC was voted #1 by the AP poll after a 28-14 win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl in 2003.


Here are some other situations where this happened:

Pre-BCS Split "Mythical" Titles
1954 Ohio State (AP), UCLA (UPI Coaches Poll)
1957 Auburn (AP), Ohio State (UPI Coaches Poll)
1965 Alabama (AP), Michigan State (UPI Coaches Poll)
1970 Nebraska (AP), Texas (UPI Coaches Poll)
1973 Notre Dame (AP), Alabama (UPI Coaches Poll)
1974 Oklahoma (AP), Southern California (UPI Coaches Poll)
1978 Alabama (AP), Southern California (UPI Coaches Poll)
1990 Colorado (AP), Georgia Tech (UPI Coaches Poll) YAY COLORADO BUFFALOES! :)
1991 Miami, Fla. (AP), Washington (USA Today/CNN Coaches Poll)
1994 Nebraska (AP, USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll)
1997 Michigan (AP), Nebraska (USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll)

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html
http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics/200/BS/BSOOGLKLYMBAXST.20081017154751.jpg

The Solution -- 16 Team Playoff

This is the idea of the Playoff I would suggest. Of course the teams would be decided by polls, but the winner of the whole season will not be decided by the polls. While the Top 16 teams in the country will play for the Championship, the other teams will play the Bowls like normal, still allowing teams to play their meaningless games, which still allow everyone to make money.

The National Championship game will still be played in Pasadena, CA and it will be called the Rose Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl and the Orange Bowl will be kept to be played in the Final Four. The Elite Eight will have the Sugar Bowl and the Cotton Bowl. The 16 format will have the Gator, Outback, Capital One, Chick-Fil-A, Insight, Texas, Brut Sun, and the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl.

Obviously all connections will be severed from each respectable conference to allow this playoff to occur.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/08/11/bowl-schedule/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/11/22/college.football.poll/index.html

http://football.about.com/od/bowlchampionship/i/bcsvsplayoffs.htm

BCS vs. playoff debate comes to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- College football's perennial armchair-quarterback argument over the need for a clear-cut national champion came to Capitol Hill Friday.

College football teams play in the BCS for the national championship trophy. The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing to dissect the Bowl Championship Series, asking whether the model needs to be tweaked, overhauled or done away with altogether.

Four witnesses testified at the morning hearing, including championship series coordinator John Swofford and Alamo Bowl President Derrick Fox; both of whom defended the current system, though Fox conceded that "no system is perfect and the Bowl Championship Series is not perfect."
Mountain West Conference Commissioner Craig Thompson and Boise State Athletic Director Gene Bleymaier testified that they would like to see the system revamped. Many critics say they want college football to have a playoff system to ensure that a champion is clearly defined.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, called the Bowl Championship Series format unfair and perhaps took it one step further. "You should either change your name to BES for Bowl Exhibition System or just drop the C and call it the BS system, because it is not about determining the championship on the field."
Both sides were cordial but opinionated. Fox said he would prefer Washington not get involved. "Those who don't like the current system will say that's the way of the world, but we don't believe that government should have any role in promoting a demise of the bowl games."

Currently, 11 college conferences and three independents compete in the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision -- formerly Division I-A. Six of those 11 conferences are guaranteed spots in the four Bowl Championship Series games. Schools from conferences that critics say are unfairly deemed as low profile are then left to fight their way into those prestige games. They share in significantly less of the series money and have less of an opportunity to challenge for the national title.

President Obama is one of the proponents of a college football playoff. In an interview with ESPN in November, Obama said he's had just about enough of the Bowl Championship Series.
"I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this, that and the other. Get eight teams -- the top eight teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion," Obama said.
Before heading out early to catch a flight, Barton made it clear that he expects to see college football change its ways or risk having lawmakers introduce legislation to impose change for them.
"I think there is better than a 50 percent chance that if we don't see some action in the next two months on a voluntary switch to a playoff system that you will see this bill move," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/01/football.bcs/index.html

Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks

Texas – not TCU, nor Cincinnati or Boise State – is playing Alabama in the BCS championship game because, well, its name is Texas.

The system is designed to reward the big brands of the sport. Just as important as what you did this week, or this month, is what you did a decade ago. Perception is everything. The BCS sells this as fair.
Maybe Texas is the best team, maybe it isn’t. To the naked eye there’s no easy answer.

