Page 2 of 2   <      

BCS title game crowns a champion of a fraudulent system

There is no reason to believe football would be any different if the champion was legitimately decided on the field. Did you know: The old bowl system was far more equitable and outsiders had a better shot at a championship. In seven of the 10 years immediately preceding the creation of the BCS in 1998, the national title was claimed by teams outside of the power conferences. Including Miami, which was then an independent.

The BCS is getting it wrong most of the time.

The BCS also loves to argue that it's simply the result of a free-market system. Actually, it flies in the face of market forces.

Did you know: In the last four years the major bowl games involving the Mountain West and WAC teams on average had higher ratings and larger game attendance than the major bowls involving the ACC and Big East.

So did the MWC and WAC receive more money for that performance? Not under the BCS. Instead they received about half of what the ACC and Big East got.

"How exactly has the market demanded this system?" Fishel asks.

And how is such discrimination necessary in shaping a national championship game? If the North Carolina Tar Heels were eliminated from winning an NCAA basketball title before the season began, would we tolerate it? If the Red Sox were eliminated from the pennant race before the season began, wouldn't we consider the Red Sox and their fans "harmed" by such a system?

We'll have a true national championship game on the day that the BCS invites unrestricted competition, instead of eliminating half the competition. Until then, no team can claim a real victory.

<       2

© 2011 The Washington Post Company