BCS controversies

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a selection system designed to force a "national championship game" between the top-ranking teams (in the BCS rankings) in American college football's top division, the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly known as Division I-A). This championship is intended as a surrogate for a playoff system since the NCAA does not formally determine a champion in this category. There has often been controversy as to which two teams should be able to play for the national championship and which teams should play in the four other BCS bowl games (Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl).

Overview

Among the criticisms of the BCS (and the bowl system in general) is that the final ranking of Division I FBS NCAA football teams, and hence the placement of teams in the national championship and BCS bowl games, is decided by human and computer polls which may not accurately reflect the merit or strength of teams. Moreover, the composition of these polls is controversial: for example, the Associated Press has prohibited the BCS from using its rankings in the BCS formula, and ESPN has removed itself from the USA Today coaches poll.

A different but related criticism is that the BCS uses a tournament system that includes only two teams (the two participants in the national championship game), whereas most other sports, at both the college and professional levels, have larger post-season tournaments. Most fans and sportswriters argue that there should be a "playoff" system, by which they mean that the number of teams in the tournament should be increased from two, the current number. Many sportswriters suggest the tournament should include 8 or 16 teams, with the latter to include the champions of all 11 FBS conferences. Another idea that has received media attention is a "plus-one" system in which two of the BCS bowl games act as semi-final games, and the winners of those games play in the national championship game a week later. Fact|date=January 2008

The primary virtue of increasing the number of teams in the tournament would be to allow for more head-to-head comparisons of teams from different conferences. Currently, it is difficult for pollsters to compare top teams from different conferences because such teams play on average only four regular-season games outside of their conferences, many of which are against teams from non-BCS conferences that have no chance of competing for the national title. The primary vices of expansion are threefold. First, an expanded tournament would diminish the relevance of traditional bowl games, a concern that is emphasized by football traditionalists and by major college university presidents and coaches. Second, an expanded tournament might reward teams who chose to play weak regular-season schedules, especially if some tournament slots were automatically awarded to BCS conference winners, thereby reducing the incentive of BCS teams to schedule non-conference games against strong opponents. The current two-team system, by contrast, rewards teams for playing difficult schedules, as evidenced by the fact that, at the end of the 2007 season, a team with one loss (Kansas) and a team with no losses (Hawaii) were passed over for the national championship game in favor of two-loss LSU, because LSU had clearly played a more difficult regular-season schedule. (LSU went on to win the national championship game, defeating one-loss Ohio State 38-24.) Third, expansion would reduce the importance of regular-season victories. Along these lines, critics of an expanded tournament often point to the NFL where teams that have already clinched playoff berths will often bench their starting players in the final few games of the regular season because a loss will not prevent them from making the playoffs. This never happened in the BCS system, because no team has ever gone into a regular-season game (or conference championship game) knowing that, even if it loses, its slot in the two-team tournament is assured.

A third criticism of the system is the institutionalized bias towards the six BCS conferences and Notre Dame, an independent team in football, at the deliberate expense of the five Division 1A/FBS non-BCS conferences. Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, six non-BCS conference Division I-A/FBS teams have finished the regular season undefeated (Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah in 2004, Boise State in 2004 and 2006, and Hawaii in 2007) without being given an opportunity to play in the national championship game. (It should be noted, however, that Marshall in 1999 was in danger of not going to any BCS bowl game despite their #11 final ranking, due to MAC bowl tie-ins.) Since, however, teams from non-BCS conferences generally play significantly easier schedules than teams from BCS conferences, it is unclear whether this "bias" is merely a penalty based on schedule strength that also can apply to BCS conference teams (see, e.g., discussion of the 2007 Kansas team, above). A rejoinder would be that teams from non-BCS conferences only have so much control over their schedules, creating the possibility that such a team might in fact be one of the two best teams in the country, and might also have made a good-faith effort to play a challenging schedule, but might still be excluded from the national championship game. Whether, however, this has in fact ever happened is unclear.

