The BCS Argument: Best Or Most Deserving?

Since 2006, Decision Has Been a Hard One

After eight years of practice of arguing over the BCS, the system's ninth season of controversy finally boiled it down to two options: Do you vote for who is the best team by the eyeball test, or for who is most deserving based on everyone's resumes?

The ninth season was 2006, and Michigan represented the "best" team, while Florida was the "most deserving." The Gators were helped out by two other factors, namely that voters didn't want to see a rematch of Ohio State-Michigan, and wanted to honor the value of winning a conference championship. Anyway, that year the "most deserving" team barely won out and got to go to the national title game.

In 2007, LSU jumped from seventh to second in the final ballots because of the "most deserving" argument. However, in 2004, undefeated Auburn was the "most deserving" team (having won the toughest conference), but the Tigers lost out to the two "best" teams in USC and Oklahoma.

Since human votes dominate the system, it should be no surprise that the criteria for "best" or "most deserving" haven't been applied evenly. Oklahoma passed Texas in the second-to-last BCS rankings thanks to being the "best" of the two despite the "most deserving" Longhorns having beaten the Sooners in the regular season.

The fact that "best" won out over "most deserving" this year makes me feel better about the possibility of Florida winning the national title on Thursday. The reason? I have a hard time saying that Utah is not the most deserving.

By the BCS's own criteria for determining which leagues get automatic bids, the Mountain West was the fifth-best conference, ahead of the sixth-place Big East and seventh-place Pac-10. Utah has defeated four teams that will finish the year ranked in Oregon State, TCU, BYU, and Alabama. Florida has defeated only two that will be for sure, in Georgia and Alabama, and maybe a third in Florida State (the third-highest in the also-receiving-votes). However, the SEC rated as the second-best conference.

A lot of football is about timing, which is why season-long stats don't predict the outcomes of bowl games precisely. If Alabama had played Utah the way it played Florida, the Sugar Bowl could have ended much differently. The Tide did not however, and here we sit with a 13-0 Utah team with probably the best resume of anyone.

If you're going by the eyeball test, then I still say Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas are better. They have better players almost across the board, and on a neutral field I'd take them to win over Utah. There's a reason all of them finished ahead of Alabama in the final poll, and right now I'd give USC an edge over the Utes as well. None of those teams had close scrapes with teams as bad as Michigan and New Mexico—two teams that Utah beat by a field goal or less.

We'll never know, of course, who would win for sure since the university presidents and conference commissioners who run the Football Bowl Subdivision think that a two-team playoff is adequate. The Coaches' Poll has no choice about its national champion, but if the AP Poll was to vote Utah No. 1 at the end, I would have a hard time being upset with it. They've earned it.

I doubt it will happen, though, since people's memories are increasingly short these days. Some people who were ready to give USC the national title after the Rose Bowl are ready to give it to Utah now, and they might give it to Texas after the Fiesta Bowl just before crowning either Florida or Oklahoma after the BCS Championship Game.

When history looks back at this year however, it will always remember this Utah team. When the system of determining the champion is such a joke, being remembered forever isn't a bad consolation prize.