Bowl Championship Series controversies

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a selection system designed to force a "national championship game" between the top-ranking teams (in the BCS rankings) in American college football's top division, the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly known as Division I-A). This championship is intended as a surrogate for a playoff system since the NCAA does not formally determine a champion in this category. There has often been controversy as to which two teams should be able to play for the national championship and which teams should play in the four other BCS bowl games (Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl). The BCS is also often criticized for its inequality of access to the "Big 5" bowl games for teams in non-qualifying conferences, the inequitable distribution of revenues from those games, and for the BCS's apparent assumptions that argue teams from non-automatic qualifying conferences are by definition inferior to automatic qualifying conferences without arguing any rational explanations or reasons for those assumptions. Congress has explored the possibility on more than on occasion of holding hearings to determine the legality of the BCS under the terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the United States Justice Department has also periodically announced interest in investigating the BCS for similar reasons.

Overview

A recent survey conducted at the Quinnipiac University found that 63% of individuals interested in college football prefer a playoff system to the BCS, while only 26% support the BCS as status quo. Arguments from critics typically center around the validity of BCS national championship pairings and its designated National Champions. Many critics focus strictly on the BCS methodology itself, which employs subjective voting assessments, while others note the ability for undefeated teams to finish seasons without an opportunity to play the national championship game. For example, in the last 6 seasons of Division I FBS football, there have been more undefeated non-BCS champions than undefeated BCS champions. Other criticisms involve discrepancies in the allocation of monetary resources from BCS games, as well as the determination of non-championship BCS game participants, which need not comply with the BCS rankings themselves. Critics note that other sports and divisions of college football complete seasons without disputed national champions which critics attribute to the use of the playoff format.

Critics argue that increasing the number of teams would increase the validity of team comparisons in conferences, which do not compete with one another during the regular season; teams typically only play three or four non-conference games, as the result of pre-determined schedules. BCS proponents view the possibility of expanded competitive post-season opportunities as negative. The primary delivery of this objection is a slippery slope argument rhetorically known as bracket creep. Implementation of a playoff system, proponents object, would lead to other, more serious consequences, such as the diminished value of the regular season, diminished value of the bowl tradition, or damage to the collegiate academic calendar year. Critics, including Republican congressman Joe Barton, have been quick to respond to these red herrings, noting that teams from non-AQ conferences are already excluded from the national championship and their inclusion would only improve the meaningfulness of the regular season.

A further criticism of the system is the institutionalized bias towards the six BCS conferences and Notre Dame, an independent team in football, at the deliberate expense of the five Division I-A/FBS non-BCS or non-AQ conferences. Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, 10 non-BCS conference Division I-A/FBS teams have finished the regular season undefeated (Tulane in 1998; Marshall in 1999; Utah in 2004 and 2008; Boise State in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009; Hawaiʻi in 2007; and TCU in 2009) without being given an opportunity to play in the national championship game. (It should be noted, however, that due to Mid-American Conference bowl tie-ins, the 1999 Marshall team was in danger of not going to any bowl game if it had lost the conference title game, despite its #11 final ranking.) Another problem is presented when more than one non-BCS conference team has an undefeated schedule in the same season. In 2008, Utah and Boise State both went undefeated. However, the BCS rules only provide for one automatic at-large BCS berth from teams in the non-AQ conferences. Therefore, a two-loss Ohio State team was chosen over Boise State for the Fiesta Bowl, and Boise State ended up outside of the BCS games. This problem arose again in 2009, with Boise State and TCU undefeated. The final BCS rankings saw TCU at #4 and Boise State at #6, which meant that only TCU was guaranteed a slot in the BCS bowls. However, the Broncos were not left out of the BCS bowl party this time, as they were chosen to face TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. Nonetheless, both Boise State and TCU finished the regular season unbeaten — in the case of Boise State, for the second year in a row, the fourth year out of six, and in 2006 finished as the only undefeated team in the nation — and never had a chance to play for a BCS national title.

Since, however, teams from non-BCS conferences play what are considered generally easier schedules than teams from BCS conferences, it is unclear whether this "bias" is merely a penalty based on schedule strength that can also apply to BCS conference teams (see, e.g., the 2007 Kansas team, above). A rejoinder would be that teams from non-BCS conferences only have so much control over their schedules, creating the possibility that such a team might in fact be one of the two best teams in the country, and might also have made a good-faith effort to play a challenging schedule, but might still be excluded from the national championship game. This can happen due to BCS teams turning them down in fear of an upset, or scheduling a traditionally strong school who turned out to be having a weak year. The 2009 TCU team is a counterexample, however. They defeated both Virginia and Clemson on the road, and won the rest of their games by an average of 31 points. They received a BCS bid to play against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl. Critics, though, argue that but TCU may have been more deserving to play Alabama in the BCS Championship Game than Texas. With wins over Clemson, BYU, and Utah, some journalists, including Football Writers Association of America Past-President Dennis Dodd, have cited the 2009 TCU team as an example of a non-BCS team, excluded from consideration for the national championship in spite of their performance against strong competition.

