Fixing the BCS

The BCS is flawed because it excludes deserving teams from championship and BCS bowl games. 

The BCS should institute a "+1 playoff format" and eliminate automatic bids to six conference champions.

Most college football fans hate the BCS.  A common view among fans is, "drop the 'C' and that about covers it".  Popular sports media fuel anti-BCS sentiment.  While fans don't like the BCS, and argue for a playoff system, the BCS claims it does what it is intended to do; and does it very well.  

Meanwhile, the first BCS rankings of this season will be released on October 17.  So let the controversy begin (especially if Boise State is #1). 

What is the BCS?

According to their web site, "The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game showcase of college football.  It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games."  The BCS has gone through revisions over the years, attempting to improve the product.  The BCS National Championship Game was introduced for the 2006-2007 season.

Two missions:

1.  "ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game."

The two best teams played for the championship last season, with #1 Alabama defeating #2 Texas to win the BCS National Championship.  The top two teams in the final BCS rankings have met all 12 years of its existence, so, mission accomplished. 

Don't forget that strict conference to bowl affiliations that existed prior to the BCS would have prevented most #1 vs. #2 bowl matchups.  That never solved anything, and often created a "mythical national champion" and one or more teams that felt like they were equally deserving.  There were also split national championships. 

Bowl rivalries, like Big 10 vs. PAC 10 in the Rose Bowl, can be preserved under the current BCS, but are trumped by placing the top two teams in the national championship game. 

2.  "create exciting and competitive matchups...in four other bowl games."

Last season, teams ranked #3 through #10 in the BCS met in the four other BCS bowl games.  And prior to the BCS, Boise State would have never played in a premier bowl.  They would have likely participated in the Humanitarian Bowl or Poinsettia Bowl every year.  That aspect of the equation has been improved under the BCS.  More on this later.  

So, the BCS does exactly what it's supposed to do, right?  In addition, it promotes urgency for the regular season games, preserves the bowl structure, and rakes in cash. 

There is also a whole page of testimonials supporting the event.  

What they're saying

Buried at the bottom of a BCS web page is their position on a playoff system,

"The NCAA membership has not voted for the creation of a playoff. Given that context, the conferences created the BCS in order to match the top two teams in a bowl game while maintaining the importance of the regular season and preserving the bowl system."

Pretty convincing, huh?  So the BCS and the bowl format aren't as bad as we thought and probably aren't going anywhere, right?  Let's look at the counterpoint.

Fixing the BCS

The BCS is flawed because it is not a playoff and it excludes deserving teams from championship and BCS bowl games. 

As noted above, the BCS has enabled teams that would not have otherwise had an opportunity to play in major bowls.  It limits those opportunities by rewarding conference champions without regard for their record and BCS standing. 

An expanded playoff system will probably never occur, at least in my lifetime.  A more fitting solution is a "+1 playoff format".  This involves a playoff system, but doesn't dramatically change the existing bowl structure.  Add one bowl to the BCS rotation, in order to maintain the amount of teams making it to BCS bowls. 

Match the top four ranked teams in two of the bowls, rotating theses bowls every season.  The two bowl winners go on the the BCS Championship Game.  This preserves the bowls and the basic BCS structure, but also becomes a four team playoff.  The "+1 playoff format" means that only the two finalists play one more game than the current format.  One more week of travel for two teams and their supporters is an acceptable price for a four team championship tournament.    

The other major flaw in the current BCS is that six of the 10 spots in the BCS are reserved for conference champions.  These automatic bids should be eliminated entirely, or at least become conditional, upon the conference champion not having four losses or being ranked outside of the BCS top 15.  This will involve reassessing how revenues are distributed amongst conferences.  Since 2002, three four-loss ACC champions have made it into the BCS, by virtue of winning an inferior conference championship and securing an automatic bid.  The automatic bids squeezed out more deserving teams.

In 2005, 8-4 Florida State went to the Orange Bowl, while Oregon, 10-1, who only lost to #1 USC, did not earn a BCS bid. 

In 2008, Virginia Tech (9-4) went to the Orange Bowl. 10-2 TCU defeated 12-0 Boise State in the Poinsettia Bowl.    

The NCAA is going to be motivated by generating revenue, and the current system does that.  A "+1 playoff format" would be about the only way NCAA membership might vote to incorporate a playoff.  Much of the current bowl structure would be preserved.  One more game would actually mean more money.  And we all know that money is what motivates all the current changes going on in college sports. 

Until a "+1 playoff format" is instituted, and the BCS stops rewarding four-loss conference champions, this is as good as it's going to get.