I felt annoyed and wrote what was on my mind at the time. Keep in mind this is for football fans only. If you don't watch/keep up with college football then this whole thing will make no sense to you. Oh yeah, it can get confusing, too.
The Bowl Championship Series is probably the most flawed post-season system in sports today. On one hand, it is a system put in to ensure that the best teams in the country get to the bowl games they deserve to go to, and thus, potentially win money for their respective schools. However, the system is currently skewed to the point where a team like Texas, who placed fifth in BCS rankings and went 10-1 two years in a row, doesn't get to participate in a BCS bowl game. This is because the system is set up to allow the champion of each BCS conference to be in a BCS bowl game (Big10, Big XII, Big East, PAC-10, SEC, and ACC). As it currently stands, USC (representing the PAC-10), Oklahoma (representing the Big 12), and Auburn (representing the SEC) are all undefeated, and each represent the top team in their respective conferences, and thus automatically earn their way to a BCS bowl game. The other teams going to a BCS bowl game are Michigan from the Big10, Pittsburgh from the Big East, and Virginia Tech from the ACC. There are 4 BCS bowl games, and 6 teams that get an automatic pass to play them. You do the math; 2 of them play each other in the National Championship game (Numbers 1 and 2 from the BCS rankings, looking to be USC and Oklahoma), and two more play each other in another bowl (this year most likely going to be Auburn versus Virginia Tech). That leaves 2 of those automatic teams left, which this year will be and Michigan and Pittsburgh. Here is where it gets tricky: as it stands, Michigan needs an opponent for the Rose Bowl, and Pitt needs an opponent for the Fiesta Bowl. The question is, who deserves to go? Well many would say Cal and Texas deserve the spots, since they are the highest BCS ranked teams remaining that have not yet been picked. HOWEVER, they are talking about giving Utah the bid for the Fiesta Bowl instead of Texas, simply because Utah is undefeated and Texas is not, even though Texas' BCS rank is higher than Utah's. That's not strange at all, now is it? Considering the fact that every tie-break situation depends on who's BCS ranking is better, why should that matter here? Oh yeah. It should. But in the Rose Bowl, they are going to pick Cal to play Michigan. A little background info; Cal and Texas have the same record, and Texas is actually in front of Cal according to computers, but Coaches/ESPN/AP polls put Cal in front in the BCS standings by mere inches. Sounds like both teams are equally deserving, right? So if a team like Texas doesn't get to go, then Cal, a team identical to Texas in stats, should not get to go either, right? Well apparently tradition has an impact on the decision process -- the Rose Bowl was originally a BigTen/PAC-10 game, back in the day before the BCS started. So they will send Cal, a PAC-10 team, to play Michigan, a BigTen team, in the Rose Bowl to set it up the way it is supposed to be played; supposed to be played 6 years ago. The way I see it, if you are going to deny Texas a BCS bowl by sending Utah simply because it has a better record, then you should deny Cal a BCS by sending Boise State for having a better record. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it. The BCS is a mess as it is, and needs some reworking. I won't even go into BCS and non-BCS conferences and how that should be handled. Let's just say that Utah is in a non-BCS conference and therefore shouldn't be BCS bowl eligible. After all, why even go to the trouble of designating BCS conference if they don't mean anything? Of course, the only reason I want to see Texas go to a BCS bowl is so Texas A&M takes their place in the Cotton Bowl, which will most likely be against LSU.
On top of all else, the system has been changed every year since it has been introduced. That tells you something. And this year it is by far the most ridiculous. The system is now set up to count AP/Coaches/ESPN polls as 2/3rds of the BCS ranking, leaving computer statistics to only 1/3rd of the vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the BCS altogether? In it's original conception it was a fair and balanced computer ranking system to tell who was officially the best team in the country. Now it is nothing more than an enhanced version of what we did before -- which was to let the press decide who is the best team instead of the statistics, a bad idea. If the BCS was run the way it used to be, then USC would NOT be the number one team in the country right now. According the computers, it should be Oklahoma. On top of that, the computers place Texas higher than Cal, which of course would send Texas to a BCS bowl instead of Cal. But of course that's not the case. The geniuses in charge of this whole mess have decided it would be a better idea to let the OPINIONS of the press to have a bigger impact on which the better team is rather than the NUMBERS.
My suggestions? Well first off, you could add another BCS bowl game. Pick a game like the Cotton Bowl and add it to the other four BCS bowl games. This will accommodate for a lot of the confusion surrounding at-large picks, and let teams like Texas, who have had spectacular seasons, to play in a deserving bowl game. If that can't be done, then restructure the BCS bowl system to allow the top 8 teams in the BCS rankings to play in the four bowl games. Simple math; 8 teams, 4 games, 2 teams to a game. Do away with the "BCS Conferences" that allow the champion from each of those conferences to automatically play. If the team isn't good enough to be in the top 8, then they don't get to compete in the BCS. It's that simple. And lastly, let the computer rankings come back to the way they were. That is the only true way to determine who is better. Schedule strength, away game stats, points per game; they are all great ways to determine who is officially the better team, rather than who the press thinks is the best.
Only three are conferences are locked in: BigTen, PAC-10, and Big East. The other three are still dependent on a single game. The face of the BCS could change entirely if certain things happen:
Scenario 1: Six teams stay the way they are mentioned above, leaving two spots for at-large picks. At-large contenders are Cal, Utah, and Texas.
Scenario 2: Oklahoma loses BigXII Championship game. Colorado takes one of the six spots. Oklahoma will be picked for one of the remaining two spots as an at-large pick, screwing over either Cal or Utah (or Texas).
Scenario 3: Same as above, but with Auburn instead. Auburn loses the SEC Championship game, so Tennessee takes a spot, and Auburn becomes an at-large pick, screwing over either Cal or Utah (or Texas).
Scenario 4: Everything gets messed up. Auburn AND Oklahoma lose their championship games. Their two spots are filled by Tennessee and Colorado, respectively. Oklahoma and Auburn then become the two at-large picks, screwing over BOTH alternate at-large contenders.
USC could still lose their last game to UCLA. And for kicks, let's say USC, Oklahoma, AND Auburn ALL lost their last games, then that would result in no at-large picks at all. But let's not get crazy. That just won't happen.