Teams from non-BCS conferences have been successful in BCS bowl games, but this has not affected the position of proponents that non-BCS teams are not on an equal level with teams from automatic qualifying conferences. Utah has won BCS bowls after the 2004 and 2008 seasons (although the former was over #21 Pittsburgh, who despite being a BCS team, was considered by some as an underdog in that game, see below). Boise State won after the 2006 and 2009 seasons (the latter against non-BCS Texas Christian). The only team that could reasonably be described as "playing a weak schedule and then being exposed by a BCS team" is the 2007 Hawaii team, which was defeated by Georgia in the 2008 Sugar Bowl.

Another concern with the BCS is that a team can fail to win its conference championship, but still play in the BCS championship game. This happened in the 2001 and 2003 seasons. In 2001 Nebraska played Miami (Florida), after a blowout loss to Colorado in the Cornhuskers' final regular-season game and, therefore, did not play in the Big 12 Conference Championship game. In 2003 Oklahoma played LSU despite losing to Kansas State 35–7 in the Big 12 Conference title game. This entails that a team that could not even win their conference title is awarded the title of best team in the nation, despite the obvious presence of a better squad within their own conference. A rejoinder is that these situations actually reflect a virtue of the BCS system, which rewards teams for their performance throughout the entire season, thereby reinforcing the notion that, in college football, every game (rather than just conference championship games, or games late in the season) matters.

A similar criticism is that a team with similar or better arguments to another team can be left out of the BCS despite beating the other team. This happened between Miami (Florida) and Florida State University in 2000, where Miami beat Florida St. yet Florida St. went to the National Championship Game. The University of Washington also beat Miami and finished with an 11-1 record, further adding to the controversy. In 2008, the situation was repeated when one-loss Oklahoma was selected for the BCS Championship over one-loss Texas, which beat the Sooners during the regular season. Although not related to the title game, after the 2007 season, Kansas was chosen to go to the BCS Orange Bowl, even though they had lost to Missouri (who went to the non-BCS Cotton Bowl, despite only losing twice to Oklahoma, and being ranked higher than both Kansas and Big Ten Rose Bowl Representative Illinois). This, among other games in history, illustrates that late season losses are often more injurious than early season losses.

Finally, critics argue that a team can win a weak conference and be awarded an automatic berth over teams that are perceived to be more deserving. There were two notable incidents of this. In 2004, #21 Pittsburgh won the Big East with a record of 8-3 and was awarded an automatic bid because they won their conference, while several teams with better rankings, such as #5 California, #7 Georgia, and #8 Virginia Tech, were left out as they did not win their respective conferences. In 2008, undefeated #9 Boise State and #11 TCU were left out of the BCS while #19 Virginia Tech, winner of the ACC was given a BCS bowl berth. As a result, the Mountain West Conference campaigned to receive an automatic bid. Another way to fix this problem would be to mandate that if a conference champion finishes with a low ranking (say below 12) that they forfeit their automatic bid, and get put into the pool of "at large" teams that the BCS can choose from. Thus, a higher ranked non-BCS team (or an extra team from other BCS conferences) could be selected by a bowl game.

Questions regarding disparities in revenue sharing

In addition to concerns about the inclusion of non-BCS conference teams in the five BCS bowls, some critics have noted the disparities between the amounts paid to the six BCS conferences and their respective schools, as opposed to other conferences and their own schools.

The official BCS website discusses the payouts for the 2008-2009 BCS bowls.

• Each BCS conference is guaranteed approximately $18.3 million, plus an additional $4.5 million should a second conference team be selected. Although each conference has its own arrangement for the distribution of these funds, the average income per school in each conference is as follows (One team selected/Two teams selected):
  • Atlantic Coast (12 teams): $1.525M / $1.900M
  • Big East (8 teams): $2.288M / $2.850M
  • Big Ten (11 teams): $1.664M / $2.073M
  • Big 12 (12 teams): $1.525M / $1.900M
  • Pacific 10 (10 teams): $1.830M / $2.280M
  • Southeastern (12 teams): $1.525M / $1.900M

• Notre Dame is guaranteed 1/66th of net revenues, or approximately $1.3 million. If selected to play in a BCS bowl, Notre Dame will receive $4.5 million.

• Independent programs Army and Navy will each receive $100,000 for allowing their teams to participate in the selection for BCS bowls.

• A total of approximately $1.8 million will be paid to the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), which consists of 122 football programs. As a result, although the actual distribution will vary significantly, each school will receive an average of $14,754.

