BCS Rankings 2011: Some Teams Are More Equal Than Others

I, like most of you, watch college football for the competition on the field. However, the way that the Football Bowl Subdivision organizes its postseason has gone from archaic to ridiculous to shameful within the span of a generation.

And I'm old enough to have been a college student during the "archaic" phase.

What we have now is the worst of both worlds: (1) an ineffective and corrupt bowl system (to put it mildly) which places emphasis on the 'pedigree' of a program, combined with (2) an ineffective and prejudicial system for determining the participants in the so-called 'National Championship Game'.

This 'title game' supposedly is meant to crown a national champion for the highest tier of college football without prejudice aforethought, but it does nothing of the sort. Since it is most definitely NOT administered by the NCAA, it cannot ever be considered to be a legitimate NCAA title.The NCAA does not include college football in its list of team championships.

Well, that's not exactly true. It *does* include college football team championships, but only NCAA-sanctioned championships. Hence, Georgia Southern has won 6 NCAA championships in college football; Appalachian State has won 3; and Alabama has won 0.

It can be called a 'BCS' title, an 'AP' title, etc., but the basic mechanics of the situation have not changed in the top tier of college football. The polls and the bowl committees still wield a controlling influence over which teams make the title game. And that determination is often as subjective as a vote for an 'American Idol' contestant...or for a 'Miss America' contestant. We now even have the equivalent of the swimsuit competition.

The NCAA wields NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER. Some consider that a good thing...until their own team is screwed by the BCS and they (A) begin to see the logic of an NCAA-administered playoff, or (B) mistakenly blame the NCAA for the flaws of the system, when it's the BCS (i.e. an oligarchic cartel of conference commissioners, university presidents, and athletic directors) they should be blaming.

And in this system which supposedly determines the 'best' two teams, political lobbying (by the candidates...uh, contestants...um, competitors) and subjective judging (akin to that used in gymnastics, figure skating, beauty pageants, and other such football-like sports) play as big a part in determining who makes it to the 'runoff' as do regular season records, conference championships, and most other on-the-field accomplishments.

Now that I've summarized the circus that passes for sport in the Bowl Championship Series, I present the initial rankings for 2011:

1. LSU (BCS average = .9522)
2. Alabama (.9519)
3. Oklahoma (.9301)
4. Oklahoma State (.8568)
5. Boise State (.8027)
6. Wisconsin (.7708)
7. Clemson (.7582)
8. Stanford (.7484)
9. Arkansas (.6263)
10. Oregon (.6190)
11. Kansas State (.5688)
12. Virginia Tech (.5048)
13. Nebraska (.4972)
14. South Carolina (.4914)
15. West Virginia (.3730)
16. Michigan State (.3288)
17. Texas A&M (.3074)
18. Michigan (.2995)
19. Houston (.2863)
20. Auburn (.2645)
21. Penn State (.2311)
22. Georgia Tech (.1968)
23. Illinois (.1516)
24. Texas (.1348)
25. Washington (.0871)

Taking into account that the computer models are also programmed by humans and thus not free of human bias, there are several noticeable disparities between the "humans" and the "computers":

• Oklahoma State (BCS #4) has the highest computer average and is ranked first in five of the seven computer rankings, yet is ranked sixth by both human polls.

• Wisconsin (BCS #6) is ranked 10th or lower by those same five computer rankings that have Oklahoma State ranked first, yet is ranked fourth by both human polls.

• Kansas State (BCS #11) has the seventh highest computer average, yet is ranked 12th by the writers and 16th by the coaches.

• West Virginia (BCS #15) has the 21st highest computer average (out of 25 teams) and is not ranked higher than 18th in any of them, yet is ranked 14th in both human polls.

• Michigan State (BCS #16) is not ranked in the Top 25 in two computer rankings, and ranked 19th or lower in the remaining five, yet is ranked 15th by the writers and 13th by the coaches.

• Houston (BCS #19) has the joint 16th highest computer average, yet is ranked 22nd by the writers and 20th by the coaches.

The reason such bias (especially in the case of non-computer human bias) is problematic is that it may result in a team with a better 'pedigree' or more 'style points' getting the nod over a team without such a pedigree or such finesse, but that has merely gone out and won all of its games.

In other words, if every game counts, why do some games count more (or less) than others? Why do some losses count more (or less) than others? Is college football a level playing field, or are some teams indeed "More Equal Than Others?"

To summarize this week's rankings (which are valid only for the next five days): Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Houston are disadvantaged by human bias (or advantaged by computer bias); Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Michigan State are advantaged by human bias (or disadvantaged by computer bias).

Another bias that isn't often seen as such is the playing of a conference championship game in most of the conferences. This has effectively detached season performance from BCS eligibility, as a team with a low BCS ranking (or none at all) could beat a higher ranked team and take the BCS bowl berth allotted to the conference.

The losing team, or a team that did not finish first in its own division, may then become an at-large team in another BCS bowl; until fairly recently, that losing team could even still be selected for the 'title game', largely on the basis of (AGAIN) the program's 'pedigree'. Such was the case with Nebraska in 2001 (lost the Big 12 championship game to Colorado) and Oklahoma in 2003 (lost the Big 12 championship game to Kansas State).

The fact that both teams subsequently also lost the title game (to Miami-FL and LSU, respectively) may have influenced the BCS to require that both title game participants be conference champions (that is, if neither of them is Notre Dame).

Now that I've let loose with my vitriol, what then? What alternatives do I suggest?

This

Which uses this

To reach this, this and this

Instead of this

The big four (or five) bowls get to keep their privileged status, and all four (or five) will actually mean something significant, playing a role in the tournament that decides the NCAA Champion.

The NCAA gets to finally have some oversight over the FBS postseason.

The teams passed over by the 'judges' because they don't have the desired 'pedigree' get to prove themselves on the field in a single-elimination knockout tournament.

And the 60-70 other FBS teams finishing 6-6 or better will still make their desired winter bowl destinations, and those games will continue to be meaningless to anyone not involved with the schools participating.