Message to TCU and BSU Football Fans: Don't Blame the BCS System

Donald Miralle/Getty Images

Too many college football fans complain about the lack of a playoff at the FBS tier. They point to the BCS system and note that in most years there is at least one deserving team that is left out of the BCS title game—Texas in the 2008 season; Michigan in the 2006 season; Auburn in the 2004 season.

The anti-BCS crowd argues that a playoff system of some type, or even a Plus-One game, would remedy the omission of deserving teams.

The problem, however, is much more than simply replacing the BCS with a playoff format. A playoff system would still benefit certain teams over other "weaker" teams.

The larger problem here is summed up in one word—conferences!

There are so many "debates" that occur among college football fans. Does defense really win championships? Is establishing the ground game the key to victory? Should Notre Dame join the Big Ten? Is the SEC the best conference in the country?

However, no one questions the legitimacy of the conferences themselves. The problem here is that conferences have become "naturalized." Most college football fans simply accept that conferences are given entities and through that naturalization certain attributes are assigned that can also be naturalized.

Understand where this argument is coming from before thinking that this article is lost. In popular rhetoric, regions are often held as natural and rarely challenged outside of academia. We often speak of the "Middle East" or "Western Europe" or "the South" in the United States unproblematically.

However, there is nothing natural about the "Middle East" as it was constructed relative to Europe (east of Europe). During the Cold War, "Western Europe" included Greece, which is certainly in Eastern Europe. And ask two different people which states compose the U.S. South and you will likely receive two different lists.

In other words, people made up regions to create some form of order and categorization. But the next logical step is problematic as certain attributes are placed on these regions—the Middle East (as well as the Far East) was held as backwards and barbaric; Western Europe was "advanced"; the South is "redneck country."

While we know these to be stereotypes, if we hold these regions as natural and do not problematize their constructions, then what often occurs is these attributes are also made to be "natural."

To bring this back to sports, a similar process occurs with conferences in college football. We try to believe that there is something natural about conference, attempting to root it in geography or "tradition." But in actuality, conferences were constructed as a means of convenience and we have since attached certain attributes to these conferences.

For example, the Southeastern Conference is geographically concentrated, but it also overlaps other FBS conferences (ACC, Big East, Conference USA and Sun Belt). Sure it has "tradition," but Vanderbilt seems out of place in terms of academics and athletics.  And even though you could argue that Vanderbilt was a charter member, that is not important because Georgia Tech and Tulane were not invited to rejoin when the conference expanded.

You could also look at the WAC and its inclusion of Louisiana Tech, or the Sun Belt and the inclusion of Denver in all sports other than football. Point here is that conferences are arbitrarily constructed.

To put it bluntly, the conferences were made up! Yet, there is an assumption that the conferences are natural.

Now comes the attachment of attributes. While there is usually a debate over whether the SEC is better than, say, the Pac-10 or Big 12, these debates rarely include conferences such as the Mountain West or MAC. The closest we get to the inclusion of these conferences is when discussing the perceived weakness of the Big East or ACC in relation to the Mountain West.

So, let us line this up properly. BCS conferences are better and non-BCS conferences are weak. And it is this type of naturalization of attributes to conferences and their affiliated teams that keeps teams such as Boise State and TCU from garnering serious consideration in the BCS championship discussion.

Thus, because Boise State and TCU play in "weak" conferences and must play "weak" teams within that conference, neither team deserves to be in the BCS title game, or so the argument goes. And, the anti-Boise State and anti-TCU groups would continue, if they want to play with the big boys then they should schedule more game against BCS-conference teams, which is the standard for which all FBS schools are measured.

Ah, but there in lies the problem. The attributes attached to Boise State and TCU arise from an organizational structure that was arbitrarily created and from a system in which that had little to no initial input. These teams are placed at a disadvantage because of their conferences and this disadvantage begins with preseason polls.

Preseason polls are based on perception, but just like conferences these polls create naturalized knowledge. With Florida being ranked number one, it seemed “natural” that they were the best team and thus, if their wins are unimpressive, they should remain at the top. Ergo, Florida and Texas and Alabama were all handed an easy path to the BCS title by being ranked in the top five!

Meanwhile, Boise State started 16th, with TCU at 17th, Iowa at 21st, and Cincinnati was not even ranked! They began at a disadvantage and had to work their way up.  However, Iowa and Cincinnati were able to use their privilege of being in a BCS-conference to jump both Boise State and TCU.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?