Ban the BCS...or Modify It?

At congressional hearings September 4, 2003, Scott Cowen, president of Tulane, wanted to have a regular season of 10 or 11 games and a playoff. Rep. Tom Osborne, a former Nebraska head coach, said while he is concerned about ‘inequities’ in the BCS system, a playoff could mean 17-game seasons—‘and that’s a pro schedule’ (Hiestand 1).

The BCS is flawed in several ways, but in one important respect it validates what has been understood for a generation-there is no such thing as football equality in Division I-A. It’s a logistical impossibility. The BCS can’t be viewed in the same context as the NCAA basketball tournament. College football is an aristocracy, ruled by the few conferences that generate the most ticket and television revenue (1).

Aristocracy is defined as a government ruled by the best individuals (Webster’s). Therefore, the BCS is a system ruled by the best conferences and these six conferences deserve the extra money they receive from the BCS games because they bring in the most revenue. Teams such as Prairie View and Boise State will not play games on ABC or ESPN because no one cares to watch them play except maybe their mom and/or dad, and approximately 35-fan student section. In addition, there are not 70,000-seat football stadiums in the WAC and Sun Belt Conferences because those teams do not have enough support to fill a stadium that size. They have to work within their means, and they are getting the small amounts of money they deserve. Drew Sharp stated, “The cold reality is this: In college athletics, where the almighty dollar rules, access to the money should be directly related to the size of the contribution” (2). The non-BCS conferences are getting exactly what they deserve.

A playoff system would have many problems such as, fewer fans to all the games in the playoff because they would have to travel different places every week depending on where the particular game was being played. For example, the 2003 Orange Bowl between USC and Iowa was not even a sell out, so if a playoff were used, attendance would drop even more, which in turn yields less revenue for schools and sponsors of that specific game. A playoff format also produces the same problem the non-BCS schools are complaining about, missing out on a chance at large sums of money. For example, if a 16-team playoff was used then there would be arguments from teams ranked 17th or 18th saying they should be one of the 16 teams. So, a playoff does not solve the problem of all the teams having a fair shot at the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. To make a playoff work, there would have to be no regular season, just one big playoff between all 117-division I-A schools. Not going to happen, but then at least every team would have a fair shot at the money prize and there would be no room for discrepancies.

Reformists say the BCS formula is skewed to favor the big teams. Well yes, it is undoubtedly skewed to favor teams that win a lot of games and play tougher schedules. But with only two at-large berths, reformists say the little guys don’t have enough opportunity to make a BCS bowl. So what? In 43 years before the BCS, only one non-BCS team won a national title (BYU in 1984). And in the 20 years before the BCS, 159 of 160 berths in the four big bowls went to BCS-affiliated teams (1).

The BCS poll has several variables that are computed together to establish a number for each team, though only the top fifteen are shown. These variables include: an average of the Associated Press (AP) and ESPN/USA Today polls; average of six out of seven scores given by seven analysts. The low

Some topics in this essay:
Division I-A, BCS OU, Reformists BCS, Tech Oklahoma, BCS Standings, Notre Dame, Championship Series, Press ESPN/USA, Drew Sharp, USC Iowa, regular season, bcs poll, college football, non-bcs teams, national championship, division i-a, quality win, play national championship, play national, bowl championship, non-bcs conferences, bowl championship series, skewed favor teams, team fair shot, quality win component,