Screwing the strong and rewarding the weak

ELItorial
   By Aaron Lichtig

Who is the number one college football team in America? Ask Ken. Or Dave.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) rankings are designed to determine the top two teams who will play for the national championship in January 2000. Teams are assigned points based on rankings in the two major polls, an average of eight computer rankings, number of losses, and strength of schedule, with each weighted 25 percent. The unfairness of these rankings lies within the Pentium and the percentages. Computer polls compiled by obscure analysts using strange criteria hold just as much weight as strength of schedule and regular poll ranking.

COURTESY NEWSMAKERS Virginia Tech has inched its way toward the top of the BCS rankings by beating up on I-AA schools.

The main problem with computer polls is that they tend to reward teams that run up the score on weak opponents. When the first BCS ranking was issued on Mon., Oct. 25, Virginia Tech held the top spot in seven of the eight computer rankings used by the BCS. It is no coincidence that those same seven polls use margin of victory, though some use a system of diminishing returns, as a criterion by which to rank teams. While Penn State and Florida State were having close calls with tough non-conference opponents in the early season, Virginia Tech was beating up on Division I-AA James Madison University. The computer polls rewarded Virginia Tech for this unfair advantage.

Some of the computer rankings are reputable, however. The New York Times and the Seattle Times rankings have been staples of college football for years. These polls are given the exact same weight, however, as rankings compiled by such luminaries as Richard Billingsley, David Rothman, and Kenneth Massey—individuals who have authority over their own polls. Essentially, any Tom, Dick or Harry with a computer can influence the fates of players and coaches who work their entire lives to get to the pinnacle of college athletics. The worst computer poll, however, is the Dunkel Index. This week, the poll had Wisconsin, a team with two losses, ranked fourth, ahead of Penn State, Tennessee, and Nebraska. Maybe Dunkel was a Wisconsin grad.

Computer polls, which are unable to account for non-quantifiable differences between teams, have the potential to greatly skew the BCS rankings. If a team were to lose a close game to its rival and then reel off 10 consecutive 55-0 victories over cupcake teams, it would probably be selected for the championship ahead of its rival, even if the rival finished with a perfect record.

The bottom line is that teams that play difficult schedules and win all of their games deserve to play for the championship. This year Penn State has won three games by under seven points and Florida State has won two by less than a touchdown. No one has been close to Virginia Tech. Penn State plays the 12th-toughest schedule in the country, Florida State the 17th, and Virginia Tech the 58th. Any coach will tell you that it's harder to beat a good team by one than a bad team by 62.

Despite their problems, the much-maligned BCS rankings are definitely a step up from the previous system that gave the ill-informed media free rein to crown a champion. Many deserving teams, like Penn State in 1994, had to settle for second because of fickle voters who had merely read scores in the paper. If the BCS had been in effect five years ago, then we would have seen an incredible final game matchup. Some have suggested that basketball-style playoffs would resolve these problems. Such a postseason would involve eight or 16 seeded teams that would play for the right to meet in the final game. This, however, would change college football indelibly and for the worst.

As a football purist, I am still not in favor of ditching the traditional bowl structure for a playoff. College football's lack of a playoff makes it unique, and adding another four games to playoff team's schedules would extend the season well into January. The idea of pairing the top two, or possibly four, teams in a national championship game or Final Four is still the best solution.

However, the current BCS rankings make the selection process too complex. At the end of the season, a committee should merely take stock of all the teams. If there are two teams from major conferences (the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big East, and the Big 12) that are undefeated, then they should meet in the title game. If there are more than two such teams, the team with the more difficult schedule should advance. If no undefeated major conference teams exist, then the committee must give priority to the one-loss teams from major conferences or undefeated teams from minor conferences if they played more difficult schedules than their major conference counterparts with one loss. It's the Al Davis system: to reach the finals, teams have to "just win, baby." And teams that "just win, baby" over better teams should get rewarded.

Back to Sports...