Nearly every year since the Bowl Championship Series has been in place, someone has been left out. Whether it be an 11-0 Tulane in 1998, or an undefeated Auburn in '04. The system was put in place eleven years ago to end all controversy and crown an undisputed champion. Since 1998 however, there has rarely been a year left undisputed.
To fully examine the fairness of the BCS, we will have to look at how it has worked in the eleven previous years it has been in place. We begin with the year of its inception.
The year is 1998, Ohio State enters the season as the number one ranked team in the land. But, with an Oct. 30 loss to Michigan State, at home, the Buckeyes fall from the ranks of the unbeaten, and watch their title hopes come crashing down.
However, with losses to every team in front of them except the Tennessee Volunteers, Ohio State regains its sights on the title game.
But, the Buckeyes hopes are crushed once again when the computers choose 11-1 Florida State to play Tennessee for the national championship rather than the 11-1 Buckeyes.
This is where the controversy lies, even though Florida State lost by a margin much greater than the 28-24 defeat Ohio State suffered (24-7 to NC State), the Seminoles were given the birth in the Fiesta Bowl to play for the title.
Florida State was defeated by Tennessee in that game 23-16, while Ohio State defeated Big-12 champion Texas A&M 24-14 in the Sugar Bowl, leaving some wondering if Ohio State would have been a better choice to face Tennessee in the Fiesta Bowl.
Furthermore, 11-2 and 3rd ranked Kansas State, was completely left out of a BCS bowl after losing the Big-12 title game to A&M.
A year later, a rule was devised known as the "Kansas State Rule," which stated that a team ranked in the top four of the BCS standings would automatically receive a birth into a BCS bowl.
However, Kansas State was once again left out of the BCS after finishing 6th in the final BCS poll. The Wildcats were instead passed over by number eight Michigan.
Even more controversy came with the end of the 2000 season when the BCS computers decided to send 10-1 Florida State to its third straight title game and leave out 10-1 Miami, even though the Hurricanes had beaten Florida State in the regular season and were ranked higher in both the AP and Coaches' polls.
The Seminoles went on to lose again, 13-2 to undefeated and number-one ranked Oklahoma.
The 2001 season was even more controversial. The computers placed 4th ranked Nebraska in the title game against undefeated Miami even though Nebraska did not even play in its conference championship game.
This raised the question, "How can a team be the best in the country if they are not even the best in their conference?"
Nebraska was chosen over one-loss and Pac-10 champion Oregon, who went on to beat 3rd ranked, and Big-12 champion Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.
Nebraska, like every other scrutinized school placed in the championship game, was defeated handily, 37-14.
With exactly two teams going undefeated in 2002, the BCS worked to perfection, pairing unbeaten Ohio State against unbeaten Miami in the Fiesta Bowl.
For the first time since the system was put in place however, a member of the Big-10 did not play in the Rose Bowl, leaving Rose Bowl officials vocally upset.
The Orange Bowl selected before the Rose Bowl and took at-large winner Iowa.
Controversy returned in 2003, and in a big way.
At season's end, three teams had one loss, Oklahoma, LSU, and USC.
USC lost a triple overtime thriller at Cal, LSU lost at home to Florida, and Oklahoma was trounced 35-7 in the Big-12 championship game by Kansas State.
LSU and Oklahoma, despite not even winning the Big-12, were chosen to play for the championship, leaving USC to face Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
LSU defeated the Sooners 21-14 in the title game while USC defeated Michigan 28-14 in the Rose Bowl.
After the games, AP voters voted USC number one, despite not playing in the championship game, giving college football its fist split championship since 1997.
In 2004, three power conference teams: USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all went undefeated, leaving the BCS with a mess to figure out.
In the end, Southern Cal and Oklahoma were chosen to play in the national title. Auburn, was left to face ACC champion Virgina Tech in the Sugar Bowl.
The Trojans crushed the Sooners 55-19 while Auburn remained undefeated, beating Virginia Tech 16-13.
Controversy arose again in 2006 when the BCS selected one-loss Florida to face unbeaten Ohio State in the title game instead of one-loss Michigan.
While Florida lost 27-17 at number 10 Auburn on Oct 14, Michigan's only loss was to number one and unbeaten Ohio State, on the road by three points.
