The Solution to the BCS Problem in One Word: Playoff

It is that time of year again. It is time for grown men to cry. It is time for computers to tabulate and underdogs to aggravate. With Bowl Championship Series Rankings being unveiled it is time for the complaints to role in. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) came about after the 1997 season when Michigan was denied the unanimous championship. This came after Nebraska was awarded No. 1 status in the final coaches' poll after a 42-17 beating of No. 3 Tennessee. From the aftermath of the split national championship emerged the BCS, in an attempt to create a more objective ranking system.

Objectivity was the primarily goal in the development of the new system. Due to human nature this is not simply obtained. People have a natural tendency to form biases. These biases may be based on their favorite teams or players making it harder to rely on the AP and Coaches' Polls. To offset this bias computer polls were thrown into the mix and in 1998 Tennessee was crowned the unanimous Champions following a Fiesta Bowl victory over the Seminoles of Florida State. Praise was award to its creators. At last there was an objective way to determine whose No. 1.

Even with an undisputed championship the inaugural season of the BCS was not without controversy as Kansas State lost the Big 12 Championship game to Texas A&M dropping them from the fourth spot in the BCS ranking. As result of the lost the Kansas State was dropped from the Fiesta Bowl and was limited to the Alamo Bowl. No other Bowl games were available because the bids had already been handed out. In response to this injustice the BCS instituted the at-large bid guaranteeing a BCS Bowl bid for any team ranked in the top four entering the final week.

The following year the BCS experienced one of two controversy free years. Controversy returned for the 2000 and 2001 seasons. The controversy was not so much over who was No. 1, but rather who was No. 2 in the Championship games. Discord remained present through the 2004 season that featured three undefeated teams (USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn) before Bowl Week. The USC Trojans were eventually crowned Champions after a convincing 55-19 victory over Oklahoma. This was so despite continually adjusting by BCS officials.

The 2005 season was just the second season that went relatively controversy free following a memorable Rose Bowl featuring two Heisman Trophy Winners and Rose Bowl MVP Vince Young. In eight full seasons of the BCS only two seasons have been free of controversy and have left fans begging for a playoff. At the unveiling of the first BCS rankings of the 2006 season five of the top seven teams are undefeated with two more undefeated teams (Rutgers and Boise St.) hanging back at the 15 and 16 positions. Since then the field has been narrowed to five undefeated teams with Louisville and West Virginia both suffering losses. In the current system controversy is inevitable; changes must be instated to guarantee the best two teams are playing for the National Championship. There is a solution that can be easily instituted to assure the end of controversy.

The solution is simple, a playoff. NCAA officials have baulked at the idea of a playoff for years, saying that the athletes already played to many games. I am not suggesting multiple games for teams in the top ten. I am, however, suggesting that two games be added to the schedule, pitting the top four ranked teams against one another. The games would be played the week following the Conference Championship Games. The only scheduling conflict that may occur would be with some of the lesser Bowl Games. The playoffs would feature No.1 versus No. 4 in game one and No.2 versus No. 3 in Game two. The winners of the two games would then square off in the BCS Championship Game at one of the major bowl venues.

The one flaw in the playoff is the same as it has always been, "How do you rank the teams." Do you rely on the AP and Coaches' Polls? Do you put your trust in the computer polls? Sticking with a similar system regarding rankings as distasteful, as it may be, makes the most sense. It balances the numbers and calculations of the computers with the intangibles that can only be seen with the human eye. It's not perfect but it the best we have.
The four team playoff system minimizes the controversy. The majority of past BCS controversies have been over who should be in the top two spots. If there is any controversy in the polls with this system the problem would be more likely over the two lower slots, because the only thing that truly matters to the universities and fans alike is who is No. 1.