As fans of college football, we've come to expect each season to be flavored with the usual potpourri of upsets and strange outcomes. The 2007 college football season has been one the wildest and most intriguing in recent memory, though, and the race for the two spots in the Bowl Championship Series title game is as wide open as ever. Since its inception, the BCS has endured more than its fair share of criticism as a result of several highly questionable outcomes that have emerged from its confusing, eccentric formula.
The need for a playoff scenario to replace the BCS has been painfully obvious for several years. Since the institution of the BCS, the title race has become more confusing, controversial and formulaic -- just the changes the vaunted computer program was designed to eliminate.
In 2002, Nebraska landed a spot in the BCS title game against Miami, despite not having won the Big 12. A week prior to the announcement, the Huskers were manhandled by Colorado (the conference champs) 62-24. CU had played dominant, virtually flawless football for several weeks prior to the game, and after annihilating the Huskers, were firmly established as national championship material. Needless to say, consensus opinion among experts was that the Buffaloes were the team that deserved to square off against Miami, not the waning Cornhuskers. The outcome proved the pundits right. The Huskers were trounced, unable to keep up with Miami, a team that can lay rightful claim to the title "greatest college football team ever."
Had Colorado played in that game, would they have won? Probably not -- but that's not the point. The point is, the second best team in the country was denied its chance to play for the national title.
Perhaps the most illustrative example of the shortcomings of the BCS comes from the 2004-2005 season. The upper echelon of college football was overwhelmingly dominant that year. At the conclusion of the regular season, three teams were left unscathed: USC, Oklahoma and Auburn. The two aforementioned squads had been at the top of both major polls since week one of the season, and remained there. Auburn started off the season as a fringe top-10 team, and could work its way no higher than the #3 spot in either poll. The Tigers were given the shaft and left out in the cold, looking in from the outside as USC ran over and around a beleaguered, overmatched Sooner squad 55-14.
So what can we learn from 2002 and 2005? In each case, the nation's premier team was crowned national champion, and since, has been regarded as one of the premier squads to ever play college football. Additionally, in each case, if the #3 team in the country had been the team taking on the nation's top-ranked team, the outcome probably would not have ended up any different. This should not exonerate the BCS, however, from being damned as an overly-formulaic piece of garbage. It could not be clearer that college football needs a playoff. It's quite simple, really: Cut the regular season short, and institute an eight- team tournament, with the remaining teams playing in bowls. The eight teams would earn the right to play in the game on the basis of the two primary human polls, the USA Today and Associated Press Top 25. Would this scenario be free of controversy? Under no circumstances -- instead of the third- and fourth-ranked teams bickering, the #9 and # 10 teams would be the ones crying foul. But at this point, do we have any other choice? That's a rhetorical question.
