Yes, its imperfect. Yes, a lot of teams are where they should not be. Ive personally done loads of research on sports (in the pathetic hopes of landing a job somewhere on ESPN) and this is what Ive found: the panel of experts brought in to create the BCS were the finest coaching minds in college football (rumor has it that Jimmy Johnson, Eddie Robinson, and Barry Switzer had parts in it). Having said that, everybody has a different idea of the perfect system, and the worst thing you can do is incorporate incompatible parts of each. Strength of schedule is determined from opponents last years records (ex. if Notre Dame went 13-1 last year, that would make all their opponents schedules rank higher, even if, when they come around on this years schedule, they are 0-6). Current opponent strength has very little to do with the BCS score.
I know, theres not just that. But I think now some important points should be addressed:
1) Theres not going to be a playoff system. Ever. In the age of television sponsorship, theres just too much money to be lost.
2) 99% of the time, public opinion is that there is a definitive national champion. (sorry Oregon fans) No more Nebraska/Michigan nonsense.
3) A win is a win, even a near win. And losses do make teams go down the rankings, just not much. Look at it this way: If Florida State was #1, everyone on the team contracted the flu and they lost to unranked Tallahassee State Basket Weaving College, should they lose their ranking and TSBWC become the new #1?
I think one of the best things about the BCS is that it compensates for fluke wins and losses.
Thats my rant. I agree that the BCS needs a lot of tuning up, but its better than most alternatives. And the Associated Press and college coaches are getting along better than ever
P.s. The Oklahoma fans got really quiet all of a sudden...
