Bcs VsEssay Preview: Bcs VsReport this essayWith glitches in the current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) formula leaving room for error, grievance, and favoritism, polls show that most fans would like to see the BCS work toward an eight or 16 game playoff system while retaining some of the bowl structure because of the need to have a true champion in college football.
The BCS is a selection system created to force a national championship game between the top-ranked teams in college football’s top division, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Division 1. Known as Division 1-A until 2007, this championship is a substitute for a playoff system, since the NCAA does not formally determine a champion in the football category.
The BCS relies on a combination of computer selections and polls to determine team rankings and to narrow the field to two teams to play in the BCS National Championship Game, and the winner is crowned the national champion, or share a championship, as in season 2003 when the University of Southern California (USC) shared the national championship with Louisiana State University (LSU). This system has been in place since 1997, but in many cases the selections have been controversial, and has triggered many changes in the current system.
One denunciation of the BCS (or the bowl system in general) is that placement of teams and rankings in the post-season is determined by computer and human polls. Computer polls utilize objective material, such as strength of schedule, wins and losses against other teams is the conference, and “quality wins”-wins against elite and highly-ranked teams. The human polls are subjective, and tend to be biased. The polls that are used are mostly coaches and sportswriters, who will usually show some bias toward their favorite team. Most fans and the people who participate in the polls disagree on which criteria should be used, and how heavily each should be weighed.
For example, in the 2003 season, college football had three one-loss teams (Oklahoma, USC, and LSU) with a legitimate argument for playing in the championship game. Ranked #1 in both the Associated Press (AP) poll and the Coaches’ poll, USC was ranked #3 in the final standings, due to ligistics concerning the computer polls and was excluded from the championship game. After winning their bowl game, the were forced to share the national title with LSU by remaining #1 in the AP poll. Even thought he system was changed, more controversy resumed.
The next season, undefeated Auburn University was negated a shot at the national title. USC and Oklahoma, also undefeated, played in the national title game. After USC beat Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, that left Auburn USC, and Utah as the only undefeated teams left. Because the (Utah) Utes play in the mid-major Mountain West Conference, and does not have the same quality wins or strength of schedule as the other two teams, it was hard to argue a case for them playing in the title game, or sharing the title, but Auburn(from a very tough South Eastern (SEC) conference had plenty to argue about.
The true problem lies in the (BCS) formula of computer polls, strength of schedule, and quality wins. The computer polls already account for these factors, but are added in again after the other polls are calculated. According to an article written by the American Mathematical Society, “How much computers count versus polls is an issue that needs to be solidified for official standings.” (Mucha, Callaghan and Porter, 2004).
The BCS has many strong supporters, mostly Athletic Directors, presidents of major colleges, BCS Bowl executives, and some coaches. College football has turned into a huge conglomerate, and each entity has its own reasons for supporting the current system.
The coaches do not want to hurt the bowl system. Mainly because it will be the fallback position if they do not make the playoffs or to a BCS bowl. But they really want a system that will be an opportunity to more teams than just the top two, which are inevidently chosen by the human pollters. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (AJC) polled all 65 coaches in the six conferences, giving them two options for post season football-the current system or a four-team playoff. Of the 34 that responded, 22 were more interested in the four-team playoff . If the playoff is instituted, it would be the standard for a successful season, and the pressure is already enormous. “The current system is not fair to players, and its not fair to the fans”, says University of Texas coach Mack Brown. “When Auburn got left out in 2004 [with an undefeated record] I knew it was time for a change.”
в �
The new system, Brown says, is more balanced. Most players leave to become assistant coaches. The former, he says, will play and improve as a coach. Most of the coaching has gone to a head coach and not to a new head coach who will be hired in the spring. That means a team’s success or loss will matter more than the success or loss of an assistant coach, but it does not mean that his or her teams will improve, Brown continues. Some of the players do want to have their coaches coach their teams, according to Brown. Many have a great plan. They want their coaches to be here at the tail end of the season to watch their teams play great football and be a part of a playoff-winning team. There is more to it than winning. Some players are happy to get a job and play football in a head coaching position. Even if a new head coach doesn’t show up until the regular season of the team, Brown continues, “It’s going to be great.” The more things change, the more things change. At the end of every season, Brown adds, “it’s a chance for a few of the guys to say ‘Fuck it, I don’t want anybody playing my team.'” If that happens, Brown says, other players might show up. “It’s like football is a game but we have a few guys that really get that out of it,” he says of the new system going into training camp. Brown wants to see the coaches continue to grow the game, and not just a matter of who wins. He says “I would like to see all of those guys come along.” As the game has evolved, players are coming together and playing an active role. If the playoffs or the bowl season or other things change, this will add to what Brown calls “the pressure that has to go with this.” What happens should be a new and innovative approach to the game. The emphasis on individual preparation of an all-time great quarterback on his team, rather than on individual efforts to achieve a bowl appearance, needs to shift away from coach fatigue. It will have to bring about a way to help players stay focused, to make sure that they are prepared for a tough time. It is time for the program to begin to bring something to the table that will help it become healthier. The coaches need to take the time to study the game. They will have to learn how to be better, where their players are coming from, how the season is played and how it is structured. The coaches will need to show leadership, and make it easy to motivate them. At the top end of the scale, with coaches like Brown in charge, is the coaching system that Brown has run for 33 years. “Now it can be coached,” he says. “It’s the most important thing now. I think that with coach fatigue, players have been lost. Now it can be brought back. And they can get back on the field. This is the chance at getting back on that field. If you talk about coach fatigue as a team, you really haven’t seen anything positive come from it, or even any kind of changes. It’s a good time to look forward, and start working on getting better.
Three of the four bowl executive directors are willing to work on the format, but do not want to change that allows each bowl to host the championship every four years. These men and the communities that they represent have invested many dollars and volunteer hours in the BCS. If the BCS goes to a team playoff,