It is why, according to a Sports Illustrated poll, 90 percent of fans don’t approve of the BCS. We want to find out on the field.

In response to the system’s crushing unpopularity, the BCS has hired a Washington public relations firm, Ari Fleischer Sports Communications, to “defend” its image. The results have been comical. The firm is used for political fights, not sports ones. It’s hard-wired to operate with typical Beltway gumption, which is why it’s failing miserably.

Fleischer arrived with a dismissive attitude that all the rubes in fly-over country know nothing and have some nerve to demand change from the entrenched powers profiteering off of them. So he launched a social media campaign full of Washington ruling class arrogance.
“With a playoff, the more you move down the rankings, the more teams have identical records and arguments about why they should be in,” the BCS wrote (if this even counts as English) on Twitter.
Really, choosing among three 9-3 teams for a playoff bid is somehow more difficult than five unbeaten ones? The BCS powers actually think someone would believe this?
On one of its propaganda websites, the BCS asks whether a playoff would really satisfy everyone?
“NO!!!” it boldly declares.

Who knew Ari Fleischer wrote like a sixth-grade girl on an iPhone?
Give the campaign credit for this: It’s hardly bothering to explain why the BCS is any good.
Instead, it launched a clown-show website (playoffproblem.com) that claims there can’t be a playoff because college football is incapable of figuring out how one might work.
Sure, every other sports entity on the planet can do it, but we somehow can’t decide how many teams would be in it or where they’d play and so on? So stop asking.
This is a ploy designed to create gridlock. It’s based on the idea fans lack basic mental competency. (After all, how smart could you be? When was the last time you attended a Georgetown cocktail party?).

Because Ari Fleischer, BCS director Bill Hancock and the rest of the suits are confounded by the mysteries of a playoff, I’ll gladly explain it for them. Below is a simple 16-team playoff that will make them more money, offer more excitement and create a more equitable competition.

I’ve pitched this for a few years but it’s hardly groundbreaking – the NCAA uses essentially the same system to run playoffs in all other divisions of football; and variations are all over the Internet.
Two other writers at Yahoo! Sports and I are currently finishing an investigative book on the BCS that will come out next season. That book will, in clear detail, lay the system bare – the finances, mathematics, biases, waste, contracts, scams, etc.

In the meantime, this is your primer to finding college football salvation while you wait for the Fiesta Bowl matchup of Plessy v. Ferguson.

A seeded 16-team field


Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men’s basketball tournament, champions of all 11 conferences earn an automatic bid to the playoff.

Yes, all 11, even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Sun Belt champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, its presence is paramount to maintaining the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd – best proven this year – college football’s roller-coaster regular season needs to be protected.
That’s accomplished by two things. The first is playing on the home field of the higher-seeded team until the title game (more on this later).

The second is by giving the chance for an easier first-round opponent – in this case No. 1 seed Alabama would play No. 16 Troy. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a de facto bye into the second round. Why not leave the Sun Belt out and offer a real bye? The extra home game would create tens of millions of dollars in revenue (a carrot to the school presidents).
The season still matters this way. By winning the SEC championship game Saturday, Alabama gets Troy and enjoys home-field advantage in Tuscaloosa until the title game. By losing it, Florida gets Penn State and has to hit the road if it can beat the Nittany Lions.

On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that East Carolina could beat Texas? Of course not, but as the men’s basketball tournament has proven the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn’t supposed to win. When the Broncos did, in dramatic fashion, they became the talk of the country. There would’ve been historic interest in seeing if they could do it again the following week.
Why wouldn’t college football want that?

For even lower-rated conferences – the Sun Belts, C-USA – allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses it would actually increase interest for everyone. It would not simply make the regular season matter more it would make more regular seasons matter.
Right now, last Friday’s MAC championship game between Central Michigan and Ohio was virtually meaningless. It wouldn’t be if a berth to the playoffs was riding on it. There’d be a reason to watch.
Who’s against more must-see games?

With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care that Georgia Tech won the ACC title game Saturday?
They would now. The final week Big East and Pac-10 games (Cincy-Pitt, Oregon State-Oregon) would’ve had greater meaning because if the Panthers and/or Beavers won, it would’ve caused at-large bids to get gobbled up by UC and Oregon.

