A Logical Argument for the BCS?

Listening to ESPN radio the other day I actually heard a logical argument in favor of the BCS. Around this time of season with numerous teams facing snubbing from a National Title bid, criticism of the system runs high. Usually when criticism becomes very public, a BCS representative comes out with a very condescending reply saying how people don't really understand what they are talking about and that the system is fine. An objective listener, however, wrote into the show in order to defend the BCS system. He wrote that the BCS is the only real system that will work because the different levels of competition will not make a long playoff system fair. Basically, the BCS is the best system because it is the only system that gives teams like TCU and Boise State a chance of qualifying for the title. If TCU were to be put in a playoff system, they can't really be expected to, for example, beat USC, then Texas, then Florida, etc. A national title bid gives TCU a one game chance to win.

This is perhaps the best argument I've heard in favor of the BCS, but the unequal competition of teams would be wiped away with a playoff system. The secret is in recruiting. Teams like Texas will have more consistent success recruiting over teams like TCU because they are in a BCS conference. These teams are more prestigious, have more history, and get more media coverage. There are plenty of people who would rather go to TCU than Texas for various reasons, but Texas still dominates recruiting in football. Florida, Florida State, and Miami have more recruiting success than UCF of Florida International. Southern Cal, Cal Berkeley, and UCLA have more recruiting success than San Diego State. The list goes on and on. If college football changes to a playoff system in which all conference winners make the playoffs, the recruiting bump of BCS conferences disappears. Recruits can go to teams like Boise State and TCU and still be national contenders because they will earn playoff spots.

To argue that the level of competition is still unfair defeats the purpose of the divisional system. We have Division 2 and 3 teams because of this. We even have Division 1 AA teams (I refuse to call Division 1 teams by the new names like FBS because they're stupid). If you believe these teams would still not be able to compete against one another for a championship, then you either need to send them to lower divisions or force conferences to bring in the successful non BCS teams. For example, the PAC 10 could drop Washington State and bring in Boise State. The Big 12 could drop Baylor and pick up TCU. The point is that only BCS conferences are guaranteed recognition yet good teams like Boise State and TCU get screwed because they can't get into a conference that they could compete for.

The competition argument also fails to address the problem of multiple BCS teams that go undefeated. In 2004 USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all went undefeated. You can't tell me Auburn didn't get a shot because they couldn't compete against USC or Oklahoma. This season we may see an undefeated Texas, Cincinnati, and either Florida or Alabama. All three teams will be undefeated BCS teams. The only way to determine who really deserves a title shot is a PLAYOFF SYSTEM!!!!!

What glory is there for teams like TCU to make the playoffs and get blown out against a team like Florida? Look at March Madness. To win one's conference and earn a playoff spot would still be a major accomplishment. It would also give teams the chance to compete which is what they really want. Don't forget, Utah was able to upset Alabama in the Sugar Bowl last season. These non BCS teams may be able to get farther into the playoffs then many may think. We'll never know until they get their shot.