BCS Fog: Seeking Justice for the Oregon Ducks

It's November, so it must be time for controversy surrounding the Bowl Championship Series.

Critics and pundits in both mainstream journalism and the blogosphere haven't been shy in sharing their opinions—biased or unbiased, truthful or speculative—about which teams will and should be in the mix for the national championship.

Emotions run high, and rightfully so—every fan of every contender believes his team deserves a shot at the No. 1 spot. Just sample the individual dedicated school blogs to see how strongly the devotees feel.

Of course, the kingmakers in the BCS system are the coaches, the AP voters, and the six computer gurus with their independent and variegate methods of determining team rankings.

But that doesn't make it right nor fair, and fairness, as we all know, is one of those elusive intangibles in NCAA football.

Ostensibly, winning all of your scheduled games should be an outright determinant of your eligibility to play for a national title. That is, assuming your schedule is sturdy enough to withstand the test of strength of schedule: what teams did your opponents face, who were their opponents, who were those opponent's opponents ad infinitum. This is where the BCS system has muddled the picture.

I am not taking a stand here nor making a judgment about whether the system is fair or whether it needs tweeking, or whether it is biased to favor one or another division, or even to promulgate the idea of a playoff system.

But when teams play their hearts out, whether they are from high profile, longstanding programs or from emerging, tough-playing programs, how do we level the playing field to offer everyone an opportunity at a shot at a BCS game?

If you visit each of the six BCS computer ranking sites, you'll be treated to a morass of links and PDF documents outlining the particular methodologies used to arrive at a ranking hierarchy. As is the case with legal contracts, for example, or those "terms of service" stated on internet purchases, most people don't read the fine print on the BCS computer standings.

But what one might find, if one takes the time to investigate, could be surprising.

Interestingly, one of the computer models deemed nonconference games to be of paramount significance. Another weighted conference games more heavily. A third model prized strength of schedule above all else; and a fourth placed a premium on playing ranked teams.

The net result is that the “average” of the six computer ratings is a mixed bag—and is certainly subject to scrutiny. "Averages", to anyone who has taken a college course in statistics, can be skewed in relation to a margin of standard deviation.

What does this mean for teams like Oregon?

The Ducks have defeated two Top-10 teams, rank in the upper echelons of strength-of-schedule, and have posted some of the best offensive statistics in the nation. In addition, Oregon is truly playing some of the most exciting football in the nation with non-stop big plays on both sides of the football, in spite of having to fight for television exposure on the broad market.

And still, for all that, they're very likely to be trumped en route to the BCS title game by one of two teams, Kansas and Oklahoma, who look great on paper, but have faced teams not considered of the caliber of USC, Arizona State or even Cal.

The pollsters made a mistake in 2001 when they denied Oregon an opportunity to face Miami for the national championship. This year they have the chance to redeem that miscue by voting the rightful team into its respectful place in the rankings.

Of course, the way this season has gone, anything could happen to come along and change that scenario.