The interest in every game would increase exponentially – dare I say, every game would actually matter.

At-large bids
In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee (a group of highly engaged people using common criteria to pick and set the field).
This is where independents, such as Notre Dame, would have access to the tournament. Most years, all five bids would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).
While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. In this year’s case, 9-3 LSU would edge out 10-2 BYU in a debate between flawed teams.

There’s no need to dignify the BCS ridiculous assertion that such an argument would be more heated than five unbeatens vying for two title game spots.

Never again would an unbeaten team be denied a chance to pursue a title. And we’d do away with bizarre seasons such as 2003, when everyone thought USC was the best team but the computers locked the Trojans out.

Ignore outdated bowls
BCS bowl games are the single worst business arrangement in American sports. College football’s continued willingness to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits, makes even conference commissioners blush when confronted with the raw facts.
What other business outsources its most profitable and easily sold product – in this case postseason football?

The bowls were needed back in the 1950s. These days they are nothing but leeches on the system. I happen to like watching bowl games – or any games, but outside of nostalgia they offer no value to a playoff system.

It’ll never make sense to allow businesses outside college football to determine how college football does its business.

College football could stage the 15 playoff games itself, cut out the middle men, and pockets hundreds of millions of extra revenue.

The bowl lobby is a powerful one though, which is why just about every idea you’ll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and so on. Or they float out the “Plus One” system, which while an improvement to the current BCS, is essentially a desperate Stockholm syndrome compromise. The bowls’ sole concern is keeping their grip on the system when reform inevitably comes.

A neutral site, bowl-based playoff would create ridiculous travel demands on teams and fans. Moreover, going neutral site makes the seeds almost meaningless and, indeed, devalues the regular season.

A playoff that includes bowls is a poor idea. It’s why the BCS clings to it and holds it up as the deal breaker for any and all playoff discussion.
The solution, however, is simple – ignore the bowls.

This isn’t the same as eliminating them. The 34 bowl games can continue to operate outside of the playoff, just like any non-affiliated business. All the non-playoff teams can compete in them. With the BCS, only one game matters any way. It’s not like the Sun Bowl is going to be all that different. If the people of El Paso want to continue staging the game, then they should.

Any claim that such a playoff would kill off all the bowl games is alarmist, dishonest and not based in fact. Any simple analysis of bowl finances show these things are cash cows (why do you think they keep adding bowl games?).

The bowl games will survive as long as two things continue. First, people keep watching football on TV. Since “Bowl Week” is ESPN’s highest rated of the year, don’t count on that changing.
Second, colleges continue to subsidize the bowl system by paying all team expenses and guaranteeing (often at a loss) ticket and marketing revenue. Since the sport will be awash in cash to spend with a playoff, bowls may wind up healthier than ever.

In an effort to help the bowls, first- and second-round losers in a playoff could even return to the bowl pool and take a slot in a late December bowl game if they so choose. That means as few as four teams are pulled out.

As long as they don’t block the playoff, the bowls can go on fine. This is great; the more football the better.

Higher seeds get home games early
The playoff would stage the first three rounds at the home field of the higher-seeded team before shifting to a neutral site, a la the Super Bowl. As a nod to history, it could be a rotation of famed stadiums such as the Rose Bowl. Or the Rose Bowl every year. This doesn’t matter to me.
This allows the playoff to capitalize on perhaps college football’s greatest asset – the pageantry, excitement and history of its legendary campus stadiums. There is nothing like a college game day and it doesn’t matter whether you’re in Tuscaloosa or Ann Arbor or Lincoln or Los Angeles. Each one is thrilling and adds tremendous value to the product.

So why does college football stage its postseason in antiseptic pro and municipal stadiums?
Hosting games would be a boon to the schools. Instead of sharing up to 40 percent of game revenue (and all travel costs) with third-party bowl committees – run by an executive director making up to $800,000 a year – college and universities could keep all money in-house.
Why they’d ever choose otherwise is beyond comprehension.

Home games would pump up local economies too. It’s not the people in Ohio’s job to drop their disposable income in Pasadena; they might consider doing it right at home. The entire “economic impact” theory for bowl games makes no sense on a national scale (which this is) because it’s just displaced spending. Just a guess, but I’m sure the guy running the Columbus Applebee’s would enjoy a crowd as much as the guy running the one in Tempe.

