Defending the BCS

Continuing in our contrarian tradition, and in attempt to alienate as many potential readers as possible by continually defending unpopular things, today we turn to the world of sports. Though not as meaningful as Bradley Manning, or Ron Paul, the BCS arguably incites more national debate than either. The holiday season means only one thing, it's time for college football bowls. Hand in hand with this is the annual media consternation about the lack of a playoff system and the unfairness of the Bowl Championship Series. For my readers who have more pressing concerns than the intricacies of the college football post season, allow me to explain. Instead of a traditional playoff, or a multi team tournament, college football decides its championship game, as well as several other important year end games, through an archaic system called the Bowl Championship Series. Comprised of the Fiesta Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the BCS championship game, the BCS represents the premier college football games of the postseason. The BCS relies on a confusing algorithm that combines supposedly objective computer rankings of various teams with subjective human polls, to try and determine a consensus about the best teams in the country. Combined with these rankings, there are specific deals between conferences and the major bowl games that guarantee entry for their conference championship. Additionally, the specific bowl games make their selections based on a number of economic factors, each trying to maximize the marketability of their specific game.

The BCS generates a great deal of controversy. Teams constantly feel like they are being robbed of an opportunity to play for the championship, or in a major bowl game. This year the BCS championship will be played between Alabama and LSU, this is particularly controversial because the two teams play in the same conference, and LSU already defeated Alabama this year. Teams like Oklahoma State, argue that Alabama already got their chance to beat LSU, at home no less, and therefore another team should get a chance. Because of the mathematical formula, Alabama's loss to LSU hurts them much less, than Iowa State's upset over Oklahoma St, which is part of the reason the championship will be a rematch. Additionally, this years Sugar Bowl features a matchup of Michigan vs. Virginia Tech. This is controversial because Michigan wasn't widely seen as a top team, and while they had a strong season, their entry can likely be attributed to the schools massive fan base, and it's ability to "turn out," attend, the game. Virginia Tech is in the game by virtue of their Big East conference championship, the Big East is widely regarded as the worst conference, and an argument could be made that neither of these teams is among the 20 best in the country.


Why does college football use such a complex system? First of all, not every conference is created equal, the quality varies meaning some major conference teams have much harder schedules than others. Secondly, besides conference games, the major teams choose their out of division games, with some teams opting for easy games against small schools, and some opting for games against national rivals that will generate a buzz. For those two reasons, two teams can go 10-2, for example, and have had very different seasons. it isn't quite like comparing apples to oranges, but more akin to comparing a Granny Smith to a Golden Delicious.

Furthermore, the physical nature of football means that it's impossible to force a team to play a lot of games with little rest. This means that a large tournament, like March Madness, is impractical for college football. Because such a tournament would have to be self limiting, and you can not judge a team's success on record alone, any playoff would involve a fair amount of subjective selection of teams. It is hard to imagine an artful solution to this problem. The BCS provides a fairly comprehensive method of making such a subjective decision.

Another benefit of the BCS, is it raises the stakes of every regular season game. One loss in any game, can essentially take you out of the national championship, it has become a cliche to say that the BCS turns the whole season into a playoff, but it's kind of true. No team can afford to coast in any game, lest their season gets ruined.

Besides the BCS, there is a myriad of other end of the season bowls. This has the practical effect of making a whole host of teams look back on their season in favorable light, either because of a bowl win or an appearance. The BCS has the effect of making there almost be 5 championship games, a win in any of the major bowls is a great achievement and makes that season an unmitigated success for the winning team.

The BCS also generates a tremendous amount of money, certainly there is much to be wary of in terms of the economics of college football. The bowls are officially non profits, and the commissioners take in massive paychecks for minimal work. Additionally, the players who generate the excitement get paid nothing for their work. Looking past that, the massive revenue ensures that every team makes, at least, roughly 10 million dollars. This money allows college football to operate, it provides for scholarships, equipment, travel expenses, and all the other expenses teams incur. Conferences share money made from bowls, so at least their is an attempt to be equitable.

The BCS is far from perfect, but it's difficult to imagine a better solution. Pundits argue that we don't truly get to find out who the best team is, but a year end tournament doesn't necessarily determine that either. Determining the "best" team is a subjective argument, but at least the BCS allows teams to feel like winners even if they aren't the ultimate champions of the land. As an alum of Wisconsin, I can guarantee you that I will feel incredibly proud if they manage a Rose Bowl win against Oregon, without the air of disappointment that would haunt a loss in a national tournament. The BCS is rife with problems, but its also a better system than many give it credit for.