• Nine percent, or approximately $9.6 million, is guaranteed in aggregate to Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Athletic conferences. If a team from one of these five conferences plays in a BCS bowl, an additional nine percent (approximately $9.6M) will be given in aggregate to the conferences, and if a second team participates, those conferences will receive an additional $4.5M. These five conferences are composed of a total of 52 teams, broken down as follows:
  • Conference USA - 12 teams
  • Mid-American - 13 teams
  • Mountain West - 9 teams
  • Sun Belt - 9 teams
  • Western Athletic - 9 teams

• Therefore, if the payouts to these conferences were broken down equally per school (which is not the case), this would amount to an average of $184,615 per school. If one team from these conferences were to play in a BCS game, that figure would increase to $369,231 per school. Should two teams be selected, the average per school would rise to $455,769 per school.

As a result, in the best-case scenario schools from the non-BCS conferences would receive approximately 34% of the least of the schools in the BCS conferences, including Notre Dame. These numbers are not the actual amounts paid to each school, but look at the amounts paid to each school on average.

• A breakdown of the non-BCS revenue sharing conducted in 2009 by ESPN shows the total amounts that the five non-BCS conferences received from all bowls. The coalition of C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, and WAC conferences divides half of the BCS revenue equally amongst the five conferences, and the other half into 15 equal shares which are divided by performance. Since Utah participated in the Sugar Bowl, the coalition grossed a total of $19.3M. As a result, the conferences received and divided the following income (average per school, which may not reflect actual amounts, are in parentheses):
  • MWC - $8,572,800 ($952,533)
  • WAC - $3,244,000 ($358,222)
  • C-USA - $2,657,600 ($221,467)
  • MAC - $2,094,400 ($161,108)
  • Sun Belt - $1,529,600 ($169,956)

The amounts vary, with Utah receiving $3.1M, or approximately 1/3 of the Sugar Bowl revenue, for their appearance in the BCS bowl.

• The 2008-2009 BCS Media Guide claims that over the first 10 years of the BCS arrangement, a total of $100 million has been given to the then-51 non-BCS Football Bowl Subdivision schools and the 122 Football Championship Subdivision schools. This gives an average of $10M/year, or $58,803 per school year. By comparison, each BCS conference (between eight and twelve schools) is guaranteed $18 million this year, an average of $1.66M per school for the 65 participating institutions.

The disparities between BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences continue outside the Bowl Championship Series to other bowls, but since the payouts for the five BCS bowls are so much greater than other bowls, the BCS has a major impact on revenue distribution paid to the various Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) schools. A 2003 study described the disparities between the different schools. In 2003, there were 24 bowls other than the BCS bowls, creating opportunities for 48 teams to participate in bowl games. Of these 48 teams, 33 were from BCS conferences.

• In 2003, the Big Ten led all conferences with $31.9 million from its seven bowl appearances. By comparison, Conference USA, which led the non-BCS conferences with five bowl appearances, brought in a total of $5.75 million. TCU led all non-BCS schools with $1.37 million from its Liberty bowl appearance.

• The BCS itself acknowledges the vast discrepancies between conferences the automatically qualify (AQ conferences) by drawing a comparison between BCS and non-BCS bowls. On their website, it notes that as a result of Utah's 2009 Sugar Bowl appearance, the MWC received $9.8 million. In contrast, the largest payout of any AQ-conference contracted bowl is the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas, which pays the two teams a total of $1.8 million. The conclusion from this is that the Sugar Bowl paid the MWC over 10 times the best of what a non-BCS bowl offered. Should Utah not have been offered the bid, the MWC would have suffered considerably in comparison.

As a result, there has been significant criticism regarding the revenue distribution by bowls, specifically the BCS due to its significantly higher payout to participating teams. This disparity coupled with the comparative difficulty for non-BCS teams to participate in BCS bowls, compounded by the uneven split even for non-BCS teams competing in a BCS bowl, have raised calls for further reform in the revenue distribution structure. These concerns have also called into question the underlying motivations of the BCS, insofar as revenue is concerned. These issues have been the center of some Congressional inquiries and the threat of a lawsuit by the Attorney General of Utah.

Controversies by season

1998-99 season

Main article: 1998 NCAA Division I-A football season

The first year of the BCS ended in controversy when one-loss Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings but was passed over for participation in BCS bowl games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and two-loss Florida (8th). Instead, the Wildcats played in the far less prestigious Alamo Bowl against Purdue. The following season, the BCS adopted the "Kansas State Rule," which provides that the 3rd ranked team (or 4th ranked team if the 3rd ranked team has already qualified as a conference champion) in the final BCS standings is assured an invitation to a BCS bowl game. The rule was first utilized in 2002–03, giving an automatic berth to USC. The rule has been used five times in all, with Texas earning automatic bids in 2004–05 and 2008–09, Ohio State earning an automatic bid in 2005–06, and Michigan receiving an automatic bid in 2006–07.

