Bowl Championship Series meets defeat

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Amanda Fletcher
 Kelly Rayburn
 Marcelle Richards
 Vytas Mazeika
 Corey McEleney
 Linh Tat

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

If the Bowl Championship Series standings proved one thing this
year, it’s that they are consistent ““ consistently
inaccurate.

First, the BCS had the undefeated Miami Hurricanes ranked second
for much of the season based on their strength of schedule. It then
slighted Oregon out of the Rose Bowl, giving the nod to Nebraska.
And as a grand finale, the BCS computers paired up eight teams that
resulted in four blow outs. None of the bowl games ““ the
Fiesta, Sugar, Orange or Rose ““ were even remotely
interesting by the fourth quarter.

True, the BCS was correct in ranking the Miami Hurricanes (12-0)
number one at the end of the season. But we didn’t need
supercomputers and complicated algorithms to figure that out.

Currently, the BCS computers factor in strength of schedule,
losses and the quality of wins, along with USA Today/ESPN Coaches
and AP Media Polls to determine weekly college rankings. Limiting
the ranking system to these factors ““ and minimizing human
involvement ““ makes the system random and unreflective of
reality. For example, teams can be retroactively punished if their
opponents lose ground in future games, regardless of the
opponent’s quality and rank at the beginning of the
schedule.

So it’s not Nebraska’s fault that they were ranked
number two and forced to endure a thorough beating on national
television. After all, the BCS computers said that they were the
next best team after the Hurricanes. Would Oregon have given Miami
a better game? The BCS standings say no.

Oregon head coach Mike Bellotti feels differently. “I
liken the BCS to a bad disease, like cancer,” Bellotti said,
after Nebraska was chosen to play Miami in the Rose Bowl. Oregon
went on to the Fiesta Bowl, thoroughly beating Colorado, the team
that beat Nebraska late in the season.

The mix-up created by the BCS could be easily avoided if college
football were to adopt a winner-take-all tournament to determine
the number-one team. But with the BCS system scheduled to be around
for another four years, it’s up to the commissioners to make
the best of it.

By working a playoff system into their beleaguered BCS ranking
system, it would allow them to save face while giving the players,
coaches and fans what they really want ““ a playoff system to
fairly determine the national champion.

Letting the BCS decide the top teams to play would help ensure
that the winners of each major conference and a select few at-large
teams would all be given the chance to play for the national
championship in a systematic playoff.

This would minimize the impact of the ranking system on the
national championship game, and leave it to the top teams in the
nation to play for the title. After all, you cannot accurately rank
the top teams in the country without seeing them match up against
each other.

Surely, the commissioners of America’s top six college
conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC) feel
differently. They instituted the BCS system four years ago for the
sole reason of mathematically determining the top 25 teams in
college football. The BCS is their brain-child, and has a contract
that runs to 2006, the BCS experiment is here to stay, for better
or worse.

The commissioners can talk all they want about adjusting the
ranking system, from minimizing the importance of the computer
polls to awarding bonus points to conference champions. But the
bottom line is that no matter what adjustments are made this
winter, not even the powerful minds that control the BCS standings
(or any calculated ranking system) can be perfect.