Vincent Marcaccio Prof. Churchill

Prof. Churchill

WRT 104 MWF 2:00

10 April 2009

The End of The BCS

Since 1940, Division I college football has concluded their season with at least five major bowl games: The Rose Bowl, The Cotton Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl and the Sun Bowl. By 1970, that number of five increased to eleven. (http://en.wikipedia.org). These games were created to determine a champion for the college football season which preceded it. This bowl system is called the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Since the 1940’s however, college football has grown dramatically. The major problem with the BCS is that it leaves a lot of questions about who deserves to play in the championship game. There is a solution to this problem however. That solution lies within an eight team post season tournament. NCAA Football must alter the Bowl Championship Series to include a post-season tournament, in order to clearly determine a National Champion.

In the 2007 season, it was evident that there was a greater parity in college football. With the rise of previously weaker football programs, the need for change is clear. Some examples of programs rising over the past years include the University of Connecticut, which in 2007 won nine games – a total reached only two times since their program began in 1896 – and eight in 2008. Another notable growing program is Southern Florida; nationally ranked second at one point during the 2007 season, the highest ever for their program. They also won 8 games in 2008

In 1998, the BCS was created in compliance with the six major conferences in college football: The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), The Big East Conference, The Big 12 Conference, The Big 10 Conference, The Pacific 10 Conference (Pac-10) and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). Each conference sends their season champion to the BCS, occupying six of the ten positions in the BCS. The other four are selected as at large bids, as a result of their season performance as it relates to the BCS. The four slots may be occupied by teams from any conference, not just the six major conferences. The BCS rankings rely on a combination of polls and computer generated methods. Each year there is one national championship game where the top two BCS ranked teams at the end of the regular season compete for the title. However, this system is tremendously flawed.

The BCS relies completely on seasonal performance from each team and disallows a tournament style playoff system. The BCS is lucrative and historic in college football, but it must change. There are a variety of teams throughout college football who deserve an opportunity to compete in a post season tournament. 2007 marked the first year that a team with two losses, Louisiana State University (LSU), won the national championship. Many argued that they were not the best team in college football. A senior college football writer for ESPN.com, Mark Sclabach said, “The No. 7 [University of Southern California (USC)] Trojans are better than both No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 LSU, which will play for the BCS championship Monday night in the Louisiana Superdome.” (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls07/). Also, many argued that the No. 4 ranked Trojans in 2008 were a better team than the Florida Gators and Oklahoma Sooners who competed for the 2008 title. All three teams lost just one game all season – and USC had the best defensive statistics out of the three. Yet the Trojans were not even allowed to compete for the National Championship because there is no post season tournament.

The BCS has been under criticism for years because it does not allow teams to compete to be best. Instead, the computer system chooses two teams based on the regular season. The BCS is under contract throughout 2010, marking an opportunity for change to occur as early as 2011. The greatest solution with consideration to each school, conference and fan would be to incorporate the BCS with a tournament style system. An eight team tournament would be the most entertaining and logical scenario for fans and teams alike. There are many other bowls not incorporated with the BCS, and their continuance would have no effect on the tournament system. Because the five major bowls are too prestigious to exclude, the final five games would be these bowls, being played at their regular locations (which alter each year). An eight team, single elimination tournament would consist of seven games. This would allow for two additional bowls to be created, increasing revenue, and involving two more cities, therefore increasing support around the country.

Many experts and fans argue that a tournament style system would take away the excitement and importance of each regular season game. Their argument is that each game counts for each team, because one loss could knock a team out of national championship contention – as it did for USC in 2008. However, a tournament system would further increase the importance of the regular season. In 2007, Michigan, a preseason national championship contender, lost their first game of the season to Appellation State, a division 1AA opponent. This loss crushed their chances of a championship and the rest of their season did not matter much. Many teams saw a similar fate throughout the 2007 and 2008 seasons - making so many games worthless. However, with a post-season tournament, one loss would not eliminate a team from contention. With eight spots available, each regular season game would have a greater importance to a greater number of teams. Taking an in depth look at this past 2008 season, it is clear that a tournament style system would be successful.

The top eight ranked teams at the end of the 2008 college football season prior to the bowl games read in order as follows: Oklahoma, Florida, Utah, USC, Texas, Alabama, TCU, Penn State. Utah and TCU were not even considered because they do not play in a major conference. Florida defeated Oklahoma in the National Championship game 24-14. However, USC, Utah and Texas were all thought to have been unfairly left out. This game left a lot of fans unsatisfied with the National Champion, feeling that Florida was not necessarily the best team in college football. A tournament system would end speculation and promote a non-debatable champion similar to the NCAA basketball tournament championship. With the two top teams competing, there is no chance for upsets (a lower ranked seed beating a higher one). That chance to see upsets make the NCAA Basketball post-season tournament so dramatic. With an eight team tournament, there is an opportunity for a team like Utah, a proven underdog, to beat the top seeded Oklahoma¹.

There would be a standing controversy to fill some of the eight spots; however, it will be much less controversial than filling just two with the current system. If a tournament were in place last season, the first round would have read as follows: The number one Oklahoma would have faced Penn State; Florida versus TCU; Utah versus Alabama; and Texas versus USC. The winners would then proceed to face each other until an undisputable champion is crowned.

Many corporate sponsors and business people argue against the need for a tournament because they fear the financial possibilities of losing the BCS. However, there is a greater chance to increase revenue with a tournament system simply because it would be more entertaining. Many fans would tune in to each game of this tournament, many of which do not watch the current bowls because they do not have championship implications. Many have an attitude that they do not want to see a game to determine 4^th place – yet a tournament would mean the winner advances. Several public polls have shown a higher rate of disapproval rather than support for the BCS; polls on websites such as www.espn.com and www.yahooanswers.com. ESPN.com writer Gene Wojciechowski expressed a tremendous displeasure of the BCS by saying, “I hate the BCS. I hate it because the two best teams in the country aren't going to play in the national title game” (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story). Change would excite viewers and with added fan involvement, there is a greater opportunity for advertisement money, television contracts and further growth of the college football game financially. With such large revenue coming in from sponsors through television and ticket sales already, a tournament will add games and further increase this financial growth. The schools, television stations and the NCAA will all benefit from the added money.