The BCS vs. the Old Bowl System

At this time of year, sports journalists invariably write articles showing their versions of a playoff system, like this one from Dan Wetzel. That there is so much conversation around having a playoff tournament at this time of year remains solid evidence that the BCS is an utter failure as a post-season national championship format. No one is writing articles about how cool it would be if the NFL, or NCAA Div. 1-AA could have a series of polls and computers decide which two teams should play for their national championships.

For what it's worth, I love Wetzel's 16-team imaginary tournament. The matchups would be fun. In fact, I agree with everything he wrote with one exception: Wetzel contends that the BCS is better than the old bowl system. It is not.

The old bowl system was never about crowning a national champion. The old bowl system relished league champions, and there is something to be said for that. Complete with conference tie-ins, the bowls were a celebration, and conclusion, of a regular season of conference play. The Big 8 Champion was rewarded with the Orange Bowl... Pac 10 & Big 10, with the Rose... The Southwestern Conference with the Cotton, Southeastern with the Sugar... With a focus on conference champions rather than a national champion, every one of these bowl games (and I would argue the lesser bowls as well) had a special significance and was meaningful in a way that has been lost under the current system.

There was no pretense that the old bowl system was producing a national champion, nor had the responsibility to. So-called National Champions were voted and named, beginning with the Associated Press in 1936. Certainly polls like the AP, post-1968 at least, took bowl performance into account in determining a final set of rankings (prior to 1968, the AP national champion was crowned before the bowls), so this isn't to say that the bowls didn't have an impact on who would be viewed as a national champion.

Nor would I argue that voting for champions in a poll a good way to determine a national champion. The AP national champion was exactly that - the AP national champion. There was no pretense that the #1-ranked team in a poll was anything more than the #1-ranked team in a poll.

Even then for the most part, the polls would get it right - there would be general consensus around the country that the right team was rated #1. At worst, there would be occasional years where two teams would win their conference championship and bowl game, and have a reasonable claim at #1 (1997 comes to mind, with Nebraska and Michigan both finishing undefeated seasons with bowl wins). The solution would usually be a split-national championship, AP giving one, UPI/ESPN giving the other. Whatever controversy this caused during those occasional years pales in comparison to the annual controversy provided consistently by the current system.

The BCS is worse - far worse - precisely because it holds up that pretense of crowning a national champion, sanctioned by the NCAA, college football presidents and athletic departments. And because it fails so miserably at doing so, when any number of playoff formats provide clear and better alternatives. This year we will again have a number of 1-loss BCS teams and undefeated mid-major teams with reasonable claims to post-season championship eligibility. And again, the BCS will pick two, leaving no fewer than five others out.

If we are determined to avoid a post-season format that can crown a worthy national champion on the field, then let's stop pretending we care about a National Championship and go back to the days where Conference Championships were king.

If we can't have a real playoff tournament, give me the Old Bowl System over the BCS any day.