Don't Bash The BCS Tadpoles, Bearkittens, and Ponies: It's The Voters!

aaron keyCorrespondent IDecember 28, 2009

FORT WORTH, TX - NOVEMBER 14:  Quarterback Andy Dalton #14 of the TCU Horned Frogs at Amon G. Carter Stadium on November 14, 2009 in Fort Worth, Texas.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

The BCS.

These three letters strung together have become what amounts to a swear word in college football circles.

For most college football fans, the BCS is the without question the most flawed system in major sports.

Why you say? Because it doesn't give everyone a fair shake at a national title, or at least that's what everyone wants you to believe.

It is well known that the BCS uses the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and a bunch of computer generated rankings which are then averaged out to formulate the rankings.

The Sagarin(along with the other computer ratings which seem to be loosely based on ELO as well) system is based on the ELO chess ranking system. There are plenty of resources available to budding chess players to mathematically figure out their respective rating, and most of the BCS computer rankings give you the equations right on their respective sites.

So I guess that throws the shady math argument out right? I think so.

How else can you imagine rating a whopping 120 FBS football teams? This isn't the NFL or MLB, where it's not only feasible to have a playoff system, but you can get a fairer shake of rankings when fewer teams play more games.

Oh, you have to rate them all, especially when the bottom of the 120 are busy being the tops whipping boys for the first few weeks of the season. Also you have to realize that when Ball State or Tulane has their once in thirty years run that their 40 die hard fans will want tickets to a BCS game.

Point being, I thinks it's safe to say that the BCS has done more for Boise and Utah than it has for any other team involved. In the old bowl system, Boise would have played a home game and Utah may have made the Holiday Bowl. On top of that I haven't heard anything about either school not cashing the old BCS paycheck.

Now everyone's up in arms because the BCS has supposedly relegated Boise, and TCU to the "kids" table, when a few years ago they would have been happy to have a seat at any BCS event.

What's TCU's big gripe anyway? They have been touted for years as a BCS buster, and now that they deliver the goods, they should get to play for it all?

If anyone does have a gripe it could be Cincinatti. They at least belong to a major conference, albeit a depleted shell of it's former self. The Bearcats are the one team I can feel just a little sorry for at this point.

All of that said, I have no problem with any of these three teams playing for a national championship, if that's what the BCS decided. It didn't, so the rest is spilled milk.

I realize I'm not going to convince any of the BCS haters otherwise, but here is the facts.

If the coaches and the voters in the Harris Poll would have voted Boise, TCU, or Cincinatti number one and two in their respective polls then I can guarantee you that their computer rankings would have been high enough to get them in the championship game.

That's right, the big bad BCS just did the math. The voters are the ones that relegated you to the "kids" table.

Some of these Harris Poll voters are the very writers that like to get you all up in arms when they write a good BCS bashing piece, when they whole time it's them punching the big boys tickets to the championship game.

In your defense, Brian Kelly was nice enough to vote Cinci number one before jumping ship, and Patterson voted his Horned Frogs number two. Most of the coaches however, including Boise's Petersen, went with Alabama and Texas.

Bottom line is the BCS does what it was designed to do, and the voters are following the same old party line.