NCAA Must Reform BCS System

With the end of the college football season fast approaching, the annual noise machine over the validity of the bowl system has begun. Pundits and relevant coaches saturate every type of media with criticism of the current system of champions by computer scores. Indeed, the contempt of the Bowl Championship Series has gotten so bad that many actively wish chaos upon it, so as to destroy the system once and for all, replacing it with a real playoff system.

On the receiving end of this vitriol are the NCAA and university establishments. So far, they have refused to bend to outsiders. A much-bandied plus-one tournament format involving two of the BCS bowls every year was rejected, leaving the bowl system completely intact. The defenders of the current system cite academic concerns as reason not to convert to a playoff bracket. This argument has been exposed as questionable at best, considering that every other tier of college gridiron decides champions with tournaments.

It can be said, without unwarranted cynicism, that the real reason for the preservation of bowls is that they generate too much in ratings. This is a valid argument, and not just in the economic sense. While more teams should be given a shot at the title than is currently the case, we must remember that most are not fans of teams in the upper echelon of polls. In a playoff system without bowls, fans of teams that are 8-4 or 7-5 would probably not see any type of postseason. Such a situation would be bad for fan interest, and the game in general.

However, even accepting the above point as valid, I argue for the establishment of a postseason tournament. My reason is the exact same as what is cited above: fan interest. Currently, to make the BCS title game, you almost always have to be of a BCS conference, and have at most one loss. While this is the method by which college football has always operated, it places undue pressure on teams. Consider being a fan of a potential title-contender: If your team loses more than a single game, the fate of your season has already been sealed. Unless you’re a die-hard, there is no longer any incentive to follow.

The pressure to not lose has another perverse side effect: a dearth of compelling nonconference matchups. With the conference slate tough enough already to survive, teams have little reason to schedule competitive nonconference opponents. This abundance of David vs. Goliath matchups will occasionally produce a story like Appalachian State over Michigan, but mostly result in 40-14 score lines in the first three weeks of the season.

What is needed in the game is a compromise between the traditionalists and the reformers. I believe the best plan currently proposed is to make the bowl system into the preliminary rounds of a tournament­—considering that there were 32 bowl games last year, this would be eminently doable. To ensure that the regular season stays relevant, teams finishing higher in the polls should receive a first-round bye. This compromise will help preserve the tradition represented by the bowls and will alleviate the unintended consequences hindering the sport.

Those who wish to reform the current college football system are correct in their convictions—a playoff system would give the sport needed growth and legitimacy. At the same time, the tradition built by 100 years of bowl games should not just be cast aside. I, for one, believe that we can move forward with the best of both worlds.