The following season, Kansas State finished 6th in the BCS standings but again received no invitation, this time being passed over in favor of Michigan (ranked 8th). Kansas State's predicament (as well as that of undefeated Tulane who was denied a BCS bid because they played in Conference USA) inaugurated the long-standing media controversies regarding the system.

2000-01 season

Main article: 2000 NCAA Division I-A football season

Florida State (12–1, ACC Champions) was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma (12–0, Big 12 champions) in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their one loss coming to another one loss team, the Miami Hurricanes (11–1, Big East champions), that was ranked #2 in both human polls. Adding to the controversy, Miami's one loss came to yet another one loss team, the PAC-10 champion Washington Huskies, leaving three teams with a legitimate claim to play Oklahoma in the National Championship game.

Florida State lost to Oklahoma 13–2, while Washington and Miami both easily won their bowl games, adding more fuel to the fire. As a result of the controversy, the BCS was tweaked in the off-season. A "quality-win" bonus was added to the formula, giving extra credit for beating a top ten team.

2001-02 season

Main article: 2001 NCAA Division I-A football season

In another controversial season, Nebraska was chosen as a national title game participant despite being ranked #4 in both human polls and not winning their conference. The Huskers went into their last regularly scheduled game at Colorado undefeated, but left Boulder with a 62–36 loss. The Buffaloes went on to win the Big 12 championship. However, the BCS computers did not take into account time of loss, so one-loss Nebraska came out ahead of two-loss Colorado and one-loss Oregon, the consensus #2 in both human polls (but 4th in the BCS). Nebraska beat Colorado for the #2 spot in the BCS poll by .05 points. Nebraska was routed in the national title game, 37–14, by Miami. Meanwhile Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl, 38-16.

2002-03 season

Main article: 2002 NCAA Division I-A football season

The Rose Bowl normally features the champions of the Big Ten and the Pac-10. However, the Big Ten-champion Ohio State Buckeyes, finishing #2 in the BCS, had qualified to play in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl for the national championship against Miami (Fla.)

After the national championship was set, the Orange Bowl had the next pick, and invited #3 (#5 BCS) Iowa from the Big Ten. When it was the Rose Bowl's turn to select, the best available team was #8 (#7 BCS) Oklahoma, who won the Big 12 Championship Game. When it came time for the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl to make a second pick, both wanted Pac-10 co-champion USC. However, a BCS rule stated that if two bowls wanted the same team, the bowl with the higher payoff had priority. The Orange Bowl immediately extended an at-large bid to the #5 Trojans and paired them with at-large #3 Iowa in a Big Ten/Pac-10 "Rose Bowl East" matchup in the 2003 Orange Bowl. The Rose Bowl was left to pair Oklahoma with Pac-10 co-champion Washington State. Rose Bowl committee executive director Mitch Dorger was not pleased with the results. The 2003 Rose Bowl game had the lowest attendance and first non-sellout since 1944.

2003-04 season

Main article: 2003 NCAA Division I-A football season

The 2003–2004 season came about with much controversy when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss (in fact, no Division I-A team finished the season undefeated, something that hadn't happened since 1996, two years before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were:

• Oklahoma
• LSU
• USC

USC was ranked #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but was burdened by a collective 2.67 computer ranking due to a weaker schedule. Meanwhile Oklahoma, after an undefeated regular season, was beaten by Kansas State (35–7) in the Big 12 Championship Game. The loss dropped Oklahoma to #3 in the human polls (while the computers still had them at #1). LSU had earned a stronger computer ranking than USC and a #2 human poll ranking, and went on to claim the BCS championship with a 21–14 win over Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, retained its #1 ranking in the AP Poll. Oklahoma (which finished 12–2) had been clearly eliminated from national championship contention, but the split in polls left many LSU (13–1) and USC (12–1) fans displeased, as USC was named the AP national football champion. The LSU/USC dispute started a billboard war and a group of LSU fans ended up putting a billboard up near USC. This incident has been considered a lightning rod of controversy by some sportswriters covering college football.

The college coaches involved in the coaches poll were contractually obligated to award their organization's trophy and first place votes to the winner of the BCS championship game, LSU. However, for the first time in the history of the BCS Championship Series, the BCS Champion was not a unanimous #1 in the final Coaches Poll as the final vote was 60 - 3 for LSU as National Champion with USC as a runner-up. It is speculated that the three coaches who broke rank--Lou Holtz of South Carolina, Mike Bellotti of Oregon and Ron Turner of Illinois--violating their contractual obligation, did so because they believed that USC was the best team. Meanwhile other coaches followed their contractual obligation under the coaches "poll" and changed their choice of #1 from USC to LSU.

