The End Of The BCS

The first year it was around (1998) the BCS dodged a major bullet. Had UCLA not lost late in the year, there would have been 3 deserving teams wanting a shot. That year also saw KSU shut out because of a week schedule. They lost late in the season after getting the bad news.

A flat performance that had to be affected by being told that 11-0 didn't get you into the championship game. Former SEC commishioner, Roy Kramer, was the man in charge at that time. He pointed to the system as having worked. The system did not work, the system had gotten lucky. It should have been a warning that college fooball has it wrong....still.

The next year the two teams who desrved a shot got it, same for 2000. In 2001 Miami deserved the title and won it, they played a team (Nebraska) that had no business being in the championship. You won't hear any arguement about the Miami/OSU game of 2002, they both were great teams. The new system wasn't working, the old system would have yielded these same results.

The first real challenge to the B.C.S. came in 2003. After KSU took Oklahoma to the woodshed in the Big 12 championship, and LSU clobbered UGA in the S.E.C., there was a big problem. No longer was it Oklahoma and everyone else. It was now Southern California, and LSU. Problem was, using the formula that nobody could understand, the computer said that LSU should play Oklahoma for the title regardless. Southern California was left on the sideline watching the "national title" game. LSU beat Oklahoma soundly for the B.C.S. and a #1 ranking in the coaches poll. There was that pesky Southern Cal problem though. The AP voters ignored all this and voted Southern California #1. Once again there were two schhols claiming the Mythical National Title. College football had come so far...........

Well, the smarties at the BCS thought they better fix all that and changed the formula again. Gone was the strength of schedule, it would now all be based on polls. That would surely fix this quagmire. Low and behold, we did it again.

Can anyone say that a team that runs the table in the SEC doesn't deserve a shot at the M.N.C.? Yes, Southern Cal and Oklahoma would have a gripe too if they were left out. I can't imagine how angry the Tiger faithful must be. The BCS should shorten it's name by a C. Auburn deserves a shot at the title. They could top the AP poll in theory, but in reality have no shot. Auburn was #18 to start the season, and couldn't over-take the 2 teams at the top of the polls. I don't think S.E.C. commishioner, Mike Slive, will take this lying down.

If that wasn't bad enough, somehow the Big East has kept a spot in the B.C.S. . You think the other conferences haven't noticed how uneven that playing field is? Had Syracuse beaten Temple ( they lost to Temple 34-24) on Nov 13 , Syracuse would have been the Big East representative to the B.C.S. . Syracuse was 6-5 this year with a 51-0 loss to Purdue. Pittsburgh won the chance to be the representative this year. Pitt had to go to overtime to beat Div 1-AA Furman at home. Is that what Roy Kramer had in mind when he started this mess?

I expect the big boys to fix this. There is no way a California should have to watch Utah beat Pitt. That should be California's game. 8-3 in the Big East isn't close to 8-3 in the S.E.C., Big 10, ACC,or the Big 12. Not to mention several teams from those conferences who are 9-2. When the Big East had Miami and Va. Tech it was a power conference, it isn't one anymore. The B.C.S. has to correct this or the big boys won't be around. They will fix it if the B.C.S. won't. I fully expect this to cause the B.C.S. to implode. Then maybe college football will take the example set by every other sport and have a meaningful champion. A champion who earned it on the field, not by looking pretty. A champ that leaves no doubt who the best team is.

AllWildcats Top Stories