10 June 2012
In the last three years Boise state’s football team had a record of 34 wins and one loss. Yet every year they were passed over for a national title appearance by bigger name schools such as Alabama, Oklahoma, and LSU. Even though Boise state had a better record, the Bowl championship series or BCS decided against them. This is the fallacy of the current college football system and shows why a playoff solution would erase these issues. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was formed in 1998 to pit the top two ranked college football teams against each other in a national championship, while eight other top teams play in four bowl games. Many football fans argue that a playoff system should replace the BCS. They contend that it is the only fair way to determine a national champion and that the BCS method is subjective, profit-motivated, and sometimes leaves the best teams out of the championship game. Opponents argue that the BCS system is in the best interest of the athletes, fans, and sponsors because the bowl games generate huge profits for schools and their local economies, keep the season shorter for student athletes, and almost always have the two best teams playing each other for the national title. The annual controversy about whether the BCS should be replaced by a playoff system centers on the BCS rankings. The BCS standings are calculated by averaging three elements: the Harris Intercollegiate Football Poll, the USA TODAY Coaches' Poll, and the average of six computer rankings. Proponents of the BCS say their rankings are as accurate as possible because the BCS incorporates human polls and computer ratings to calculate the standings, but critics counter that the BCS rankings often place teams in the wrong order and discriminate against smaller schools. There have been plans suggested to the NCAA on how to rank these college football teams and how each team could win a...