2004-05 season

Main article: 2004 NCAA Division I-A football season

The 2004-2005 regular season finished with five undefeated teams for the first time since 1979. Despite having perfect records, the Auburn Tigers, Utah Utes, and Boise State Broncos were denied an opportunity to play for the BCS championship. Utah was the first non-BCS team to play in a BCS game. However, Utah and Boise State's schedules were thought of as weaker than Auburn's (by virtue of playing in the weaker Mountain West and WAC, respectively).

Most of the debate centered around Auburn, who went undefeated in the Southeastern Conference, leading to debates over the strength of schedule, a value that was diminished in the BCS before the season. Oklahoma went on to play USC for the title. USC defeated Oklahoma, 55–19. Both Auburn and Utah won their bowl games. Auburn defeated #9 Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl 16-13, and Utah defeated #21 Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl by a score of 35–7. This left 3 undefeated teams at the end of the season, where Auburn finished at #2 and Utah at #4.

Another controversy occurred this season since the pollsters jumped the Texas Longhorns over the California Golden Bears in the final regular-season poll. Texas coach Mack Brown publicly lobbied for the pollsters to give Texas the final at-large bid. Although the Bears, as Pac-10 runner-up, normally would have had first crack at a Rose Bowl berth, Brown lobbied for and got that berth. The lobbying was so extensive that the Associated Press immediately ended its poll's association with the BCS. California's cause was hurt when it was less than impressive in a 26–16 victory over Southern Miss in Hattiesburg, Mississippi the night before bowl bids were extended. This was doubly unfortunate because had it been played in September, when it was originally scheduled before being postponed by a hurricane, it would have had probably no effect and Cal would have received the Rose Bowl spot. Weakening their cause after the fact was the 45–31 defeat in the Holiday Bowl to Texas Tech University. Cal played without two of the highest performing receivers in the NCAA, however, this loss was attributed in many press reports to the Bears' disappointment over being denied their first Rose Bowl appearance in 45 years. Another major issue is the fact that the Pac-10 has considerably weaker bowl tie-ins than all of the other BCS conferences. For example, the Holiday Bowl is the second place Pac-10 bowl and the opponent is the 3rd, 4th, or 5th-place Big XII team, meaning the Pac-10 team can finish just out of the BCS and play an unranked opponent.

2006-07 season

Main article: 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season

See also: 2006–07 NCAA football bowl games

Going into the final poll, undefeated Boise State and four one-loss teams (Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida) were up for a spot against undefeated top-ranked Ohio State in the BCS National Championship game in Glendale, Arizona. Louisville (11-1, champions of the Big East), and Boise State were given less consideration because of a lack of schedule strength, while Wisconsin (11-1, Big 10) was two steps removed from Ohio State (they lost to Michigan, who lost to Ohio State, and Wisconsin and Ohio State did not play).

Michigan lost to Ohio State 42–39 in its regular season finale (Ohio State would go on to claim the Big 10 championship), but was still ranked ahead of Florida but behind USC going into the final ballot. Florida defeated Arkansas in the SEC Championship Game, and number 2 ranked USC lost to UCLA, leaving Michigan and Florida as one-loss teams who both claimed they deserved to play for the national championship against Ohio State. Many pundits denied that Michigan should get another chance to play Ohio State. Others claimed that this would only be a repeat of what happened in 1996 between Florida and Florida State, and that the two best teams should play even if they were from the same conference or if it was a rematch. Ultimately, the BCS National Championship was a meeting between Ohio State and Florida. A mere .0101 points separated #2 Florida from #3 Michigan. This small difference was a result of the human polls (USA Today's Coaches' Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.

Michigan, which was automatically guaranteed a BCS at-large berth by virtue of its #3 ranking, went to the Rose Bowl, which they lost to USC 32–18. Florida officially became the national champions by impressively beating Ohio State 41–14. Florida also received all but one of the 65 first-place votes in the final Associated Press poll (the other went to Boise State, who won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma).

At the conclusion of the season, three other one-loss teams were denied the chance to compete in a playoff or to play Florida for the national championship. Wisconsin and Louisville ended the season with only one loss (the same as Florida and Ohio State). Boise State, which received the other first-place vote in the AP poll, was the only undefeated Division I football team.

Because of a BCS rule allowing only two teams from each conference to play in BCS bowl games, highly-ranked Wisconsin and Auburn were not eligible for selection to a BCS game. Wisconsin was excluded because Ohio State and Michigan represented the Big Ten, and Auburn was excluded because LSU and Florida represented the SEC, even though Auburn defeated LSU 7–3 and Florida 27–17 during the season. LSU earned the at-large bid on the strength of its 31–26 victory over SEC West champion Arkansas in Little Rock, while the Razorbacks crushed then second-ranked Auburn 27–10 in Jordan-Hare Stadium. Auburn's 37–15 loss at home to a reeling Georgia team also destroyed its chances at the BCS.

