College Football's Inescapable Conundrum

On Sunday evening the BCS yet again reared its ugly head, "choosing" Florida, rather than Michican, to play Ohio State in this season's BCS Championship Game. This most recent controversy has raised anew the widespread debate as to whether the college football powers-that-be should reassess the current postseason format. After all, it seems that almost every season some team or another (remember that undefeated Auburn team?) is left to wonder what might have been.

The most commonly proposed problem-solving alternatives vary widely. ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit, among others, has advocated a "plus one" system, under which two of the BCS bowls would specifically feature #1-#4 and #2-#3 matchups, with the two winners playing in an extra game--the "real" national championship game. (This system is comparable to a four-team playoff.) Other pundits and "football people" have called for an eight-team playoff, citing the successful definitiveness with which Division I-AA crowns its annual national champion. (Note: Division I-AA's playoff includes 16 teams.)

The problem is that none of these options will ever completely eradicate the presence of disgruntled teams and fans. If we consider each option on its relative merits, we will see that college football--due to its lack of conference standardization and its reliance on purely poll-based rankings--will likely never be able to crown a "true" national champion.

1. BCS
Before exploring possible alternatives, let's consider the current system. On numerous occasions (see: Oregon 2001-2002, Auburn 2004-2005, et al.) the BCS has proven to be an inconclusive, if not unreliable, system. Its rankings are based partially on computer polls, which means that "objective" measures such as strength-of-schedule play an ongoing role in determining a team's standing.

The "ongoing" aspect of these rankings serves as both an important and controversial one. Consider the University of Michigan's position in this season's BCS standings. Despite occupying the #2 spot after playing their final regular season game, the Wolverines were eclipsed, in successive weeks, by USC and Florida. Although numerous factors influenced these changes, they arose due in no small part to the fact that USC and Florida faced strong opponents (Notre Dame and Arkansas, respectively), while Michigan sat idle. In other words, the Trojans and the Gators saw their respective strengths-of-schedule "jump" as a result of their game order. (An entirely different yet related issue is brought to mind by Nebraska's 62-36 loss to Colorado in the 2001 Big 12 championship game. Because Nebraska already occupied such a strong BCS position, a 26-point loss wasn't even enough to remove them from the national championship game. Again--subjective viewpoints may have changed, but computer rankings worked their own black magic.)

Not surprisingly, human voters also changed their rankings based upon these difficult late-season games. Many members of the media seemingly operated under the "If Florida actually wins out, then I'll call them the #2 team in the nation" philosophy. Their erstwhile #2 team, Michigan, was simply serving as a "placeholder"--the default second-best-because-Florida-will-probably-lose team.

Can anyone conceivably call this a "fair" system? If Michigan had ended up earning the right to play for the national title, wouldn't the Florida Gators be able to construct a wholly viable and convincing argument for their own inclusion? Several columnists, including MSNBC.com's Michael Ventre, have argued that any team that loses a game puts itself "at the mercy" of the BCS system, all imperfections included. Sadly, even undefeated teams place themselves at the same mercy. Remember those Auburn Tigers of 2004? How about the '04 Utes? Both were among the four--yes, four--teams to go undefeated during that regular season. As the BCS would ultimately have it, Oklahoma and USC were selected to play for the national title.

Thus, when people point to last season's Texas-USC showdown as an example of BCS success, what they are actually pointing to is a season in which, rather arbitrarily, two--and exactly two--teams happened to go unbeaten. The Trojans and the Longhorns did not validate the BCS; they disguised it, at least for a short while.

2. "Plus One"
The "plus one" system, mentioned earlier, would include a framework in which the winners of #1-#4 and #2-#3 games would play in an "extra" game--the "legitimate" national championship. As the argument goes, such a format would remove the basis for 3rd-place complainers, a la this year's Michigan team.

Unfortunately, the "plus one" system falls well short of providing a clear-cut solution. In order to understand how and why, we need only consider this year's BCS rankings. Two two-loss teams--LSU, who lost to Auburn and Florida, and USC, who lost to Oregon St. and UCLA (gasp!)--are both ranked ahead of a one-loss Louisville team whose only defeat came at the hands of then-undefeated Rutgers. Could not the Cardinals justifiably argue that they deserve to be considered one of the nation's top four teams? Does not their body of work potentially trump that of the Trojans, who lost twice to non-top-20 teams? (Let's not latch onto Lee Corso's weak argument about the Big East playing a puny non-conference schedule. Louisville scheduled, well in advance, games against Miami and Kansas State this season. Both are perennially strong programs, with Miami being among the nation's top two or three over the past decade. We can't blame Louisville for their opponents' struggles.)

Similarly, Wisconsin could make a case that they should be invited to any four-team playoff, seeing as their only loss came to #3 Michigan. Despite an unimpressive non-conference schedule, the Badgers logged 11 wins in a Big Ten that is supposedly strong, at least if one is to value the accolades that have been bestowed upon Michigan's body of work.

Lastly, there's Boise State, who did not lose a game all season. While the Broncos may not be "worthy" of the #1-#2 game, they certainly should (it seems) be given a shot in the event that four teams are to vie for the crown.

Unfortunately, a "plus one" system would still leave Louisville, Wisconsin, and Boise State out of the national championship picture. Although an extra game would put an end to all of the Florida-Michigan fuss, it would not, by any stretch, give us a definitive national champion. Those teams left just outside of the top-4 bubble would still find themselves suffering at the "mercy" of the "system." Isn't that the very situation that a "plus one" would be meant to fix?

Playoff
An eight-team playoff, while more inclusive than any other system, would nonetheless incur many of the same problems mentioned above. Despite there being more teams in contention, arguments would certainly arise at the margins. Two-loss Wake Forest won the ACC this season, yet did not even come close to falling within the BCS top 8. Does mean that they would not be allowed in an eight-team playoff? Or, would the playoff automatically include all BCS-conference champions? Hmm.


Such are the conflicts that arise as a result of the BCS's grand structure. Bowl spots are guaranteed to conference champions regardless of their final BCS standing. Thus, there exists a difficult-to-balance mix of standardization and individuality. In other words, teams are judged by both their conference standing (standard) and their individual merits (i.e. strength-of-schedule, style points, and so on). The system, then, ends up being both objective and subjective, which leads to loads of confusion.

Until college football develops a uniform, pro-like structure (with similar conferences/divisions, playoffs, and the whole sha-bang), or at least an NCAA tournament-style system through which a broad number of teams are allowed into the postseason, it simply cannot purport to crown a conclusive national champion. The best we can hope for are splits, asterisks, and the occasional "consensus" #1.