The BCS: A Biased, Unfair System That Needs to Be Exposed

Matthew CastletonContributor IOctober 12, 2009

CLEMSON, SC - SEPTEMBER 26:  A general view of the TCU Horned Frogs versus Clemson Tigers in the pouring down rain during their game at Memorial Stadium on September 26, 2009 in Clemson, South Carolina.  (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)

As one of the loudest voices (in my own mind) about the cruel, corrupt, ignorant, and evil organization that is the BCS and college football in this country, I believe that it is high time that I publish something.

The BCS is a ridiculously unfair and biased system that favors the status quo and hinders new growth. People who are in favor of the BCS really need to rethink everything that they believe in. 

I will begin with the "polls" that make up two-thirds of the BCS formula. The use of human polls (Coaches' and Harris) to determine who the best team in the country is is an absolute joke.

People have their own biases and opinions that influence the way that they vote. Many of the so-called "expert" voters have admitted themselves that they "don't even watch most of the games." They simply look at the final scores of games to decide how they are going to vote.

First of all, final scores can be deceptive. You see a team beat one team by like 30 points and voters are like, "Wow. Said team must be great", while you look at another team that won by seven and think "Gosh. They barely won."  These results can be misleading.

What if the team that won by thirty points was simply trying to run up the score at the end of the game to make it seem like they were more dominant than they actually were? What if the team that won by seven could have won by more, but instead chose to do the sportsman-like thing and take a knee on their opponent's two-yard line to run out the clock instead of trying to score another touchdown? Why is one victory better than the other?

Also, many voters on the East Coast don't even stay up to see who wins the late games on the West Coast and they cast their votes before these results come out.

My second beef with the polls: Preseason rankings and biased voting.  Arrrrgghhh!!!

What a bunch of garbage.

Case in point: 2009 preseason rankings. Utah, coming off an undefeated season and beat down of Alabama in their bowl game, starts the season preseason No. 19.

To the lay person: THEY DROPPED SEVENTEEN PLACES IN THE POLL FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT LOSING. Many people say that this is because of the players that they lost and the loss of their starting quarterback. I'm actually kind of fine with that.

However, I am not fine with the team that they demolished in their bowl game, Alabama, starting the season preseason Top Five! They also lost players and their starting quarterback. How is this not biased voting by "good ol' boy" voters, especially those in the South? Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! (to quote Will Ferrell in Zoolander).

Preseason rankings should be done away with. How in the world can you know how good a team is going to be before they even play anybody? That would be like going into a classroom full of students prepared to take a test, only for you to assign each of them a grade that will affect the rest of their time in the class based upon what they look like to you and how they had done in previous classes. 

Now for something completely different. Location (briefly), budgets, and unfair perception. These "BCS" conference teams—namely among those in the high and mighty SEC—claim that "if teams like Boise State, Utah, BYU, and TCU were in our conference they would be lucky to finish above .500."

Where should I begin?

First off, Boise State, Utah, BYU, and TCU are NEVER going to be in the SEC, so why do they keep getting compared to this conference to attempt to disprove their merits? And it's not like these teams can just up and leave and join a "BCS" conference. They can only join upon the invitation of these "power" conferences (which is not going to happen anytime soon).

Also, there is the claim that they could not compete in a "real" league on a "consistent" basis. Well, obviously all the teams in their leagues that struggle should be locked out of everything they get, too. They don't compete on a "consistent basis" in a "real" league either. 

Budgets are one of the biggest problems. If you compare a team like Utah's budget for football vs. a "BCS" team's budget, they are not even in the same vicinity. The fact that the "non-BCS" teams can EVER beat a "BCS" team is an accomplishment in and of itself. Also, if a team like Utah were to be in a "BCS" conference, would they not also gain one of these more-lucrative budgets and the better recruiting that comes from it? Under these circumstances, wouldn't they likely be just as competitive as they are now?

The final thing that I will bring forward is the unfair perception that is created that damages certain teams. Again, not trying to sound like a Utah homer, but simply using them as evidence.

Utah loses one game this season on the road at Oregon (by a touchdown). Oregon is perceived to not be very good, so the loss drops Utah totally out of the Top 25. The very next week, that SAME Oregon team beats No. 6 California at home (the same location) 42-3. Suddenly, Oregon looks like they are a much better team. 

My beef is with California. They manage to stay ranked in both polls the next week? How is this not unfair? Utah is punished for a 31-24 loss to a "not so good" Oregon team on the road, yet California, who lost more handily to that same "not so good" Oregon team the very next week manages to stay ranked?

This is nothing more that biased voters who favor "BCS" conference teams. Looking throughout the history of the polls, this pattern continues. A "non-BCS" team generally always falls farther after a loss than a "BCS" team. I guess that "BCS" team's losses are better than "non-BCS" team's losses. Even if they are to the same team by more points. 

Last, but not least, I am going to begin boycotting the use of the terms "BCS", "non-BCS", and "Florida Gators: 2008 National Champions". These terms just add further injury to the unfair bias that is placed on the teams from the five "small" conferences. I will only use "automatic qualifying", "non-automatic qualifying", and "Florida Gators: 2008 National Title Winners".

There. I'm done for one article. I hope you've enjoyed reading about my rage as much as I have telling you about it.