If the number two team goes on the road to face the number one team and losses a close game by three points, doesn't that mean that the rankings were correct, shouldn't that team stay number two?
Many believe that voters did not want to see an Ohio State, Michigan rematch, so Florida was given the opportunity to play in the championship game rather than what appeared to be a more deserving Michigan team.
In 2007, a two-loss LSU team was placed in the title game to face one-loss Ohio State, despite Kansas only having one loss.
In 2008,12-1 Oklahoma was chosen over 11-1 Texas to face Florida in the championship game despite having lost to the Longhorns during the regular season.
2009 has brought even more trouble to the BCS. As it currently stands, four power conference teams are undefeated. (Florida, Alabama, Texas, and Cincinnati)
Florida and Alabama will most likely play each other in the SEC title game, eliminating the loser. But, if the others win out, we will again have three undefeated automatic qualifying teams vying for a spot in the championship game.
Along with the four undefeated AQ (automatic qualifying) teams, there are two other undefeated teams, TCU and Boise State.
These non-automatic qualifying teams have also been a problem for the BCS.
Non-BCS conference teams are eligible for a BCS bowl if they are ranked in the top 12, or if they are ranked in the top 16, and higher than at least one BCS conference champion. However, no more than one team from a non-BCS conference is allowed in.
Since 1998, nine teams have met these qualifications, yet the rule was not put in place until after the 2005 season.
Non-AQ teams have a 3-1 record in BCS bowls.
This season, undefeated TCU and Boise State are ranked 4th, and 6th respectively in the latest BCS standings. If both teams were to win out, they would both qualify for a BCS bowl. However, since only one non-BCS team is allowed in, the lower ranked team would be left out, despite meeting automatic qualifications.
So if the BCS is not the best system, what is?
Many would like to see the bowls return to the old system, where the winners from each conference play in their respective bowl, and voters determine a champion after the bowls have been played.
The good thing about this system is that it preserves the sanctity of the bowl system, and gets rid of all controversy about who plays in which bowl.
However, under this system, there will be split championships, and no one wants that, because no one likes to tie. It's the reason we have overtime, right?
Others would like to see a playoff, similar to how every other sport crowns their champion. But there are pros and cons to this as well.
The great aspect of a playoff would be that all controversy would be decided on the field. Each team would have a chance to prove that they deserve to play for the title.
Say an eight-team playoff is adopted, with the six BCS conference champions receiving automatic bids and two others receiving at-large bids. The eight teams duke it out and our champion is crowned.
Sounds like the perfect system, right? Well, not so fast.
How are the two at-large teams determined? If the playoff was in place this year who would receive the at-large bids?
As is stands, the automatic bids would go to Ohio State (Big Ten), Texas (Big 12), Cincinnati (Big East), Georgia Tech (ACC), Florida/Alabama (SEC), and Oregon/Oregon St. (Pac-1o).
The question now is, who gets the other two spots?
TCU and Boise are both undefeated, but play in week conferences. The loser of Florida/Alabama would have one loss, but it would be to the SEC champion. So who gets left out?
Regardless of how many teams are let in the playoffs, someone will always be left out, and there will always be controversy.
The playoff systems also ruins the tradition of the Bowls, a staple of college football.
So although a playoff may seem appetizing, it may not be the answer.
Another option would be a plus-one system.
Under this system, the bowls could return to their old form and their old conference tie-ins.
Thus, the winner of the Big Ten would face the winner of the Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl, Big East verse ACC in the Orange Bowl, SEC against an at-large in the Sugar Bowl, and the winner of the Big-12 against an at-large in the Fiesta Bowl.
After the bowls, the top two teams would be voted on, and would play in the national championship game.
Although there still could be some controversy over the top two teams after the bowls are played, the games would at least give the voters an opportunity to see the teams against other highly ranked teams.
The system also preserves the sanctity of the bowl system.
If this system had been in place in previous years, all the teams that were snubbed out of the title game but went on to win their game, (Ohio State, Miami, Oregon, USC, Auburn, and Texas) would have had the opportunity to play for the championship.
In reality, there may be no perfect system, but there has to be one better than what we have now.
