BCS or Just BS?

The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) ranking is the current system in place for determining the single champion of NCAA Division I-A college football play each season. The rankings of the BCS combine the factors of two human polls, the Coach's Poll and the Associated Press Poll, (accounting for two-thirds of the ranking) and a computer-based rankings (contributing the last third). Whether or not this is the most logical and reasonable method for doing so each season has, and continues to be a hot topic for debate at a national level each year. The topic has remained so controversial, in fact, that it has even gained Presidential recognition in the recent past.

The BCS ranking system was implemented in 1998 in order to facilitate the determination of a national champion in NCAA Division I-A football while helping preserve its century old bowl system. Although modifications have been made to the BCS ranking system since its creation, most importantly the weight human polls contribute to the rankings, there is still debate as to whether or not this system is legitimate.

The sheer number of football teams that currently play at the collegiate level of Division 1-A, makes the task of determining a single team the true "national champion" each year daunting by itself. The BCS promotes its current system as the best alternative to a true playoff series amongst the top-ranked teams nationally each year. This argument stands true for the time being, as a playoff system amongst all of the BCS conferences would be quite time consuming and complicated. The BCS was originally established by the six most powerful conferences at the time, but has since allowed others (at least four) to participate to some degree in their shot at the national title each year.

Since the creation of the BCS, the system has generated controversy nearly every year as at least one team that has gone undefeated during regular season play has been denied a chance to be crowned the "national champion" of that season's play. Because the system takes into account to some degree the overall strength of schedule, the BCS defends this as a reasonable and plausible explanation. Even though the BCS has some backing to the explanation of its rankings, the topic of finishing a season undefeated and not being allowed a chance to play in the championship game has been the topic of much debate.

The BCS ranking system, in an overall sense, claims itself to provide an overall sensation of playoff games throughout the entire regular season of college football play. Based on the prior argument concerning the fact that many undefeated teams who are members of the BCS have been denied a chance to play in the championship match-up, this topic is debatable. Although official BCS rankings are not released until after inter-conference play takes place each season, the AP and Coach's Poll, which account for two-thirds of the BCS rankings, are established during and even before the BCS rankings are officially released, teams are subject to judgment prior to entering the BCS ranking arena. Because of the fact that a systematic ranking by computer analysis accounts for the remaining third of the vote in the rankings, there are some questions that arise as to whether or not the BCS ranking system is rational.

Collegiate athletes are not allowed to be paid for their performance on the field, but a great majority of them have aspirations to advance to a professional-level at which they will be paid post college. Based on the current BCS ranking scenario, a loss later in the season has much more potential to negatively effect a team's overall standing at the end of regular-season play. Because of this effect, it becomes increasingly important for teams in race for playing in the national championship game to continue winning the entire season even if they have clearly established themselves as an undisputed candidate based on prior performance. The fact that losses later in the season have a more profound impact on a team's overall final standings, often requires that teams continue to play their top-performing athletes despite injuries in order to maintain their ranking. If a playoff system were to be implemented, the chances of injured athletes having the opportunity to restore their health to a higher level would be increased if one loss late in the season would not ruin their entire hopes of playing in the championship game. This point seems to be reasonable from both the players' and spectators' points of view, as both would like to maximize and preserve their positive gains provided via football.

The debate surrounding whether or not the BCS is legit or just BS is something college football fans will have to endure until something else is implemented for determining the national champion for the time being. The arguments both for and against the BCS seem to make a lot of sense and endless depending on who you're talking to. For now, the iron remains hot, and moldable... What changes we will see in the future remains unclear for now though.

jm

The Red River Shootout

The Red River Shootout continues to remain one of the hottest and most controversial topics in college football. Not only is this game important as one of the biggest and most famous rivalries in the Big XII conference, but often merits national importance in NCAA football standings.

The annual match up between the football teams from The University of Texas and The University of Oklahoma have taken place since 1900. The game has been played in Dallas since 1912. The so-called 'neutral' location that this game has and will continue being played at, (at least until 2015), has been the cause and focus of much controversy and debate. Although the Dallas location that has been home to the game for nearly a century now, and is nearly equidistant between the two rivals, it is not the true home turf of either rival. Oklahoma argues the fact that the game is played within the Texas borders and puts them at a disadvantage. Both teams make the argument that the game counts as a home game for one of the teams, alternating each season, even though the game is never truly played at their home field.

The Cotton Bowl has been home to The Red River Shootout since 1932. The fact that the stadium has limited seating and was becoming quite rundown until recent renovations over the past few years fueled arguments against allowing the game to remain at the Dallas location. Although The Cotton Bowl now seats more that OU's home stadium after the recent renovations, it still seats less than UT's home at DKR Memorial Stadium.

Another part of the debate on whether the game should remain being played in Dallas deals with the economic aspects surrounding the game. Being one of the biggest games played each year in the Big XII conference, it is estimated that The Red River Shootout generates an approximate $17 million in profits for Dallas area businesses. Although the arguments are stronger from the Oklahoma side, businesses located in both teams' hometowns can argue that this is a potential gain worth fighting for in the debate involving whether or not the game should be alternate between the two rivals' true hometowns. Oklahoma sincerely argues that its businesses never have a chance of seeing the economic benefits this game generates, while The University of Texas is in fact receiving some residual benefits annually.

Although it seems the arguments for both teams remain strong for moving the location of the game to be played alternating between their two actual home turfs, there are many who will argue the opposite. With the new renovations made to The Cotton Bowl, the stadium has improved its seating capacity and amenities and allows ticket sales that split the stadium equally between Texas and Oklahoma fans. With the newly signed contract to keep the game being played at The Cotton Bowl, each team is now receiving $850,000 in grant money which was in past only $250,000. To many, discontinuing playing this game at the Dallas location would mean breaking tradition that has taken place over the better part of a century, and perhaps lead to a lessening of the rivalries between the two schools from a spectator's standpoint. Of the 90,000 seats available inside The Cotton Bowl, the game attracts far more spectators than are actually allowed inside who contribute to each teams' spirit in the rivalry. Based on this level of attendance, hosting the game in Austin, Texas would be clearly reasonable, however, is Norman, Oklahoma capable of accommodating this large of an unruly crowd?

Regardless of what or how strong the debates that surround this situation are at this point, The Red River Shootout will be played at The Cotton Bowl until 2015. Assuredly, further negotiations and debates are to come in the future...

Leaving all matters aside from the debate over the future of The Red River Shootout, OU and its fans clearly have other issues to think about in the meanwhile...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOamsw24IvE

jm