by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 12, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

urning 65 sports writers in the Associated Press and 63 coaches in the USA Today/ESPN polls on their heads, the BCS [Bowl Championship Series] rejected the No. 1 ranked USC Trojans, picking instead No. 2 Oklahoma and No. 3 Louisana State University to play the Jan. 4 Nokia Sugar Bowl national championship game at the Superdome in New Orleans. USC and No. 4 Michigan will square off in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. “We're real proud of where we are, excited as we can be to playing in the Rose Bowl, and to be the No. 1 team in the nation,” said USC Coach Pete Carroll, finding a silver lining after his team was passed over for the national championship. With its arcane software, the BCS computer ranked Oklahoma No. 1, despite getting blown out by Kansas State in its conference championship, leaving BCS credibility severely damaged.

     Without a real playoff, college football relies heavily on national polls to select bowl championships, matching top-rated teams to the most prestigious bowls. Nokia's Sugar Bowl receives top billing, picking the No. 1 and No. 2-rated teams. Since created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences, the BCS controlled the selection process, combining national polls with its own criteria, like “strength of schedule,” to make its standings. When Hawaii lost of Boise state, the BCS computer downgraded USC, handing the Sugar Bowl to Oklahoma and LSU, despite the Sooner's crushing loss to Kansas State. On pure numbers, Oklahoma still out-pointed LSU and USC, bouncing the No. 1-ranked Trojans out of contention. For two consecutive years, teams that lost conference championship games still advanced to the Sugar Bowl, despite losing the biggest game of the season.

     As long as national championships have significance, the BCS computer must rely heavily on national polls, especially where top-rated teams can't win conference championships. Without deferring to national polls, the BCS has no public credibility, except with a few elitists crunching the numbers. No idiosyncratic system—however cleverly devised—can replace the judgment of coaches and sports writers commissioned with making the ultimate judgments about the best college teams. “With the events of this year, we'd be foolish if we didn't look at this again in the spring,” said BCS coordinator Mike Tranghese, unwilling to reevaluate the flawed process by which USC was excluded from the national championship. No matter how well teams do during the regular season, if they can't win conference championships they shouldn't play for the national title.

     No amount of smoke and mirrors can circumvent the judgment—and common sense—of coaches and sports writers. "At the end of the day, ‘strength of schedule' turned out to be the determining factor,” said Tranghese, making more excuses how the BCS failed. “Strength of schedule” didn't sacrifice the Trojan's season: It was the BCS's arrogance, rigidity and unwillingness to get outside input to help make the right decision. Instead of defending the infallibility of the BCS, Tranghese should have asked for more guidance. Like the 2000 presidential election, the BCS played Supreme Court, arbitrarily throwing common sense to the wind. While there's nothing wrong with the Rose Bowl, the No. 1 ranked Trojans deserved to play for the national title, regardless of how the BCS computer crunched the numbers. No top ranked team should be denied access to the best bowl game.

     Unwilling to criticize the BCS, USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett—a former SC Heisman Trophy winner—passively accepted defeat. "We're talking about a contract we signed on to. Things don't always work out how you want,” said Garrett, not recognizing that the latest BCS snafu should not be tolerated for any reason. Contracts aside, when national sports writers and coaches pick the No. 1 team, no computer or contract should take precedence. Only filing a formal protest and forcing the BCS into some kind of objective arbitration could resolve the problem. As long as college football plays by the rules, coaches, players and fans must have recourse when circumstances go haywire. No bureaucrat inside the BCS has the right to upend the meritocracy that eventually picks a national champ. No rationale excuses the BCS from objectively picking the top teams in college football.

     Whether college football eventually goes to a legitimate playoff system is anyone's guess. Strong objections sill exist within the academic community. Since the BCS was created to more fairly rate football teams, it's obligated to seek help when its own quirky system breaks down. When the AP and USA Today polls picked USC as the nation's No. 1 team, the BCS was obligated to take those rankings seriously. No amount of exotic number crunching can reverse the wisdom and consensus of national polls. “I don't think anyone will know who the legitimate national champion is unless all three teams in consideration get the opportunity to play one another,” said LSU Coach Nick Saban, failing to acknowledge the BCS obligation of picking the right teams. With Oklahoma getting blown out in their conference final and national polls picking USC as No. 1, choosing the right opponent wasn't rocket science.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.