" (Barrett) .
Candy Reagan, of the Abilene Reporter News and strong supporter of some sort of playoff system in college football, feels that letting computers have a say in who is crowned national champion is "about as bad as letting a bunch of coaches and sports writers decide." I disagree with this statement. Not only is it "about as bad," but it's much, much worse. The BCS was created to take on more of an objective view and get rid of the bowl alliances and tie-ins that were common with the previous bowl structures. It was successful in accomplishing that, however, it has put a very rigid and almost unfair spin on how the college football season is decided. .
The 2001 football season is one example to illustrate this point. At the end of the season Oklahoma was the only team that remained unbeaten so they were the obvious number one. However, a whole slew of teams with one loss were battling for the second spot and the deciding factor ended up being a computer figured strength of schedule output. The result was Florida State would be ranked number two, just ahead of Miami. The fact that Florida State had a slightly stronger schedule than Miami apparently out-weighed the fact that the Seminoles lost to the Hurricanes earlier in the season. Similarly, Miami lost to Washington, who was ranked fourth. Go figure. .
My point is that college football needs a change of scenery. It's good that they've done away the poll system, but it's time for the BCS to go. It has done nothing but create controversy every year that it has been in existence. This season, up until about two weeks ago, it looked as though Miami, Ohio State, and Georgia would not lose a game. Georgia did end up losing to Florida but, as Breck Brewer writes, "What happens if three teams are undefeated at the end of the regular season?" (Brewer) Do two teams get to play for the title while the third watches from home? Unfortunately the answer to that question is yes.
