How would you like it if a computer told you that you were just plain better than someone else? Better yet, how about if this same computer could also tell you just how much better you were than that other person?

Well, you just might be in luck, because for going on nine years now college football has been governed by such a machine. Known as the Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, this method ranks a team based on its standing in the Coaches’ Poll, Harris Interactive Poll, and the average of six separate computer rankings (the highest and lowest of which are thrown out). When it’s all said and done, each team has a numerical score, and the two teams with the highest scores go on to play for the National Championship.

And everyone is satisfied, or so the story went when this concept was first introduced. Now most people (of which I am one) will tell you that the BCS is ridiculous. It had good intentions, no doubt, but those were marred by the numerous flaws in the system. For example, last year Ohio State and Boise State both had perfect regular seasons, yet only the Buckeyes made the championship game. The reasoning was (in large part) that they had played a more difficult schedule in the Big Ten (including an end of season victory over then second-ranked Michigan) than had Boise in the Western Athletic Conference. What happened? Boise stunned Big 12 Champion Oklahoma, proving that they could in fact compete with the best teams in the country, while Ohio State fell 41-14 against Florida. Michigan was beaten handily by USC in the Rose Bowl, and by the end of the bowl season it was obvious that the Big 10 had been overrated. The computers, though, hadn’t taken into account that the conference in general was far inferior to the mighty SEC, whereas had it done so a one-loss Florida team would have likely been the favorite (instead of a major underdog). Plus, Florida’s victory begs the question: What’s not to say that Boise State could have beaten Ohio State too? How do we even know the Buckeyes were worthy of a BCS bid?

Of course there are constantly changes being made, like 2001′s addition of a “quality win” component to help teams who defeat highly ranked competitors, yet even such modifications cannot fix what has been doomed from the start. I for one support the consensus that says we need a play off among the top eight or even top sixteen teams. That way, we’ll find out who the best team really is. If some mid-major ranked fifteenth is in fact better than the big state university sitting at number two, then they’ll be able to prove it (unlike unbeaten Utah a couple years back, which had to settle for hammering a weak Pittsburgh team in the Fiesta bowl and never getting to prove just how good it was). Likewise, if the number one and two ranked teams in the country are in fact the two best teams, then they’ll take care of their opponents en route to a championship showdown.

And to those who say three or four more games would be too much of a strain on our student-athletes, I respond by saying that most players at elite Division I football programs have a bigger goal than winning a championship: They want to make millions in the NFL. Any team that wins the Super Bowl plays either 19 or 20 games, so why can’t our future MVPs and Hall of Famers play 15 or 16? Furthermore, wouldn’t a playoff spark the same mad following as college basketball’s traditional March Madness, when an entire nation literally rallies around a Cinderella pulling upset after upset? If there had been a playoff, who says Boise State wouldn’t have won the whole thing? Maybe it would have happened, and maybe it wouldn’t have. The point is, with the BCS we’ll never know.

This year has pretty much kept to the recent trend. Ohio State and LSU were both contentious selections for the National Championship Game, as teams like USC, Georgia, Oklahoma and Virginia Tech all felt they deserved a chance at the title. Hawaii is the country’s only undefeated team, yet their weak schedule strength in the WAC excluded them from title consideration. No matter who emerges victorious, there will be questions and debate as to who is really the country’s best team. I realize that throwing out the current system would not be an easy thing to do, but do we really trust a machine that knows only numbers and statistics over our own eyes and what we see?

There’s no doubt in my mind that computers and advanced technology will someday replace human perception when it comes to even the most subjective things like analyzing sports, but does that time really have to be now?

Brian is a freshman at Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.