YCS Roundtable: The BCS

It's coming to be that time of year again, when the debate over the college football postseason rages across the land between Bowl traditionalists, BCS apologists, and Playoff advocates. To get a pulse, I'd like to ask every YCS writer to opine, without resorting to threats of violence or childish name-calling.

The motivation for writing this piece comes from a CSTV piece where the National Title game is discussed, especially in the light of #1 Ohio State and #2 Michigan's potential clash of unbeatens to end the season.

CSTV's Brian Curtis says in the above video that if Michigan or Ohio State barely lose to each other, then there should be a rematch in the BCS Title Game instead of the appearance by a potentially undefeated Big East team like West Virginia or Louisville. Curtis's argument is that the Big East teams "Haven't played anybody besides themselves."

For argument's sake, let's examine nonconference schedules.
Rutgers (8-0) : Won @ UNC, Blew out Illinois, Blew out Howard, Blew out Navy, Blew out Ohio
Louisville (7-0): Beat Kentucky, @ Temple , @ Kansas State, @ MTSU, and Miami (FL) all in blowouts
West Virginia (7-0): Blew out Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland, @Mississippi State, and won @ East Carolina.

What do all these schools have in common? All three handily trounced their nonconference schedules, and each of them destroyed at least two teams from a more respected BCS conference, with at least one of those victories coming on the road. Admittedly, the other BCS teams are in the lower half of their league, but at least they're playing them.

Now let's look at Ohio State and Michigan.
Ohio State (9-0): Blew out Northern Illinois, @Texas, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green.
Michigan (9-0): Blew out Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, @ Notre Dame, and prepares for a tough test against Ball State this weekend.

Louisville alone has played three BCS conference teams. Ohio State and Michigan combined have played four (If you include Notre Dame).

This is the nature of non-conference schedules. Aside from maybe one marquee game per team like Ohio State-Texas, they ALL tend to suck, regardless of conference affiliation. So the Big East's marquee wins are against less impressive opposition. Fair enough, but aside from one hat-hanging win, and some blowouts against a collection of patsies, could anything be said differently for the Big Ten? Is Michigan hanging its national title hopes on an undefeated conference season and a win over a decidedly overrated Notre Dame team any different than Louisville hanging its hopes on an undefeated conference season and a win over a decidedly overrated Miami team?

Duh. Yes it is. The Big Ten is of course a stronger conference than the Big East, at least on paper, right? My point is if you're Brian Curtis and are going to make the argument that a Big Ten runner-up is more deserving of a spot in the National Title game than an undefeated Big East champion, then say it's because of their stronger schedule and team as a whole, not just their non-conference schedule.

If Big East teams, don't play any quality teams besides themselves, that is tacitly saying that the Big East is a quality conference. If an undefeated Big East team doesn't merit more consideration than a 1-loss Big Ten team, then what's the point of even having the Big East in the BCS if they're just going to be a BCS bridesmaid? How do we know an undefeated Big East champion isn't better than a Big Ten runner-up if they don't play on the field? If West Virginia and Louisville suck so much to not warrant national title consideration if they run the table, why are they ranked #3 and #5?

The only semblance of a measuring stick we have here is to compare the conferences against each other. In games between Big East teams and Big Ten teams this year, the series is tied 3-3, mostly with the powers of one conference picking off the bottom-feeders of the other
(Michigan State over Pitt, Ohio State over Cincinnati, Iowa over Syracuse, Syracuse over Illinois, Rutgers over Illinois, Connecticut over Indiana.) Hardly a definitive statement of Big Ten hegemony on the field.

I'm coming around to the conclusion that if a 1-loss Michigan/Ohio State team beats out an undefeated Big East team for the national title game, we need to either ditch the polls or ditch the bowls (BCS doesn't rhyme). If we just want the two best teams to play each other regardless of final record, then forget the BCS, and let's just have the writers have their #1 and #2 teams in the final regular season polls play each other. It sure would simplify things. But if we want running the table in a BCS conference and winning games on the road against BCS conference teams to count for something, then either the Big East undefeated champion should be in the national title game, or we need to rethink the whole idea. The polls should then be irrelevant in selection, like with the NCAA basketball tournament. The selection committee would look at what each team did on the field, not at what the writers think, and seed teams accordingly.

DISCLAIMER: This post is not to imply that I think West Virginia, Louisville, or Rutgers is a better team than Michigan or Ohio State, or that the Big East is a better conference than the Big Ten, or that I endorse a playoff. I'm merely saying that untill the conference champions play each other on the field, no one knows for sure who is better. That's why they play the games.