BCS Faces Another Jolt to the System
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
It has become an annual ritual for the Bowl Championship Series to tinker with its selection formula, but the 7-year-old coalition of major bowls and top college football conferences is likely to undergo the most significant change in its history thanks to an announcement by the Associated Press Tuesday.
In a cease and desist letter to BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg, the AP stated that, beginning in 2005, it will no longer allow its weekly college football rankings to be used in the BCS formula. The AP’s withdrawal could force the BCS to scrap its formula altogether and create a selection committee to determine the matchups for its participating games – the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar bowls.
Fans hoping this move will lead to the collapse of the BCS and the creation of a playoff system are likely to be disappointed. The BCS, which recently signed a new television contract with Fox to televise the games through 2010, is not going away. The college presidents who created the BCS remain staunchly opposed to a playoff, so it’s likely that some incantation of the BCS will continue to decide college football’s “champion” through that date and beyond.
Furthermore, the AP’s withdrawal may actually boost the credibility of the BCS, which has been an easy target for critics who take issue with “computer geeks” choosing college football’s champion. A selection committee will bring to the BCS the one thing it has always lacked – human logic.
From its inception in 1998, the BCS’s major obstacle was in deciding how to choose its participants. The polls by themselves didn’t appear to be a good option. The AP expressed concern about making news – by helping to select a champion – instead of reporting it. The BCS also had an integrity problem with the coaches’ poll, with its anonymous ballots and a history rife with coaches doing favors for one another. In an effort to minimize the importance of either poll, the BCS created a complex formula, combining the two polls with a series of computer rankings and other factors such as quality wins and strength of schedule.
Many would argue the BCS was doomed from the start because its fundamental goal – to match the two best teams in a single championship game, no matter how many qualified candidates exist – was impossible to guarantee. It certainly hasn’t made things easier by altering the formula every year in response to the previous season’s controversy.
In 1998, 1999 and 2002, the BCS worked as intended, matching the consensus top two teams. But every other year, controversy has reigned. In 2003, after USC finished the year ranked no. 1 in both human polls but was left out of the title game, the BCS formula was changed to its current version (its simplest yet), whereby a team that was ranked first in both polls would be virtually guaranteed a spot in the title game. This season, however, a new problem arose as an undefeated major-conference team – Auburn – was left out of the title game for the first time in the BCS era.
After years of increased scrutiny of the human polls and their role in the rankings, the AP gradually grew less comfortable with its inclusion. Calling the BCS “a mess,” the Charlotte Observer announced this month it would no longer participate in the AP poll as long as it was part of the formula.
Interestingly, the AP never had an agreement with the BCS, something made clear in the letter it sent the organization Tuesday. Calling the BCS’s use of its rankings “unauthorized,” the AP said its participation had harmed its reputation, honesty, and integrity. Given the lack of prior complaint from the AP, the language was surprisingly harsh.
Weiberg, perhaps sensing the AP’s unhappiness with its role, suggested earlier this month that the BCS consider a selection committee as part of its annual review. The BCS knows it has an integrity problem with the coaches’ poll and there isn’t another ranking system with the pedigree of the AP that could replace it in the formula. The AP’s pullout virtually assures that the BCS will go to a selection committee.
It is ironic that the BCS may now turn to a selection committee, which is typically comprised of athletic directors and conference presidents. The NCAA uses selection committees to determine the fields for nearly all its sanctioned championships, but it has never sanctioned a championship in Division I-A college football, because the existence of the bowls – which date to the early 1900s – has always precluded a playoff. So even if the BCS were to adopt a selection committee, the bowls would remain under the jurisdiction of the BCS, and the NCAA would still withold its recognition of any “official” champion declared by the BCS.
The committee will be able to consider polls, computer rankings, strength of schedule, how teams are playing late in the season, and other factors as it sets the title-game pairing. Teams will no longer be punished, as Auburn was this season, simply because they were not highly ranked in the preseason polls.
A selection committee could also push the BCS towards a “plus one” championship model, in which it could return to traditional conference tie-ins for the four bowls, using the committee to select two at-large teams then selecting two teams from among the winners to meet in a title game a week later.
To many who follow college football, the answer to the BCS problem has always been simple: Hold a playoff like every other NCAA sport. But that argument misses the point – college football’s postseason, as currently constituted, is not run by the NCAA, as any playoff system would have to be. The power conferences control the BCS and all the revenue it generates, something that is not likely to change no matter how much the public complains.
Mr. Levine is a writer for FootballOutsiders.com.