An omission of the rule still would have not have been enough for Auburn to secure a berth, as Wisconsin would have likely been the final at-large bid. The final BCS poll had seven teams from the SEC and the Big Ten ranked in the top twelve but by the rule only two from each conference were eligible to play in BCS bowl games, offering the opportunity to argue that both conferences are over-ranked, that the Big Ten schedule does not produce a true conference champion, or that the limit of 2 teams from any one conference is inappropriate.

2007-08 season

Main article: 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season

See also: 2007–08 NCAA football bowl games

In a wild finish to a wild regular season of upsets, the top two teams in the polls lost on the same weekend for two weeks in a row to close out the regular season, sending the BCS into chaos heading into the selection of the two teams to play for the BCS National Championship Game. On November 23, top-ranked LSU lost in triple overtime to Arkansas. This was the Tigers' second triple-overtime loss of the season, with the other to Kentucky. The following day, #4 Missouri beat #2 Kansas and took the top spot in the BCS for the following week. This created the interesting prospect of #1 Missouri playing its final game of the season as three-point underdogs against Oklahoma. On December 1, Missouri was defeated by Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship Game. #2 West Virginia was also stunned at home, by unranked Pittsburgh in the annual Backyard Brawl game. Meanwhile, Ohio State, who was idle for the final two weeks, climbed the rankings from #5 to #1. Hawaiʻi capped off an undefeated season (and the only such team going into the bowl post-season), beating Washington and securing a major bowl appearance for the first time in the school's history. However, as with Boise State in the previous season, Hawaiʻi did not play for the BCS Championship because the Warriors' schedule was deemed too weak. In fact, with Hawaiʻi's loss in the Sugar Bowl, the 2007-08 season was the first since the 2003-04 season (and only the second in the BCS era) with no teams finishing the entire season undefeated.

In another irony, #6 Missouri was shut out of the BCS entirely when #8 Kansas was selected as one of three at-large teams. The Tigers finished higher in the BCS standings and had defeated the Jayhawks a week before the Big 12 title game. However, Kansas received a bid to the Orange Bowl; Orange Bowl officials said that they picked Kansas because the Jayhawks had only one loss, while Missouri had two losses, both to Big 12 champion Oklahoma. Since BCS rules do not allow more than two teams from one conference to get a bid, Missouri was ineligible for an at-large bid. Missouri defeated Arkansas 38-7 in the Cotton Bowl. Kansas also went on to defeat #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl by a score of 24-21, making no clear argument either way. Ohio State and LSU came in 1st and 2nd in the final BCS rankings, securing the BCS championship game between those two on January 7.

Before "Championship Saturday," LSU was ranked #7 and Georgia was ranked #4. However, after #1 Missouri and #2 West Virginia lost, LSU was catapulted to #2 based on a 21-14 win over Tennessee in the SEC Championship Game. Many argued that the Bulldogs should not play in the National Championship game because they didn't play for—let alone win—the SEC Championship. The Bulldogs and Vols finished with identical 6-2 records atop the SEC East, but Tennessee represented the division in the championship game by virtue of beating Georgia 35-14 in October. Virginia Tech had been ranked #6, above LSU, but had to settle for the #3 slot, despite a convincing win over Boston College in the ACC Championship Game. Voters were likely influenced by LSU's crushing 48-7 defeat of Virginia Tech early in the season. Computer rankings placed Virginia Tech (0.960) and LSU (0.950) #1, and #2, respectively. The top four teams in the BCS standings were #1 Ohio State, #2 LSU, #3 Virginia Tech, and #4 Oklahoma.

Ultimately, LSU defeated Ohio State 38-24, marking the second straight season that the Buckeyes lost the national championship game to an SEC opponent and the first two-loss BCS champion. LSU received 60 of a possible 65 first-place votes in the final AP poll, the fewest for a BCS champion since 2004, when BCS champion LSU finished second in the poll to USC. Georgia, another SEC team, was second in the poll and received three first-place votes. The final two first place votes went USC and Kansas, ranked #3 and #7 respectively. Missouri, who did not play in a BCS bowl, finished fourth, and Ohio State fell to fifth after losing the championship game.

