Why the BCS Is As Good As Any Other System
On the day before the BCS championship game, one wonders if the right team has the opportunity to win a National Title. With many arguments against the BCS out there, it is time the good of the BCS is brought out.
First of all, the BCS decides one champion in a championship game, something that fans, coaches, and players wanted instead of the biased polls at the end of season before the BCS. Nobody is talking now about bringing back that system.
The pageantry of the college bowl games is what college football is all about. For some of the teams that do not have the rich recruiting beds and solid traditions of Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC, the bowl games give the little guys a chance on a big stage.
An argument for a playoff has its problems too. Even a four-team playoff adds two games to a 12 or 13-game season. Fourteen games for a student athlete is way too much; this is like a professional schedule.
No matter where the line is drawn for the playoff teams, there will be teams that are upset. This year for example, a four-team playoff would leave out USC and an eight-team playoff would leave out Boise State. Both options would be no better than the current system.
The BCS has been "getting lucky" more times than not in its short history. Honestly, Texas probably deserves to be in the BCS Championship game more than Oklahoma. But Longhorn fans could have seen it coming. Obviously losing early and being hot late is better than being hot early and losing late. Otherwise, why would Alabama not have an argument to be in the game instead of Florida?
With no clear way to crown a champion of a collegiate sport, the BCS makes the most sense.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?