Most importantly it would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. (The visiting team would get the same small ticket allotment it currently gets). To be a top-two seed, and host through the championships game, would be a considerable advantage.

This would also placate complaints from northern teams who are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent. The Big Ten’s been getting slaughtered of late in bowl games. Well, let’s see Florida or LSU slide around in the snow of Happy Valley some time.
The BCS has all but killed intrasectional games (there’s no reward to playing a tough schedule), but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums (USC in the Swamp; Texas in Camp Randall; Oklahoma on the blue turf) can warm any college fan’s heart.

The schedule
While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four consecutive weeks – and stages the title game before Christmas – football’s top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.

While final exams are worth noting, college football players miss very little class time during the regular season (especially compared to other sports). And under the current system, they’re required to have three weeks of practice right in the middle of finals anyway. It’s not like they have time off.
College athletics has never allowed academics to stand in its way before. Even Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has admitted the academic debate is a complete canard.

One of the apologists’ greatest whines is that a playoff would make the season too long. It’s conceivable that some teams would play 17 games. The guys in the other divisions of college football manage to do it though and as Texas Tech coach Mike Leach points out, the Texas high school season can go 16 games long and the best players are often on both offense and defense. The NFL plays a much longer season with just 53-man rosters.

The length of the season is just another smoke screen.

The presidents
There’s nothing easier than blaming it on the faceless “Presidents.” They don’t want a playoff everyone says and that’s that.

The truth is they’ve never been presented a real playoff plan. If you read their comments about the BCS, it’s obvious few have any idea how college football actually works. It doesn’t help that the same powers that are employing Washington PR firms to muddy the debate waters are the ones briefing them.

One day the campus leaders are going to figure out the facts and things will change. Presidents are obsessed with revenue. If they follow the money, they’ll see they are getting swindled and opinions could change rapidly.

We’re talking billions of dollars in television, game day and marketing revenue that is just lying on the table. Once they realize it’s there, will they really let it sit forever?

“It’s not a question of if there is going to be a playoff, it’s going to be a question of when,” Florida State president T.K. Wetherell said. “It’s going to be driven by money.”

Money we’ve got. Fairness we’ve got. Excitement we’ve got. A playoff plan that would solve all problems and create a four-week event that would rival the NFL playoffs in popularity, we even have that.
See, college football fans aren’t as dumb as the BCS thinks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

16 Team Playoff for 2009

"Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men’s basketball tournament, champions of all 11 conferences earn an automatic bid to the playoff. Yes, all 11, even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Sun Belt champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, its presence is paramount to maintaining the integrity and relevancy of the regular season."

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

BCS Remains Broken with Three Unbeatens Left

By David Mayo | The Grand Rapids Press

December 07, 2009, 8:00AM

 
AP PhotoHunter Lawrence hit the game-winning field goal to send Texas into the BCS national championship game.

On the occasion of another system-induced quandary, we address three topics on college football's front burner -- the Bowl Championship Series results, Michigan State's bowl berth, and the Heisman Trophy:

The last-second field goal that sent Texas to the national championship game against Alabama sent conspiracy theorists to work, too, not all of them from outside the system.

Nebraska coach Bo Pelini went ballistic after his defense's courageous work was unraveled by the kick that made Texas a 13-12 winner in the Big 12 championship Saturday night, and which Pelini insisted should not have happened.

Pelini went into a tirade immediately after the result became final, motioning angrily at reporters and saying the reason the Longhorns got their last-ditch opportunity at victory was "the BCS -- the (bleep) BCS."

As you probably know, Texas quarterback Colt McCoy languidly threw an incomplete pass out of bounds -- with a timeout still at the Longhorns' disposal -- on the play before the field goal.

The clock hit :00.

It was clear, both during the live play and upon review, that the timekeeper had a ponderous finger and at least one second should have been preserved.

That's exactly what officials ruled, waving jubilant Nebraska players back to the sideline and allowing Hunter Lawrence to kick a 46-yard field goal and put the Longhorns in the Jan. 7 championship game.

However, Pelini's point is well-taken, regardless whether the clock ruling was accurate or not.


The BCS remains a caste system, as evidenced by the two historic monoliths being selected for the championship game over three other unbeatens -- Cincinnati, Texas Christian and Boise State.

Now, for the first time, an on-the-field ruling has created at least some suspicion that unseen powers could bear responsibility for gerrymandering results for maximum visibility.