2008-09 season

Main article: 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season

See also: 2008 Big 12 Conference South Division 3-way tie controversy and 2008–09 NCAA football bowl games

In the Big 12 South division, there was a three-way tie for the division champion between Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech (all one-loss teams). The winner of that division would likely play in the national championship game if it beat Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game. Oklahoma lost to Texas 45-35, then Texas lost to Texas Tech 39-33, and then Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma 65-21. In the Big 12, the BCS standings were used to break this tie, causing the teams to jockey for votes in the human polls. In the end, Oklahoma edged out Texas for the right to represent the Big 12 South in the conference championship game. Despite the head to head loss to the Longhorns earlier in the season, the computer rankings ranked the Sooners' schedule ahead of the Longhorns. Another BCS conference, the SEC, merely uses the BCS standings to eliminate one team in a three-way tie and then use head to head to determine tiebreakers, which would have worked in Texas' favor.

Going into the conference championship games, only four teams—Alabama, Utah, Ball State and Boise State—were undefeated. However, in the event of an Alabama loss, Utah, Ball State, and Boise State had no realistic chance at a title game berth because their schedules were deemed too weak. As it turned out, Alabama lost to one-loss Florida in the SEC Championship Game, vaulting the Gators to the second spot in the final BCS rankings and a matchup in the title game against Oklahoma. Alabama fell to fourth, behind Texas.

Utah and Boise State both finished in the top 15 of the BCS standings (in fact, both were in the top 10), and were thus eligible for BCS at-large spots. It was generally understood, however, that only one team would get a berth, as it would be hard to justify allowing a second mid-major conference team into a BCS bowl over a BCS conference runner-up. Utah qualified automatically as the highest ranked (in the top 12) non-BCS conference champion and defeated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Boise State (#9 in the BCS) and TCU (#11) were matched up in the Poinsettia Bowl, marking the first time in history that a bowl featured two teams from non-BCS conferences ranked higher than both participants in a BCS bowl game in the same season (the Orange Bowl matched #12 Cincinnati and #19 Virginia Tech). TCU defeated Boise State 17–16, and Utah won the Sugar Bowl to finish as the nation's only undefeated team.

After the season, the Mountain West Conference made a proposal at the Bowl Championship Series commissioners' annual spring meetings in Pasadena, California in conjunction with the Rose Bowl's staging the 2010 BCS title game. The meetings were held during the week of April 20, 2009. The Mountain West Conference commissioner has proposed that a selection committee replace the polls and computers, an eight-team playoff system put in place, and changes to the automatic qualifier rules. On June 24, 2009, the BCS presidential oversight committee rejected the eight-team playoff plan.

United States Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has indicated that he would hold congressional hearings on the BCS in the future after his Utah team failed to play in the national championship game.

2009-10 season

Main article: 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season

See also: 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games

By mid-October, it was obvious that Florida and Alabama would face off in the 2009 SEC Championship Game, and the winner would play in the BCS title game. It was also generally believed that Texas would get the other spot if it won the 2009 Big 12 Championship Game, despite concerns about a weak non-conference schedule and a surprising lack of quality teams in the Big 12. Ultimately, in a repeat of the 2004-05 season, five teams finished the season undefeated—Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State.

Texas won the Big 12 title game, and with it a spot in the BCS title game, in controversial fashion. As the game clock appeared to run out with Nebraska winning 12-10; officials ruled that the time left on the clock was reviewable and ordered 1 second put back on the clock, allowing the Longhorns to kick a field goal for a 13-12 win, a result that left Nebraska coach Bo Pelini claiming that it was part of a BCS conspiracy. Earlier, Alabama had trounced Florida in the SEC title game to earn the other slot.

Despite a convincing season-opening win over eventual Pac-10 champion Oregon, another team in the top 10 of the BCS standings, and having played 13 games rather than the 12 that TCU and Cincinnati had played, Boise State's schedule was once again deemed too weak for a spot in the championship game. Additionally, it was certain that at least two other teams would finish undefeated due to the SEC title game matchup between Alabama and Florida, as well as TCU having already completed an undefeated season. Cincinnati and TCU, however, both believed they would be in the championship game if Texas lost. Despite being ranked behind TCU going into championship weekend, Cincinnati probably had a stronger claim as it was the undefeated champion of a BCS conference, rather than an at-large team like TCU. Cincinnati did pass TCU to end up 3rd in the final BCS standings, but with the margin as slim as it was and three of the six BCS computers having placed Texas in between the two schools, no conclusions can be drawn as to what might have happened if Texas had lost.

Unrelated to the title game was the controversy regarding the bowl selections. While at #6, Boise State was able to earn an at-large berth, the announcement that they would be playing #4 TCU in the Fiesta Bowl caused an outcry, as the two "BCS Busters" would be matched up against each other and would thereby be denied the opportunity to face a top team from one of the six BCS conferences, instead providing a rematch of a non-BCS bowl from the previous year (see above). Placing two teams from non-AQ conferences in the same bowl also contradicted the previous assertion that non-AQ schools are less likely to receive at-large bids because the bowls prefer the superior drawing power of the big schools and their highly mobile fanbases—hence undefeated Boise State's omission from the BCS the previous year in favor of two-loss Ohio State. For this reason, some are calling this match up the "Separate but Equal Bowl," or the "Fiasco Bowl."