A fourth criticism is that a team can fail to win its conference championship, but still play in the BCS championship game. This happened in the 2001 and 2003 seasons. In 2001 Nebraska played Miami (Florida), after losing to Colorado during the regular season and, therefore, did not play in the Big 12 Conference Championship game. In 2003 Oklahoma played LSU despite losing to Kansas State 35-7 in the Big 12 Conference title game. A rejoinder is that these situations actually reflect a virtue of the BCS system, which rewards teams for their performance throughout the entire season, thereby reinforcing the notion that, in college football, every game (rather than just conference championship games, or games late in the season) matters.

A fifth criticism is that a team with similar or better arguments to another team can be left out of the title game despite beating the other team. This happened between Miami (Florida) and Florida State University in 2000, where Miami beat Florida St. yet Florida St. went to the National Championship Game. The University of Washington also beat Miami and finished with an 11-1 record, further adding to the controversy.

Questions regarding disparities in revenue sharing

In addition to concerns about the inclusion of non-BCS conference teams in the five BCS bowls, some critics have noted the disparities between the amounts paid to the six BCS conferences and their respective schools, as opposed to other conferences and their own schools.

The official BCS website discusses the payouts for the 2007-2008 BCS bowls. [http://www.bcsfootball.org/id/7212064_37_1.pdf]
*Each BCS conference is guaranteed approximately $17 million, plus an additional $4.5 million should a second conference team be selected. Although each conference has its own arrangement for the distribution of these funds, the average income per school in each conference is as follows (One team selected/Two teams selected):

**Atlantic Coast (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M
**Big East (8 teams): $2.125M / $2.688M
**Big Ten (11 teams): $1.545M / $1.955M
**Big 12 (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M
**Pacific 10 (10 teams): $1.7M / $2.15M
**Southeastern (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M

*Notre Dame is guaranteed 1/66th of net revenues, or approximately $1.3 million. If selected to play in a BCS bowl, Notre Dame will receive $4.5 million.

*Independent programs Army and Navy will each receive $100,000 for allowing their teams to participate in the selection for BCS bowls.

*A total of $1.8 million will be paid to the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), which consists of 122 football programs. As a result, although the actual distribution will vary significantly, each school will receive an average of $14,754.

*Nine percent, or approximately $9 million, is guaranteed in aggregate to Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Athletic conferences. If a team from one of these five conferences plays in a BCS bowl, an additional nine percent (approximately $9M) will be given in aggregate to the conferences, and if a second team participates, those conferences will receive an additional $4.5M. These five conferences are composed of a total of 51 teams, broken down as follows:

**Conference USA - 12 teams
**Mid-American - 13 teams
**Mountain West - 9 teams
**Sun Belt - 8 teams
**Western Athletic - 9 teams

*Therefore, if the payouts to these conferences were broken down equally per school (which is not the case), this would amount to an average of $176,470 per school. If one team from these conferences were to play in a BCS game, that figure would increase to $352,941 per school. Should two teams be selected, the average per school would rise to $441,176 per school.As a result, in the best-case scenario schools from the non-BCS conferences would receive approximately 34% of the least of the schools in the BCS conferences, including Notre Dame. These numbers are not the actual amounts paid to each school, but look at the amounts paid to each school on average.

The disparities between BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences continue outside the Bowl Championship Series to other bowls, but since the payouts for the five BCS bowls are so much greater than other bowls, the BCS has a major impact on revenue distribution paid to the various Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) schools. A 2003 study [ [http://www.onnidan.com/bcsp/1005/stry10052.htm BCSP X-5: Div. IA without the BCS? Costly ] ] described the disparities between the different schools. In 2003, there were 24 bowls other than the BCS bowls, creating opportunities for 48 teams to participate in bowl games. Of these 48 teams, 33 were from BCS conferences.

