In Jan. 2007, the Boise State Broncos took the college football world by storm with their overtime upset of Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Since then, it seems as if the Broncos are always in the hunt for the national title. However, since (and including) that 2006 season, Boise State has gone 63-5 with two undefeated seasons. Their worst record has been 10-3. Their best? 14-0. Second best? 13-0. What do they have to show for that streak of excellence, a streak that is one of the best in recent memory? Two BCS appearances, two Fiesta Bowl victories in those appearances, no national championships, and not even one National Championship Game appearance. Now that the Broncos have left the WAC and are now in the stronger Mountain West, will the doubters still exist? Of course they will. But the time has come to examine their argument.
Last season, one-loss Boise State was heavily punished for one bad loss to a good Nevada team on the road by being relegated from a BCS bowl to the Maaco Las Vegas Bowl, where they beat a good Utah team 26-3. Earlier that season, the Broncos beat Virginia Tech in the first game of the season. The Hokies would go on to lose to lowly FCS opponent James Madison the next week. Virginia Tech played in a BCS bowl last year, only to be destroyed on both sides of the ball by Stanford. So, Virginia Tech lost their first two games, one to the Broncos and the other to JMU. And the only Boise State loss was to a good Nevada team, a loss that wouldn't have even happened if it weren't for two shanked kicks by BSU kicker Kyle Brotzman. And VT deserved a BCS bowl bid more than Boise State? According to this logic, 5-7 Indiana (who weren't even eligible for a bowl, and therefore didn't play in one) should have been in the Rose Bowl, while undefeated TCU should have been playing in the Poinsettia Bowl. Should Boise State really have had their bowl game moved from perhaps Jan. 10 (the National Championship) to Dec. 22 just because of two missed kicks?
Let me be clear: This is not the case for a playoff. The BCS system is, to an extent, fine the way it is. It rewards the champions of the "best" six conferences, while allowing teams from "lesser" conferences the chance to break in and surprise people. However, the system can be fine-tuned. The best way to fine-tune the system is to make it so that undefeated teams are BCS games including the National Championship first. In other words, the BCS and committees for the specific games may not choose a one-loss team above an undefeated team unless there are no undefeated teams at all in the entire nation. After that, it is entirely up to each committee to determine who goes where. Tiebreakers would be settled using head-to-head matchups if applicable, then average offensive yards per game. Maybe this isn't a perfect system, but college football is not a perfect sport.
In the opinion of this writer, it is the most corrupt team sport in the world. But for some reason, we can't get away from watching it and debating about it. College basketball allows Cinderella stories, such as NC State and Villanova in the 1980s, and George Mason and VCU in 2006 and 2011 respectively, to have a real shot at a national championship. In football, this can be done without a playoff. It can be done by simply letting a team that has been perfect all season put their talents to the ultimate test. If a team is good enough to win 12 or 13 games in an entire season without missing a beat, why should a team that has lost once or twice be given a chance over them? Trick question. They shouldn't.
