BCS Rankings: 10 Reasons BCS Is Already Showing Its Flaws

The BCS has been a constant mess since its inception in 1998. It is rare to see two teams standing clear above all others at the end of a college football season, strengthening the call for a playoff once again. Who could forget LSU and USC finishing as co-champions in 2003 when the latter school never played in the BCS title game? Or how about undefeated Auburn getting left out in the cold just a year later?

The BCS continues to be a gigantic mess, and this year is no exception, as the oft-criticized system is already showing its flaws.

Big Ten

It's funny how four teams from the Big Ten, all with a 8-2 record, are consecutively ranked behind one another starting with Michigan State at No. 15, followed by Nebraska, Wisconsin and then Michigan. Penn State is at No. 21.

In the other polls, the Big Ten teams are scattered a bit throughout. It's surprising to see five Big Ten teams that are ranked.

It has a high level of popularity but one has to wonder if the strength of the Big Ten is legit. 

SEC Domination

Six teams from the SEC conference are ranked, five that are in the BCS Top 15: No. 1 LSU, No. 3 Alabama, No. 6 Arkansas, No. 12 South Carolina and No. 14 Georgia. Auburn is ranked No. 24. While the SEC West proves to be more dominant than the East, the BCS believes the SEC is the stronger conference, and it is. 

When Alabama lost to LSU, it only dropped from No. 2 to No. 3, regardless at the time that there were three other undefeated team that were placed lower than the Tide. If Oklahoma State loses one game, the BCS might lean in towards a LSU-Alabama rematch in the BCS National Championship.

Big East

The Big East is not even ranked, except for West Virginia on some polls—does it deserve a chance getting a BCS bowl game? There are other teams in the conference with better records than the highest team in the Big East (Cincinnati). Do those teams deserve a chance over the Big East?

While the Big East does have its talent, it has a tough schedule week to week. Is the BCS flawed in allowing the teams whose conference has an automatic bowl berth to play in the bowl games when other teams have a better record? 

With the Big East football program falling apart, it won't be around much longer. It's only fair to have the Big East teams play out in the bowl games for a little longer.

Houston Cougars

Houston is currently undefeated. It has blown out all but one of its opponents. It's ranked No. 11 in the BCS standings and AP Top 25, and No. 10 in the USA Today coaches poll and ESPN's power rankings. Do the Cougars deserved this credit?

They come from a weak conference and had a weak strength of schedule—one could argue that they do not deserve a bowl game. If they finish out in the Top 12, they could receive an automatic berth. They are lined up to play Southern Mississippi in the conference title game, which is currently ranked No. 22. If the Cougars beat the Golden Eagles—beating one ranked team this season—is it worth the berth?

And isn't winning most important?

TCU

Even though they beat undefeated Boise State and are undefeated in their conference, the TCU Horned Frogs are ranked behind the Big Ten teams, where none are undefeated within their own conference. However, the win over Boise State was a huge victory and kept their hopes to play in their third consecutive bowl game alive.

Because TCU is a non-automatic qualifier, in order to earn a BCS selection it needs to either a) finish out in the Top-12 ranking, which at No. 19 is highly unlikely, or b) finish out in the Top 16 and with a ranking higher than one of the six automatic-qualifier champions. 

Because of TCU's last remaining two opponents and the Big Ten ahead of it, it's unlikely it will finish out in the Top 12. It looks as if the Horned Frogs' entrance in a BCS bowl spot relies on the Conference USA title game between Houston and Southern Mississippi. If Houston wins, TCU will be given the BCS berth.

If so, it'll be the first non-undefeated, non-automatic qualifier to enter a BCS game. 

It stinks that TCU cannot warrant an invitation by being a champion of its conference, but hopefully things will work out its way.

Stanford

The Stanford Cardinal started off the season playing weak non-conference teams. Slowly throughout the season, their strength of schedule has increased. While they were winning games—and the number of wins and losses is the No. 1 factor that goes in the BCS rankings determination—they took a hit when they lost to Oregon in their last game.

Question is, did they not drop enough? They fell from No. 4 to No. 9—not much of a drop from the computers. In the human polls the Cardinal ranked No. 7 (Harris) and No. 9 (USA Today coaches poll).

Everyone knows the coaches poll is pretty much useless as the coaches don't really care about the rankings. The remainder of the games are pretty weak for Stanford. Did the computers not take that into account well as they calculated the ranking for Stanford?

Penn State

Let's forget right now about all the scandal and everything that's surrounding Penn State. Gone from your mind? Good.

Penn State has had a tremendous season thus far and it's a surprise the Nittany Lions dropped from No. 12 to No. 21 after losing to Nebraska at home.  Prior to that game, they were on a seven-game winning streak.

They dropped in the rankings because they were the only two-loss team that lost, but did they deserve to drop that much? Voters never ranked Penn State high enough. They have a better chance than Wisconsin to make the Big Ten Championship game in Indy. They are in the top of their division. 

Don't they deserve to be higher than No. 21 and some of the higher ranked Big Ten teams?

Wisconsin

The computers must really hate Wisconsin. The Badgers have a good record and if the computers rank what they say rank, the two losses on the road on Hail Mary plays shouldn't have hurt their chances that much on the rankings.

To have Wisconsin be placed at No. 17 below the Spartans and Nebraska is almost unfair, especially since Wisconsin beat Nebraska, and the Spartans' and Cornhuskers' losses were by blowouts.

The computers are ranking the Badgers unfairly. The human polls have ranked the Badgers a little higher, but isn't this what the BCS standings is all about, ranking the better teams?

Second Spot for Championship

LSU is more than certain enough to grab the first spot for the BCS championship game. That leaves the second spot up for grabs for four likely teams in the standings: Alabama, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Oklahoma.

While the BCS was revised in 2004 so the top-two BCS standing teams play each other, it's all a matter of the voters at the end of the season who control two-thirds of the BCS standings. Will they be able to alter it enough if they want a rematch between Alabama and LSU?

Oklahoma plays against Oklahoma State, wanting to get that chance to beat the undefeated No. 2 team. Alabama and Oregon both already played against LSU and lost. They look to finish the rest of their season with wins.

So, will the second spot of the championship fall to the voters? It seems the voters may have the power to chose who ends up as No. 2 at the end of the college football season.

It's About Wins

Overall, the BCS is flawed because it is trying to place 120 college football teams on a scale and compare who is the better team from one another.

It's not fair to the teams. Sports are supposed to be about winning. Imagine if the NFL was like the BCS rankings. It's supposed to be about winning, it's always been about winning—the record should speak for itself. That's the way it is in all professional sports.

The BCS will and always will have flaws. Until someone comes up with a system that is just about winning games, teams that never got a chance at a BCS bowl or championship will finally get their opportunity because their record speaks for itself.