What If We Selected the President Using the BCS?

The Electoral College and the BCS: two controversial establishments used to pick a winner. Both have taken more than their share of heat over their level of fairness.

Since President-Elect Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral vote, the cries to have that abolished have died down—at least for another four years.

But with two undefeated teams in the BCS' top 10 standings, and neither having any kind of chance to even sniff the national championship game (heck, one might not even get an invite to a BCS bowl game), the wailing and gnashing of teeth is reaching a fever pitch. 

Even the president-elect has suggested he might step in, which led to me start thinking...

What if the BCS formula were applied to the Presidential election?

After you stop laughing, think about it for a minute.  Both use multiple polls, and a significant change in one of the categories (i.e., swing state) can drastically affect the outcome.

So how would this work?

Well, since the BCS relies on rankings made by individuals, be they coaches or whomever, we should probably include popularity polls.  Which candidate do we LIKE better?

Then there's strength of schedule.  Well, it's not a surprise that Obama carried Washington, DC's two electoral votes, considering the population is over 90-percent Democrat.  Nor is it surprising that he carried New York or California.  So really, those blowout wins in states like those really should be discounted.

Now, pulling out tough wins in Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania is another story.  Voters should like upset wins like those, and that should be reflected in the polls.

But why, you might ask, would we go through all these shenanigans to pick a winner, when the two candidates could just go head-to-head in an election and decide it on the field, err, election day?

Hmm...good question.

Does it really take a ludicrous example like this to demonstrate just how asinine the BCS really is?

Every other sport decides its ultimate winner in a championship tournament, including every other college sport and the other levels of college football.

The only reason not to is to protect the insane amounts of money that go to a select group of schools.  

They like to call themselves "conferences." I think the better word is "monopoly."

Fans of the smaller schools want their teams to have a shot at the title. The schools themselves want a shot at the insane amounts of money the Big Boys are trying to protect.

The odd thing is, the NCAA isn't even a party to the BCS contract. How can the governing body NOT be the one determining how their champion is crowned?

I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA isn't a signatory because they know it's illegal, and by letting the conferences handling things themselves, they can't be sued.

Congress has shown lately that it has no problem dictating policy to professional sports leagues, particularly in the area of performance-enhancing drugs. Don't think for a minute that college football isn't a professional sports league, regardless of whether the players are seeing any money.

If the president-elect is serious about using his influence to bring about change to college football, those conferences would be smart to figure out a way to create an equitable solution that still uses those sacred bowls of theirs.

Otherwise, they might have a federal solution thrust upon them—and we all know what people think of the electoral college.