Zachary GirsbergerBCS: A Flawed System
November 11th 2010 01:35
Category: No Category
Currently I am working on a research paper discussing the repercussions and benefits of the University of Utah and Brigham Young University leaving the Mountain West Conference. During the research process, I stumbled upon some facts that were very disturbing, especially when considering this current season. Rules for the BCS have a flaw, and I think a revision is in order because of the unfair system in place.
Non-Automatic Qualifiers
It has been well-documented by other writers that schools like TCU and Boise State are denied entrance into the national championship because of the nature of their schedule. What is not published often is that Boise State could miss a BCS bowl altogether, even finishing as the number four team in the nation.
The rules that govern the non-automatic qualifying schools can be a bit murky, but one in particular is just unfair to non-BCS conference schools. Under the current system, only one non-automatic qualifying school is given a guaranteed chance at a BCS bowl if they are in the top fourteen (although eight is the unofficial rule) in the standings. This noted, under the current system the top ten teams in the nation quite frequently do not play in the top ten positions in bowl games. So, applying the rule to this season, TCU would currently get the non-AQ bid while Boise State could be left out of the BCS bowls entirely due to politicking of the matchups.
Big East
This season the Big East is playing as the worst conference of the six BCS conferences, and really is worse than the MWC and the WAC, yet due to the rules of the BCS, the winner of the Big East is given a bid into one of the five BCS bowls no matter the ranking. So, under the current system if the bowls started today, the Pitt Panthers –a team not in the top 25—would receive a bowl bid automatically, and Boise State would not. Fair? I think not.
Possible Revision
While I am not expert on the rules and regulations governing contracts created to form the BCS, I do have this blog, so I get to post my opinion. I have no problem with the six BCS conferences, but I think that in fairness to the student-athletes, a rule should be implemented similar to the one that excludes non-AQ teams. If a BCS conference winner is outside the top fourteen, that team should not be included in the BCS bowls because that team is not one of the best in the nation. Sure, the athletic directors and universities of some of the bigger schools would not be pleased with the situation, but the BCS governs amateur players, who according to their title of student-athlete have the responsibility to learn first, play second. To be fair to these players, who invest so much of their time in a secondary concern, teams that organize and play well should be rewarded rather than keeping the big schools happy.
| 45 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