In 2003, the Big Ten led all conferences with $31.9 million from its seven bowl appearances. By comparison, Conference USA, which led the non-BCS conferences with five bowl appearances, brought in a total of $5.75 million. TCU led all non-BCS schools with $1.37 million from its Liberty bowl appearance.

As a result, there has been significant criticism regarding the revenue distribution by bowls, specifically the BCS due to its significantly higher payout to participating teams. This disparity coupled with the comparative difficulty for non-BCS teams to participate in BCS bowls, compounded by the uneven split even for non-BCS teams competing in a BCS bowl, have raised calls for further reform in the revenue distribution structure. These concerns have also called into question the underlying motivations of the BCS, insofar as revenue is concerned. These issues have been the center of some Congressional inquiries, as well. [ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10300450/ Congress chimes in on 'deeply flawed' BCS - College football - MSNBC.com ] ]

Controversies by season

1998-99 season

The first year of the BCS ended in controversy when one-loss Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings but was passed over for participation in BCS bowl games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and two-loss Florida (8th). Instead, the Wildcats played in the less prestigious Alamo Bowl against Purdue, a game Kansas State ended up losing. It could be argued that the Orange Bowl should have pitted Arizona and Kansas State against one another. The following season, the BCS adopted the "Kansas State Rule," which provides that the 3rd ranked team (or 4th ranked team if the 3rd ranked team has already qualified as a conference champion) in the final BCS standings is ensured of an invitation to a BCS bowl game. The rule was first utilized in 2002-03, giving an automatic berth to USC. The rule has only been used four times in all, with Texas, Ohio State, and Michigan receiving automatic bids in 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07, respectively.

The following season, Kansas State finished 6th in the BCS standings but again received no invitation, this time being passed over in favor of Michigan (ranked 8th). Kansas State's predicament (as well as that of undefeated Tulane who was denied a BCS bid because they played in Conference USA) inaugurated the long-standing media controversies regarding the system.

2000-01 season

Florida State (12-1) was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma (12-0) in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their one loss coming to another one loss team, the Miami Hurricanes (11-1), that was ranked #2 in both human polls. Adding to the controversy, Miami's one loss came to yet another one loss team, the 10-1 Washington Huskies, leaving three teams with a legitimate claim to play Oklahoma in the National Championship game.

Florida State lost to Oklahoma 13-2, Washington and Miami both easily won their bowl games, adding more fuel to the fire. As a result of the controversy, the BCS was tweaked in the off-season. A "quality-win" bonus was added to the formula, giving extra credit for beating a top ten team.

2001-02 season

In another controversial season, Nebraska was chosen as a national title game participant despite being ranked #4 in both human polls and not winning their conference. The Huskers went into their last regularly scheduled game at Colorado undefeated, but left Boulder with a 62-36 loss. The Buffaloes went on to win the Big 12 championship. However, the BCS computers did not (and still do not) take into account time of loss, so one-loss Nebraska came out ahead of two-loss Colorado and one-loss Oregon, the consensus #2 in both human polls (but 4th in the BCS). Nebraska beat Colorado for the #2 spot in the BCS poll by .05 points. Nebraska was routed in the national title game, 37-14, by Miami. Meanwhile Oregon dismantled Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.

2002-03 season

The Rose Bowl normally features the champions of the Big Ten, the Ohio State Buckeyes and the Pac-10. However, because the Buckeyes had finished #2 in the BCS, they were set to play in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl for the national championship against Miami (Fla.) [ [http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2002_archive_bcs.html 2002 BCS Standings] ]

The Orange Bowl had the next pick after the Fiesta Bowl pairing, and #3 (#5 BCS) Iowa was chosen. The Rose Bowl had the next BCS selection. The next, best available team to choose was #8 (#7 BCS) Oklahoma, who won the Big 12 Championship Game, to play Pac-10 winner Washington State. When it came time for the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl to make a second pick, both wanted USC. However, a BCS rule stated that if two bowls want the same team, the bowl with the higher payoff has the option.Rosenblatt, Richard - [http://www.centralohio.com/ohiostate/stories/20021209/football/540072.html BCS: Orange Bowl has a Rosy look] Associated Press, December 9, 2002] The Orange Bowl immediately extended an at-large bid to the number 5 ranked Trojans and paired them with at-large number 3 Iowa in a Big Ten/Pac-10 "Rose Bowl" matchup in the 2003 Orange Bowl. Rose Bowl committee executive director Mitch Dorger was not pleased with the results. The 2003 Rose Bowl game had the lowest attendance and first non-sellout since 1944.