If Lawrence had missed that field goal -- or not been allowed to attempt it -- Cincinnati would have played Alabama for the national championship.

Pelini's unspoken suggestion was that college football's Big Brother wanted nothing to do with that, so in a circumstance under which the game could have been declared over, his team lost a conference championship in favor of a more desirable national championship pairing.

The BCS is the most broken, sadistic, insulting championship system in major American sports.

Never was that clearer than now.

And never were the negative ramifications of the faulty system clearer than in Pelini's unspoken suggestion of unfairness -- and the wincing thought that he might be on to something.

So Texas plays for the national title, with its own state title undecided. TCU is awfully good, after all.

2006 Rose Bowl Victory Texas Longhorns over the USC Trojans 41-38

http://www.mlive.com/sports/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/12/bcs_remains_broken_with_three.html

Mark Davis: TCU bowl game outrage

Mark Davis: TCU bowl game outrage proves need to scrap the system

06:19 PM CST on Tuesday, December 8, 2009

On Jan. 7, the University of Texas may be crowned national champions of college football. But the best team in America may have already played days earlier.

The Texas vs. Alabama winner will be 13-0, but so will the winner of the Fiesta Bowl matching undefeated TCU and Boise State on Jan. 4. The University of Cincinnati could also finish 13-0 by beating Florida in the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day.

Despite three undefeated teams, we would be expected to shrug and say the winner of the so-called National Championship Game is precisely that.College football fans have long been forced to accept a phony champion determined by polls rather than a series of actual games. So what rips this issue from the sports pages and puts it on this op-ed page this year?

Because the best team in college football right now may not play in Austin or Tuscaloosa, Ala. It may play in Fort Worth.

After a 12-0 season against admittedly lower-caliber opponents, TCU has nonetheless earned the right to prove itself against an elite opponent in a BCS bowl game.



Since 1998, the fraudulently-titled Bowl Championship Series has given us a mix of human voting and computer rankings and a resulting snootful of appearances by Oklahoma, USC, Florida and LSU, along with other major conference champs like Texas, who won it all in 2005.

But in any of those years, was there an undefeated team from a lesser conference who might have beaten the BCS champion? Before the cobbling together of the BCS, polls of coaches and sportswriters anointed the participants in the national championship game.

This has always been ridiculous. No major sport has ever picked two teams and said, "Here, you guys go settle it all," banishing any other hopefuls deserving of a shot. Even in college football's separate division for smaller schools, there is a 16-team tournament. Four weeks, 15 games, one genuine champion.

Why doesn't this happen in all of college football? Thank the entrenched hodgepodge of unrelated bowl games, which will start next week with obscure matchups in far-flung locales, building through the holidays to games featuring larger schools in more storied venues. Sixty-eight teams will play in a bowl of some sort, all enjoying some nice travel and a nice payday.

Big-time schools in big-time conferences are scared to death of losing to undefeated upstarts like TCU or Boise State, so the system relegates them to the equivalent of the childrens' table at Thanksgiving. This has always been wrong. But this year the outrage comes home. Texas' near defeat against inferior Nebraska last weekend has the nation wondering whether TCU might actually be better.

Who knows? Maybe the Longhorns would beat the Horned Frogs by 40. Maybe not. TCU's Fiesta Bowl appearance will bring unprecedented visibility and money, and that's great. But that's not what Frog Nation wants and deserves.

There should be a showcase right now to settle whether the occasional undefeated team from a conference of smaller schools might actually measure up to national championship caliber. This is not just about TCU. Boise State and Cincinnati fans have the same valid complaint. Surely others will follow.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton seeks a legislative remedy, suggesting that the BCS is a "cartel" improperly hoarding money and prestige to the detriment of smaller schools and their fans. His bill would prevent the BCS from using the term "national championship" until it provides one on the field.
Good luck with that. As long as American baseball's championship is called the World Series, truth in advertising is a hard argument to make in sports.

But the argument that needs to go forward from this year's mess is that the current archaic and unsatisfying college football postseason needs to be scrapped.

I'll be thrilled if Texas beats Alabama and wins the national championship next month. But I will forever wonder if an even better team played its games this year at Amon Carter Stadium.

Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP-AM, News/Talk 820. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-markdavis_09edi.State.Edition1.2e9b623.html