Battling with the BCS: Oklahoma State and Boise State the Latest Casualties

How could a national championship spot be determined by .0086 of a vote? Should we rely on a computer generated system to conclude the college football seasons or should the NCAA go back to a playoff-style series?

Many college football fans have been literally hollering for a new playoff system. In fact, their uneasy claims of a broken BCS (Bowl Championship Series) system could very much be validated by merely using the 2010 and 2011 seasons as examples.

Although the 2011 Oklahoma State team was ranked No. 3 in the nation this season, its hopes of a national title are thwarted by eight-thousandths of a single point on a computer. One may argue that a perception like that would not seem fair to a college team that has beat out some top-ranked teams (Oklahoma, Kansas State).

In some aspects, the SEC Conference is deemed the conference to beat, year after year. In recent BCS championships, SEC teams have appeared for title claims (six years consecutively), while other conferences are left with consolation prizes.

Case and point would be Alabama. Alabama is a reputable program that had the misfortune of not being able to win their SEC conference title, yet they are allowed a national title game with LSU. Both teams obviously deserving, both teams are SEC teams.

Should we determine the national championship by the teams that win their conferences and who is higher ranked on the BCS poll? That would seem too logical for some.

If Oklahoma State were to be honored, it would have had as good as chance as any to have played LSU in the national championship game. After all, Oklahoma State won the Big 12 conference.

As most know, the BCS was created in 1998 to end split championships. Whether this be determined within the same conference or by a Borda count method, the BCS uses this voting system to ensure a fair ranking within college football.

If the argument is that SEC teams "automatically" receive an opportunity for the national title, that would only prove to be true according to the 2003 LSU team. This being five years after the BCS was set in place. However, the teams from 2006 to present have been SEC teams playing for the most coveted title in college football. 

Can other conferences get the No. 1 spot back?

It is fair to say that college conferences and the schedules they play is a factor in establishing such fair rankings.

Even so, Boise State University (who has recently had 11-1 seasons) is overlooked by the BCS in their bowl appearances and chances for a equality within the NCAA. Yet, their MWC conference, notably argued, is a conference deemed to some, as weak.

Boise State is a prime example of college football teams that are destined to build an elite athletic department. This university may suffer losses at the hands of the computer ranking system, or it could be said that their conference in which they play could be an evident factor.

Either way, Boise State needs the top-ranked bowl games in order to raise the money needed to build their program. The Broncos are an 11-1 team and have been coupled with a 6-6 Arizona State team for a 2012 bowl appearance that is much less worthy of other 11-1 NCAA teams.

Moreover, the MWC conference, as well as Boise State, will now take an even bigger loss due to the depletion of their contract with television rights and money.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, "The ESPN television contract, with MWC, was reduced from $7 million per year to $6.2 million per year. Despite the fact MWC expanded from 8 to 9 schools by adding TCU. This equals $689,000 per MWC school."

A setback, nonetheless, for Boise State's program unless they can receive an invite from a more reputable conference with more television viewing and a tougher schedule. To put it into perspective, the Big 12 received an annual worth of $130 million for their television rights.

Do not be confused with how the television rights play into a BCS championship title. The point to be made is the more prestigious institutions with better recruiting and funds available are obviously going to be the powerhouses of college athletic programs as a whole.

If college football teams can not be recognized on a national level—no matter if they have an undefeated season—then they would not be given an equal opportunity to build their athletic department, respectively.

That being said, unless an institution is in the annual revenue range of a $50 million or more, it is obviously going to be harder to be recognized on a BCS scale. This theory goes hand in hand with conferences, marketing and television rights.

Even so, a computer system that allows those that are generating a higher revenue to be awarded an opportunity at a national title versus those that are getting a mere $689,000 a year in airing rights and trying to put themselves on a map to be taken seriously has caused a heated debate.

In conclusion, the BCS system is more than just Borda counts and voting. Some may call it popularity of teams, others may call it an injustice to college football.

As it is, if the BCS system remains in place, college football may be considered as the only sport in the nation that the champion is not determined by a playoff rule or who may actually be the best ranked team.

The national title is now perceived as a calculated mess that allows the more popular or more revenued teams to endure the ranks of glory.

The Sporty Broad is a freelance contributor to Bleacher Report as well as the Managing Director for the Sporty Broad Cast page. She can be followed on Facebook at Sporty Broad-Cast.