2003-04 season

The 2003-2004 season came about with much controversy when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss (in fact, no Division I-A team finished the season undefeated, something that hadn't happened since 1996, two years before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were:
*Oklahoma
*LSU
*USC

USC was ranked #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but was burdened by a collective 2.67 computer ranking due to a schedule deemed weaker by computer analysis. Meanwhile Oklahoma, after an undefeated regular season, was beaten by Kansas State (35-7) in the Big 12 Championship Game. The loss dropped Oklahoma to #3 in the human polls (while the computers still had them at #1). LSU had earned a stronger computer ranking than USC and a #2 human poll ranking, and went on to claim the BCS championship with a 21-14 win over Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, retained its #1 ranking in the AP Poll. Oklahoma (which finished 12-2) had been clearly eliminated from national championship contention, but the split in polls left many LSU (13-1) and USC (12-1) fans displeased, as USC was named the AP national football champion. This incident has been considered a lightning rod of controversy by some sportswriters covering college football. [Tim Layden, [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tim_layden/07/14/moments/2.html Embarrassing moments in College Football (#10)] , SportsIllustrated.com, Aug. 2, 2006 , "Accessed Aug. 2, 2006".]

The college coaches involved in the coaches poll were contractually obligated to award their organization's trophy and first place votes to the winner of the BCS championship game, LSU. However, for the first and, so far, only time in the history of the BCS Championship Series, the BCS Champion was not a unanimous #1 in the final Coaches Poll as the final vote was 60 - 3 for LSU as National Champion with USC as a runner-up. It is speculated that the three coaches who broke rank--Lou Holtz of South Carolina, Mike Bellotti of Oregon and Ron Turner of Illinois--violating their contractual obligation, did so because they believed that USC was the best team. Meanwhile other coaches followed their contractual obligation under the coaches "poll" and changed their choice of #1 from USC to LSU.

2004-05 season

The 2004-2005 regular season finished with five undefeated teams for the first time since 1979. Despite having perfect records, the Auburn Tigers, Utah Utes, and Boise State Broncos were denied an opportunity to play for the BCS championship. Utah was the first non-BCS team to play in a BCS game. However, most experts felt that Utah and Boise State's schedules were not strong enough to justify a bid in the title game. Fact|date=August 2008

Most of the debate centered around Auburn, who went undefeated in the Southeastern Conference, leading to debates over the strength of schedule, a value that was diminished in the BCS before the season. Oklahoma went on to play USC for the title. USC defeated Oklahoma, 55-19. Both Auburn and Utah won their bowl games. Auburn defeated #9 Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl 16-13, and Utah defeated #21 Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl by a score of 35-7. This left 3 undefeated teams at the end of the season, where Auburn finished at #2 and Utah at #4.

