Blogging the BCS - Week 3

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. --Sir Winston Churchill

It seems that most college football fans, except for a majority of the 119 I-A college presidents and a few conference commissioners, favor a playoff to settle college football's hash. Just to give you a proper frame of reference, here is how the NCAA determines the 88 other champions that it recognizes in 23 sports across three divisions:

• 30 by regional qualifying, team championships decided by aggregate individual performances: cross-country; fencing; gymnastics; swimming and diving; track and field; wrestling
• 11 by a selection committee, team championships decided by aggregate individual performances: rifle; skiing; golf; rowing
• 47 by selection committee, playoff (single or double-elimination): field hockey; football; soccer; volleyball; water polo; basketball; bowling; ice hockey; baseball; lacrosse; softball; tennis

Notice a general pattern? Sports that have individual competitors and/or individual events, like track and field, or swimming, or skiing, have a point system at their national championships. Individual events and results add up to points, which determine the team national champion on the field. In many cases, the NCAA also recognizes individuals event champions, such as the Men's Division I 100m champion.

In general, sports that are comprised of teams striving towards one goal simultaneously, like the trinity of football, basketball, and baseball, have expert selection committees. These committees monitor the progress of all teams throughout the season, and using many criteria, select a reasonable number of competitors to enter a playoff for each of the 47 national championships. (NCAA tennis does have singles and doubles championships that run separately from the team championships.)

It should come as no surprise that some observers suggest that the BCS drop its middle letter, at least in the interests of truth-in-advertising. And it should also be evident that there is a lot wrong with a championship system that goes against the wisdom of these other three methods of determination. When 65 men's basketball teams are expertly selected from a field of over 300, and then they play a single-elimination tournament to decide a champion, no sane observer will ever be quoted as saying, "Oh, they got it wrong this year."

When has the BCS gotten it wrong, or not as right as it could have? How about 1998 (Kansas State leapfrogged by Ohio State and Florida)? Or 2001 (Nebraska jumps Big XII champ Colorado)? Would you prefer 2003 (split national title)? 2004 (Auburn, Utah, and Boise State undefeated and unloved)? And what about the train wreck that 2006 could present - a close regular season tilt between undefeateds Ohio State and Michigan leaves them one-two in the BCS, shutting out an undefeated Big East team (Louisville or West Virginia or [gasp] Rutgers)?

From 1979 until the BCS, there had only been three shared national titles:

• 1997, when Michigan and Nebraska finished as the only undefeated teams in Division I-A
• 1991, when Washington and Miami finished as the only undefeated teams in Division I-A
• 1990, when six different teams were ranked number 1, Colorado got a fifth down against Missouri, and Georgia Tech won the UPI national title by one poll point over Colorado

Most of the other 88 NCAA championship sports have one or more polls, or an RPI (ratings percentage index) used to gauge team performances throughout the year. All of these are tools that selection committees use to choose teams and seed them. Any argument that supporters of the BCS or opponents of a playoff can make -- a playoff would result in more missed class time; some teams would get left out; a playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season -- would fail in the face of the fact that these objections do not seem to apply to every other championship the NCAA awards.

Why is it acceptable for a collegiate fencer to miss more class time to participate in regional and national championships after the regular season, but not a Division I football player? Why is it acceptable for a Division II or III football player to compete in as many as five postseason games, but this is an unfair burden for a Division I player? And speaking of being left out, why is it acceptable that only 80.5% (269 of 334) of Division I basketball teams are left out of the championship, but 98.3% (117 of 119) of Division I football teams are left out? When logic fails, it must be greed.