Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
BCS needs a dash of common sense
By JASON ASHCRAFT Sports Writer
Determining a champion in most sports is simple; you take the best teams and have them compete for the title. It works with basketball, baseball and professional football, but when it comes to determining the NCAA Division IA football champion the process is complicated and not entertaining.
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has long been the target of criticism and scorn from the media and football fans across the country. The outrage finally had an impact last season when the Associated Press took the wise action of pulling out of the poll, leaving BCS officials with the chance to totally revamp the ridiculous system.
The logical solution to the BCS problem would be to implement a play-off system and make eight of the biggest bowls into play-off games. The site of the championship bowl would be on a rotating basis like the current system. This system would please the fans and end with a definitive champion.
Of course, logic seems to escape the BCS committee and the university presidents who scoff at the idea of a playoff. They argue that a playoff would not generate the money that the current system brings in, and that implementing a playoff would eat into the student-athletes' academic time.
Of course, the oh-so intellectual college presidents have no problem sending their basketball teams out to play 30 games a season, half of which are on the road. They also have no problem with their basketball student-athletes travelling to various conference and national tournaments in March and April, the peak mid-term season.
The argument that the BCS playoff would not generate the same amount or more money than the current system is also flawed.
The current system already brings in eight of the best teams in the nation with one bowl. If everything works out the way it's supposed to, the two best teams should play for the championship.
Also, adding one more bowl would generate additional ticket sales, television ratings, and advertising revenue. The added bowl could be held at one of the larger non-BCS bowl sites such as the Cotton Bowl. Imagine the ratings if the Rose Bowl, who hosts this year's BCS championship game, was to host a football Final Four.
Instead of coming to the fan-friendly logical solution, the BCS and member college administrations changed the system by keeping it relatively the same. There is still a poll system that added the Harris Interactive College Football Poll in place of the AP poll.
The Harris Interactive Poll ballots are also kept secret until the end of the season, thus adding to the controversy surrounding the BCS polling system. The secrecy of the balloting and the polling formula - that looks like something out of a jet propulsion laboratory - just adds fuel to the fire of BCS critics.
Fixing the system is simple, use polls to come up with the eight best teams in the nation, then add one game. If you subtract all of the needless secrecy and stubborn adherence to a flawed system, what you get is a football Final Four that will make more money than anything the BCS could have imagined.
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has long been the target of criticism and scorn from the media and football fans across the country. The outrage finally had an impact last season when the Associated Press took the wise action of pulling out of the poll, leaving BCS officials with the chance to totally revamp the ridiculous system.
The logical solution to the BCS problem would be to implement a play-off system and make eight of the biggest bowls into play-off games. The site of the championship bowl would be on a rotating basis like the current system. This system would please the fans and end with a definitive champion.
Of course, logic seems to escape the BCS committee and the university presidents who scoff at the idea of a playoff. They argue that a playoff would not generate the money that the current system brings in, and that implementing a playoff would eat into the student-athletes' academic time.
Of course, the oh-so intellectual college presidents have no problem sending their basketball teams out to play 30 games a season, half of which are on the road. They also have no problem with their basketball student-athletes travelling to various conference and national tournaments in March and April, the peak mid-term season.
The argument that the BCS playoff would not generate the same amount or more money than the current system is also flawed.
The current system already brings in eight of the best teams in the nation with one bowl. If everything works out the way it's supposed to, the two best teams should play for the championship.
Also, adding one more bowl would generate additional ticket sales, television ratings, and advertising revenue. The added bowl could be held at one of the larger non-BCS bowl sites such as the Cotton Bowl. Imagine the ratings if the Rose Bowl, who hosts this year's BCS championship game, was to host a football Final Four.
Instead of coming to the fan-friendly logical solution, the BCS and member college administrations changed the system by keeping it relatively the same. There is still a poll system that added the Harris Interactive College Football Poll in place of the AP poll.
The Harris Interactive Poll ballots are also kept secret until the end of the season, thus adding to the controversy surrounding the BCS polling system. The secrecy of the balloting and the polling formula - that looks like something out of a jet propulsion laboratory - just adds fuel to the fire of BCS critics.
Fixing the system is simple, use polls to come up with the eight best teams in the nation, then add one game. If you subtract all of the needless secrecy and stubborn adherence to a flawed system, what you get is a football Final Four that will make more money than anything the BCS could have imagined.
Share this Article
 |
||
| Bengals look to continue to improve |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of maysville-online.com.