Another controversy occurred this season since the pollsters jumped the Texas Longhorns over the California Golden Bears in the final regular-season poll. Texas coach Mack Brown publicly lobbied for the pollsters to give Texas the final at-large bid. California's cause was hurt when it was less than impressive in a 26-16 victory over Southern Miss in Hattiesburg, Mississippi the night before bowl bids were extended. Weakening their cause after the fact was the 45-31 defeat in the Holiday Bowl to Texas Tech University. Cal played without two of the highest performing receivers in the NCAA, [ "Wounded Cal could use a hand at receiver," Union-Tribune, December 29, 2004, http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/college_football/20041229-9999-1s29hbnotes.html; ] however, this loss was attributed in many press reports to the Bears' disappointment over being denied their first Rose Bowl appearance in 45 years. [ For example, "The perfect ending for Cal," Palo Alto Daily News, December 29, 2006, http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2006-12-29-cal-holiday-bowl; ] Another major issue is the fact that the Pac-10 has considerably weaker bowl tie-ins than all of the other BCS conferences. For example, the Holiday Bowl is the second place Pac-10 bowl and the opponent is the 3rd, 4th, or 5th-place Big XII team, meaning the Pac-10 team can finish just out of the BCS and play an unranked opponent, with no incentive to win the game whatsoever.

2006-07 season

Going into the final poll, undefeated Boise State and four one-loss teams (Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida) were up for a spot against undefeated top-ranked Ohio State in the BCS National Championship game in Glendale, Arizona. Most fans and pundits did not consider Wisconsin, Louisville, or Boise State contenders because they played significantly weaker schedules than Florida and Michigan.

Michigan lost to Ohio State 42-39 in its regular season finale, but was still ranked ahead of Florida but behind USC going into the final ballot. Florida defeated Arkansas in the SEC Championship Game, and number 2 ranked USC lost to UCLA, leaving Michigan and Florida as one-loss teams who both claimed they deserved to play for the national championship against Ohio State. Many pundits denied that Michigan should get another chance to play Ohio State. Ultimately, the BCS National Championship was a meeting between Ohio State and Florida. A mere .0101 points separated #2 Florida from #3 Michigan. This small difference was a result of the human polls (USA Today's Coaches' Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.

Michigan, which was automatically guaranteed a BCS at-large berth by virtue of its #3 ranking, went to the Rose Bowl, which they lost to USC 32-18. Florida officially became the national champions by impressively beating Ohio State 41-14. Florida also received all but one of the 65 first-place votes in the final Associated Press poll (the other went to Boise State, who won an epic Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma).

At the conclusion of the season, three other one-loss teams were denied the chance to compete in a playoff or to play Florida for the national championship. Wisconsin and Louisville ended the season with only one loss (the same as Florida and Ohio State). Boise State, which received the other first-place vote in the AP poll, was the only undefeated Division I football team.

Because of a BCS rule allowing only two teams from each conference to play in BCS bowl games, highly-ranked Wisconsin and Auburn were not eligible for selection to a BCS game. Wisconsin was excluded because Ohio State and Michigan represented the Big Ten, and Auburn was excluded because LSU and Florida represented the SEC, even though Auburn defeated LSU 7-3 and Florida 27-17 during the season. LSU earned the at-large bid on the strength of its 31-26 victory over SEC West champion Arkansas in Little Rock, while the Razorbacks crushed then second-ranked Auburn 27-10 in Jordan-Hare Stadium. Auburn's 37-15 loss at home to a reeling Georgia team also destroyed its chances at the BCS.

An omission of the rule still would have not have been enough for Auburn to secure a berth, as Wisconsin would have likely been the final at-large bid. The final BCS poll had seven teams from the SEC and the Big Ten ranked in the top twelve but by the rule only two from each conference were eligible to play in BCS bowl games, offering the opportunity to argue that both conferences are over-ranked, that the Big Ten schedule does not produce a true conference champion, or that the limit of 2 teams from any one conference is inappropriate.

