BCS Not Perfect but It's Still Better Than March Madness

With college football season underway, you can bet the deed to your house that cries of a playoff will be here by early-to-mid October.

I'm in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe.

You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.

The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti-BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.

For example, suppose we have one undefeated team and four one-loss teams. How are you then going to justify leaving out one of the one-loss teams? Some would say make it eight teams. OK. Let's say you have two unbeaten teams, four one-loss teams and three two loss teams? How then do you justify leaving out one of the two loss teams.

Last January, one loss Florida pummeled unbeaten Ohio State but Boise State was still left in the cold as an unbeaten team after upsetting Oklahoma. My solution would have been to have Boise State play Ohio State for the title. Of course, the pundits would say that Boise State would have gotten murdered. Well, we thought that about Oklahoma didn't we? If Boise state gets hammered so what? How's it any worse than USC hammering Oklahoma in 2004 or Florida hammering Ohio State in 2006?

I find it almost comical how fans, media and talk show hosts whine and complain about the BCS just like they whined and complained about Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma (2003) not winning its conference but yet still playing for the title but yet they don't say boo, yeah or neah about a team finishing seventh in its basketball conference and getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.

Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the law of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across it's ever loving chest.

Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.

If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does.