another season, another bcs dilemma

Read a WaPo article by Michael Wilbon yesterday that discussed how the BCS is once again fouling up college football's national championship race. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the BCS (even the gutted, watered-down version we have today), but it's by no means the best system out there. Wilbon brought up some good points to illustrate that.

There are currently six undefeated major-conference teams, and as many as four could finish the season that way (USC and UCLA will play each other, and if neither loses first then Alabama and Georgia will face off for the SEC championship). So, this late in the season, we once again have the strong potential that an undefeated team could be left out in the cold come Rose Bowl night. This seems to have become an annual problem.

But before we get too far, keep in mind who those teams are. Texas is currently atop the BCS standings simply because, to the amazement of everyone (or me, at least), they haven't choked yet like they do every year. But there are still plenty of games left for that to happen. Same with Virginia Tech. Maybe they're for real this year, but how many times have they made it into November only to crash and drop a game or few at the end? So those are hardly sure bets to go the distance.

But here's the issue: if four teams finish the season unbeaten, there's a decent chance--not a great one but a significant chance nonetheless--that two-time defending champ and consensus #1 USC would have to watch Texas and VA Tech play for the title. That could only be one of the greatest atrocities in college football history. Yet Wilbon seems to think it could happen. Texas is already ahead of the Trojans though a weak Big 12 schedule down the stretch will work against them, and VA Tech's strong closing schedule could help them jump up from their current third spot. And both SEC schools have a tough road ahead too so they're not out of it yet either.

Wilbon seems very down on the BCS and makes it clear several times that he thinks relying on only the human polls would be a better bet. I disagree. Human polls have always placed too much emphasis on tradition and reputation--why is Notre Dame perennially overrated?*--and thus the big-name schools always have an unfair advantage, especially among the many voters who really don't pay enough attention to football to be voting. The BCS system doesn't always do a good job ranking teams either but I'm convinced it's almost always better than the writers and coaches just because it adds some unbiased computer input to the system. And at least with the BCS it could be a bad break and not bias that could cost a team a BCS or championship game berth. In the computer polls every team is judged accordingly to the same set of formulas, so that alone puts the BCS rankings a step ahead of the human polls.

Wilbon and I agree on two things though: (1) both systems suck, and (2) the fairest and best answer is a postseason playoff. He suggests eight teams; I'd like to see at least 12 so there would be more excitement. But with the recent BCS troubles and the constant complaining and shafting the human polls resulted in before that, isn't it time college football adopted something that guarantees every elite team will get a shot to prove their worth on the field?


*I must admit that they seem to be living up to it (for once) this year. They gave Southern Cal a good fight and despite the loss to Michigan St. they've otherwise been dominant this year. But their recent history has them being upset at least a couple of times every year and yet they always hang around up there in the rankings.