Why the BCS Has Made the Underdog Obsolete in College Football
Let's get something straight right away: I don't think the BCS is a broken system. I think it does an incredibly effective job at doing exactly what it was meant to do, and it shouldn't be tampered with in any way, shape or form.
That said, I absolutely hate what it does.
What the BCS has done since it's institution in 1998 is ensure that the two best teams in the country, as determined by a myriad of statistics and a few scoops of human contribution, play for the national championship—eliminating the unstable and unpredictable nature of a playoff system that could easily land one of the lesser teams in a spot to clinch the title.
Does it make sense? From a logical standpoint, absolutely. But the catch is, sports aren't always logical.
In fact, I love them more when they aren't.
To me, there is nothing more entertaining and exciting than watching a team that soared to the top with relative ease and a team squad that fought tooth-and-nail for every yard (or run, basket, or goal), and defied all expectations battle for a championship.
On a personal note, it's my 2007 New York Giants against the New England Patriots. On a wider scale, it's the 2007 Colorado Rockies against the Boston Red Sox. It's the 1980 USA Hockey Team.
It's a story of surprise, excitement, hard work, dedication, trust, defiance and ecstasy that has been imitated, but never duplicated countless times across different eras.
But what the BCS does is ensure that it can never happen in College Football.
How should College Football Decide Its Champion?
Of course, there will always be a few teams that rise to the top unexpectedly, but unless the reach the very precipice of the rankings early on, they will never get a chance to prove what they can do in a playoff situation.
There have been a slew of teams that have just barely made the NCAA basketball tournament but bust brackets and defy expectations (See: VCU last year, George Mason in 2006), sometimes all the way to the title game (See: Butler in 2010).
While the nature of College Football inherently limits the amount of teams in a postseason tournament, why can't FBS teams get the same shot as their FCS counterparts and we get a taste of the March Madness that enraptures us all in December? Plus, it would add credence to the BCS motto "Every game matters."
Does every game really matter when 0.017 percent of the league can actually play for the championship?
What the BCS does is safe. It takes the best two teams and puts them in the most important game of the season. It's logical, it's easy and it's clean.
But sometimes, sports are best when they are illogical, when they defy every assumption and expectation and predisposition.
Even if a computer doesn't share the same sentiment.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?