100 Reasons the BCS just doesn't work: 100 - 96

This is the first in a series of hubs chronicling the top 100 reasons the BCS doesn't work. Because those with the money and power support the current system, we the fans of college football must shed light on these issues. It sucks and no one in power cares because the BCS cards are stacked in their favor.

The following are the first five of 100 pokes at the problematic way we decide our college football national champions. If you don't like them, tell your commissioner that something needs to change. If I can document 100 things wrong with BCS, it's time we did something about it.

Under the BCS, the National Championship takes the top 2 teams. Then, in a certain order, the other 4 BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange) take their conference tie-ins and pick at-large opponents. Because of various clauses, there is no guarantee that the "top 5" post-season games involve the actual top 10 college football teams. In fact, it never ends in this logical a fashion.

Regardless of their ranking, the BCS bowls are required to take certain conference champions. Unless they rank in the top two, the Rose Bowl takes the Pac-10 and Big Ten champions, the Sugar Bowl takes the SEC champion, the Fiesta Bowl takes the Big 12 champion, and the Orange Bowl takes the ACC champion. The Big East champion is guaranteed a spot in one of these bowls, though it varies from year to year. From there, the bowls follow a guideline for the remaining berths. If Notre Dame places in the top eight, they receive an automatic berth, and if the top non-BCS conference champion ranks in the top 12, they receive an automatic berth.

Because of these tie-ins, since its inception in 1998, the BCS has failed to take the top ranked teams (eight when there were four BCS bowls, ten now that there are five) to the top bowl games. That means that every year the BCS has existed at least one team (and often more than that) has been denied an opportunity to win or even compete in a BCS bowl game.

While "miracles" may be a strong word, it is true to say teams from non-automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences (aka, non-BCS conferences) must always rely on losses from teams in major conferences. They cannot depend on having a perfect record alone, a privilege BCS schools enjoy. Even being undefeated, a non-AQ team is very unlikely to--and in every year of the BCS' existence has shown it unable to--overtake an undefeated AQ team.

Some say that this is okay because non-AQ teams play in traditionally weaker conferences, making their strength of schedule and, in the eyes of human voters, their quality wins, lower. However, even if a non-AQ team goes undefeated, beating all of their so-called "weak" opponents, we have no way of knowing if they really could be the best team in the nation, because of the extremely low likelihood they'd even have a shot to play for it.

As stated above, each BCS bowl game (apart from the actual National Championship) has certain conference tie-ins and follows a heirarchy of clauses that determine how they choose remaining teams, where applicable. Because these clauses are separate "deals" made outside the rankings (though at times, do depend on the rankings), they openly choose teams that fall outside the top ranked.

This means they don't pit top teams, they just pit top-negotiated teams. This provides for poor television ratings, decreased fan interest, and overall disappointment. These matchups are not designed to match the top teams -- they exist to make money. The end result is that every year at least one team gets the shaft.

For example, as of the writing of this hub (November 2010), West Virginia is the top team in the Big East. Should they secure their conference championship this weekend, a 24th ranked team (potentially slightly higher following another win) would be in a BCS bowl meant to take the top teams in the nation. The team that could be facing West Virginia (who many experts predict could be the Big 12 champion, Oklahoma or Nebraska), would most certainly be ranked in the top ten. This matchup, while potentially good during the regular season, proves to be anti-climactic for a season ending "best of" BCS bowl.

BCS supporters claim the BCS preserves the traditional bowl system, when in fact what it does is create a mockery of it. For those teams who got the shaft, they are relegated to playing in a disappointment bowl. This not only disrespects the bowl game they are relegated to by sending them a team that doesn't even want to be there, but it also creates some of the most underwhelming performances in bowl history.

For example, in 2004, the California Golden Bears finished the regular season 10-1 ranked #4 in the nation. Because USC, the Pac-10 conference champion, was ranked in the top two and was going to the National Championship game, the Rose Bowl was not obligated to take Cal, and Cal was extended a berth to the Holiday Bowl against the Texas Tech Red Raiders. In that game Cal, an 11-point favorite, trailed throughout the game and lost to Texas Tech, 45-31. The disappointment hangover left Cal unmotivated and left fans of both teams disappointed. Surely the bowl tradition the BCS claims to preserve could be treated better than this.

According to the clauses mentioned above, only the top non-AQ conference champion is guaranteed a BCS berth. It is possible for another non-AQ conference champion to secure a berth, though it would have to be an at-large one. Because their chances for receiving any of the 10 BCS berths is lower than a BCS conference team, they are never able to adequately prove themselves.

For example, in 2008, both Utah (MWC) and Boise State (WAC) both finished undefeated. In the week 16 BCS rankings for that season, Utah was ranked #6, while Boise State was #9. Because only one team was guaranteed a berth, Utah went on to defeat #4 Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. Boise State fell to #11 TCU in the Poinsettia Bowl.

Coming up next in reasons 95 through 91 of why the BCS just doesn't work: tiebreakers, rivalries, and Notre Dame.