2011 Bowl Matchups: LSU vs. Alabama Proves BCS System Is Fatally Flawed

The BCS system needs to go. It’s been said a million times but it shouldn’t ring more true than this week as it isn’t right for college football anymore and it causes drama, controversy and unhappy endings far more often than it creates a fair No. 1 vs. No. 2 national title game.

Is there even a true No. 1 vs. No. 2 in college football each year anymore?

This season, LSU was clearly the top team, but any number of teams including Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon and Boise State could all put a claim in that they deserved to be the team to challenge them.

And they all would have valid points.

That is what makes the BCS system so flawed. There are simply too many good kids on too many good programs with too many good coaches in the top levels of college football today. There is never going to be a completely fair way to rank them and award a national championship, but a playoff would be a far better choice than what we are dealing with now.

It would appease everyone and even fans from the two schools currently in the title game would have to agree it’s fair and exciting to have an eight- to 10-team playoff to determine the national champion.

Why shouldn’t Oklahoma State get a chance to prove itself against Alabama in an epic 2 vs. 3 matchup, or LSU against Stanford in a 1 vs. 4 to get into the big game?

If LSU and Alabama are so vastly superior, they’d meet in the title game regardless and it wouldn’t change the SEC’s dominance over the CFB landscape.

But what if Oregon were able to pull off the upset and make it in—or even Boise State managing to put together an incredible run and win it all?

There is nothing but exciting outcomes from this type of system, and it’s a damn shame we are stuck with this terrible BCS format until something gets done about it. Hopefully watching two boring SEC teams duke it out for uninterested viewers on national television will get some seeds of change planted.