An issue of far more consequence brought to the fore as a result of this game was that of access to equal and fair competition, the access to the chance to win the "Big Game" in the first place. There was a tremendous amount of criticism surrounding the 2010 Fiesta Bowl team pairing. Many argued that the BCS was terrified of a non-BCS team defeating a BCS team and bringing into question ever more starkly the entire premise of the BCS's existence, that teams from BCS Conferences are somehow superior to non-BCS teams and are therefore more deserving to play for the championship. A defeat of a top ranked BCS team would help affirm that this premise was false - as the impressive record of non-BCS teams in BCS Bowls already hints at - so that they paired TCU and BSU together so that the possibility was eliminated. It is this perceived arrogance that is the deeper problem with the BCS and is reflected in how non-BCS teams are perceived, even in the face of tremendously impressive records. For example, in 2010, TCU is ranked #3, and yet arguments were made that this was partly because TCU played a weaker schedule, despite the reality that TCU had defeated more teams that were ranked during the season - Oregon State, Baylor, Air Force, BYU and Utah - than any team in the SEC had.

More recently, E. Gordon Gee, the president of The Ohio State University (a member of the Big Ten, a BCS conference) made public comments to the Associated Press stating that schools from non-BCS schools should not be allowed to compete for the BCS championship. "I do know, having been both a Southeastern Conference president and a Big Ten president, that it's like murderer's row every week for these schools. We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor. We play very fine schools on any given day. So I think until a university runs through that gauntlet that there's some reason to believe that they not be the best teams to [be] in the big ballgame."

Inequality of access to the BCS and the "National Championship" game, and the money that accompanies that access, continues to be at the heart of the controversy about the BCS.

Support

While there is substantial criticism aimed at the BCS system from coaches, media and fans alike, there is also support for the system. Supporters cite several key advantages that the BCS has over a playoff system. Under the BCS, a single defeat is extremely detrimental to a team's prospects for a national championship . Supporters contend that this creates a substantial incentive for teams to do their best to win every game. Under a playoff system, front-running teams could be in a position of safety at the end of the regular season and could pull or greatly reduce their use of top players in order to protect them from injuries or give them recovery time (this happens frequently in the NFL). This is very unlikely to happen in the BCS system where a team in the running for a #1 or #2 ranking at the end of the year would be nearly certain to be punished in the polls enough for a loss that the team would be eliminated from contention.

Supporters also note that while the BCS routinely involves controversy about which two teams are the top teams, in rare instances there is a clear-cut top two; the BCS ensures these top two will play each other for the championship. For example, Miami (FL) and Ohio State in 2002 were the only undefeated teams; both teams had only a couple of close contests. Under the BCS system, these two teams got to play for the championship. Before the BCS, they would likely have played two other schools, and if they both won, then there would be either two champions, or else #2 Ohio State may have been denied a championship despite going 14–0 because they were not the top-ranked team . Of course, this argument only addresses why the BCS is an improvement over the previous system. It fails to suggest that the BCS system would be superior to a playoff system.

The NCAA, the governing organization of all collegiate sports, has no official process for determining its FBS (Div. 1-A) champion. Instead, FBS champions are chosen by what the NCAA calls in its official list of champions "selecting organizations".

In 1997, pursuant to a legally binding contract, all 119 FBS universities chose the BCS as their sanctioned selecting organization. The BCS: "...is managed by the commissioners of the 11 NCAA Division I-A conferences, the director of athletics at the University of Notre Dame, and representatives of the bowl organizations. "...is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games".

This contract has no effect on any other selecting organization; it operates only on its signatories—the member universities of the FBS. Fans or media might argue, opine and arrive at differing results from those of the BCS, but the universities (teams) are bound by the latter's processes.

Still, some proponents of the BCS recognize the inconsistency that the system offers. An article taken from BCSfootball.org titled "Playoff Smayoff! We Don't Need It" openly states "...trust the process and we will get it right 80 percent of the time." As one sports writer argued, "Is it too much to ask for a system that gets it right every time" instead of getting it right 4 out of 5 times? It is interesting to note that FBS Division College Football is the single and only sport in which the NCAA has not mandated a specific bracketed playoff system, with even the Division I Football Championship Series level teams conducting a playoff every year.

See also

College football playoff debate

External links

• Congress to look into 'deeply flawed' BCS system

Further reading

• Oriard, Michael (2009). Bowled Over: Big-Time College Football from the Sixties to the BCS Era. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807833292. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)