2007-08 season

In a wild finish to a wild regular season of upsets, the top two teams in the polls lost on the same weekend for two weeks in a row to close out the regular season, sending the BCS into chaos heading into the selection of the two teams to play for the BCS National Championship Game. On November 23, top-ranked LSU lost in triple overtime to Arkansas. This was the Tigers' second triple-overtime loss of the season, with the other to Kentucky. The following day, #4 Missouri beat #2 Kansas and took the top spot in the BCS for the following week. This created the interesting prospect of #1 Missouri playing its final game of the season as three-point underdogs against Oklahoma. On December 1, Missouri was defeated by Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship Game. #2 West Virginia was also stunned at home, by unranked Pittsburgh in the annual Backyard Brawl game. Meanwhile, Ohio State, who was idle for the final two weeks, climbed the rankings from #5 to #1. Hawaiokinai capped off an undefeated season (and the only such team going into the bowl post-season), beating Washington and securing a major bowl appearance for the first time in the school's history. However, as with Boise State in the previous season, Hawaiokinai did not play for the BCS Championship due to its weak schedule. [cite web|last=Woods|first=Matt|title=Strength of Schedule| url=http://teamrankings.com/ncf/27powerratings.php3|accessdate=2007-12-01] In fact, with Hawaiokinai's loss in the Sugar Bowl, the 2007-08 season was the first since the 2003-04 season (and only the second in the BCS era) with no teams finishing the entire season undefeated.

In another irony, #6 Missouri was shut out of the BCS entirely when #8 Kansas was selected as one of three at-large teams. The Tigers finished higher in the BCS standings and had defeated the Jayhawks a week before the Big 12 title game. However, Kansas received a bid to the Orange Bowl; Orange Bowl officials said that they picked Kansas because the Jayhawks had only one loss, [ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22087787/ Kansas’ Orange Bowl invite riles Missouri fans - College football - MSNBC.com ] ] while Missouri had two losses, both to Big 12 champion Oklahoma. Since BCS rules do not allow more than two teams from one conference to get a bid, Missouri was ineligible for an at-large bid. Missouri defeated Arkansas 38-7 in the Cotton Bowl. Kansas also went on to defeat #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl by a score of 24-21, making no clear argument either way. Ohio State and LSU came in 1st and 2nd in the final BCS rankings, securing the BCS championship game between those two on January 7.

Before "Championship Saturday," LSU was ranked #7 and Georgia was ranked #4. However, after #1 Missouri and #2 West Virginia lost, LSU was catapulted to #2 based on a 21-14 win over Tennessee in the SEC Championship Game. Many argued that the Bulldogs should not play in the National Championship game because they didn't play for—let alone win—the SEC Championship. The Bulldogs and Vols finished with identical 6-2 records atop the SEC East, but Tennessee represented the division in the championship game by virtue of dismantling Georgia 35-14 in October. Virginia Tech had been ranked #6, above LSU, but had to settle for the #3 slot, despite a convincing win over Boston College in the ACC Championship Game. Voters were likely influenced by LSU's crushing 48-7 defeat of Virginia Tech early in the season. Computer rankings placed Virginia Tech (0.960) and LSU (0.950) #1, and #2, respectively. [cite web | url=http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings | title=ESPN - College Football BCS Standings, NCAA College Football BCS Standings, NCAA Football BCS Standings|language=English | format=HTML | date=2007-12-03 | accessdate=2007-12-03] The top four teams in the BCS standings were #1 Ohio State, #2 LSU, #3 Virginia Tech, and #4 Oklahoma.

Ultimately, LSU defeated Ohio State 38-24, marking the second straight season that the Buckeyes lost the national championship game to an SEC opponent and the first two-loss BCS champion. LSU received 60 of a possible 65 first-place votes in the final AP poll, the fewest for a BCS champion since 2004, when BCS champion LSU finished second in the poll to USC. Georgia, another SEC team, was second in the poll and received three first-place votes. The final two first place votes went USC and Kansas, ranked #3 and #7 respectively. Missouri, who did not play in a BCS bowl, finished fourth, and Ohio State fell to fifth after losing the championship game.

ee also

College football playoff debate

External links

* [http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2245440 Congress to look into 'deeply flawed' BCS system]
* [http://www.bcs-sucks.com BCS-Sucks.com]
* [http://www.nobcs.net NOBCS.net]
* [http://www.collegeplayoffs.com collegeplayoffs.com]
* [http://www.pigskinplayoff.com PigskinPlayoff.com]

References