Reactions: BCS Mess

Earlier in the week, SI.com asked its readers to sound off on the BCS situation. Was it supposed to end the debate over which teams plays for the national title? Is the BCS' Sugar Bowl matchup the championship game? Should the system be "under further review" -- or is it doing what was expected? Is this the time to truly explore a playoff system for Division I-A?

We received more than a thousand replies -- here's a sampling of the best:

This whole situation reminds me of what happened a couple years ago. When my beloved Cornhuskers were selected to play Miami in the Rose Bowl for the championship over Oregon. This came after Colorado thumped us badly, and we didn't even play in our own conference championship game.

Although everyone here was elated to be in the big game, we all knew we simply did not deserve to be there.

So here's my suggestion:

Allow the BCS system to do its thing. But at the end of the year, put the top four teams in a "final four" tournament bracket. The bowl season spans almost 2 weeks, so have the No. 1 and 4 teams at one of the early bowls. Then have the No. 2 and No. 3 teams play in another. This will set the matchups for the final championship bowl. And we will never have to endure this sort of travesty again.

In basketball, teams play their season to make the 64-team tournament. That provides them with the shot at winning the big prize. I don't see why we could not do the same for football. I agree that a 16-team tournament would be a little too involved for the student athletes. But let the BCS determine the top four teams and let them play for the title.
-- Cary Pflanz, Lincoln, Neb.

Let's face it -- the BCS just made the case that it doesn't work. When USC puts up 52 against a solid conference opponent and Oklahoma is spanked in its conference championship there is no way Oklahoma should end up in the Sugar Bowl. Are the bowls still controlling who they invite? Tennessee beats Miami, is ranked above the 'Canes and Florida State in both polls and is bracketed by those two in BCS. How does the Orange Bowl invite both Florida teams? It's not sports anymore, it's big business, starting with the BCS' six-conference fraternity and continuing to the bowl committees who totally defy logic in their choices.
-- Mike Booth, East Peoria, Ill.

We need a 16-team playoff like they do it in I-AA. Take each conference winner and then at-large berths thereafter. This will give fans more excitement than we currently have and give greater access to all 1-A teams. The current system and past systems are seriously flawed and corrupted. Build the bowls around the playoff structure, if necessary. If not, then wash them down the toilet bowl.
 -- Andrew Matishen, Somerdale N.J.

Once again, the BCS has worked flawlessly. It's done exactly what it was supposed to do. It's guaranteed millions and millions of dollars to about half of the college football programs in the country while giving the other half basically nothing. In the process it's made a few million for the corporate sponsors and TV networks. Was it ever intended to do anything else?
 -- Scott Bentley, Moab, Utah

I think the BCS system worked. By removing the human element, the computers looked at three one-loss teams. Forget when they lost, that's irrelevant. By combining strength of schedule, quality wins, average poll ranking and the regular-season performance, you end up with LSU and OU in the Sugar Bowl. If any changes need to be made, either every conference needs to play a championship game. Punishing a team for having to play an extra game seems a little unfair.
-- Clark, Phoenix

The BCS can't work. You can't convert the current bowl system into a playoff. My fix? Force the season to end before Thanksgiving. Seed eight teams in a playoff, games played at the higher seed's home. You're down to the last two in early/mid-December. At that point all the bowls can be finalized, including whoever hosts the championship game.
-- Keith T., Corvallis, Ore.

Simply put, a team should not be given the opportunity to play in the championship game if it is not a conference champion.
-- Steven Villarrubia, Biloxi, Miss.

USC, get over it. The two best teams are playing in the Sugar Bowl. If we look at it more objectively, we realize that human polls react more to recent games than do computer polls. USC had a much weaker schedule than OU and somewhat weaker than LSU. Also, USC didn't have to play a conference championship game -- not that it would matter much in a weak Pac-10. USC lost to Cal -- enough said.

This is exactly why the BCS is useful. We don't have to depend on arrogant know-it-all sports writers to tell us which team showed throughout the season that they are the best in the land. The computers are not as short-sighted as we humans are.

I hope Michigan puts this one to rest at the Rose Bowl.
 -- Saul Villarreal, San Antonio, Texas

The BCS powers-that-be will probably throw in a "conference champion" quality factor that will help correct for a conference loser like OU making it to the title game while a conference champ sits out. Thus, another band-aid or two will be slapped on a hemorrhaging system that has survived more out of luck than usefulness.

I think there should be just eight, 12-team conferences in Div. I-A (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten [plus two], Pac 12, Big East, Mountain West, and C-USA). Of course, changes to more than half of those conferences would have to occur and many lower-tier schools would be sent back to I-AA where they belong (let's just admit that UL-Monroe, Akron and Middle Tennessee are never going to consistently compete with major programs such as USC, Michigan, Texas and FSU). The winners of those conferences would then go to a playoff.
-- Tim, Atlanta

Oklahoma didn't win their conference. Excuse me? That's right, Oklahoma couldn't even manage to win their conference. And for that they get to play in the (so-called) national championship game? I am not a USC fan, but give me a serious break here. Only conference winners should be eligible for the (so-called) national championship game. Period. Am I the only one that thinks that's an important point?
-- Sheri Grow, Boise, Idaho

Since when were computers smarter than people? If that is the case, I am scared for our future. 
-- Samantha, Los Angeles

The BCS is a disgrace. The Pac-10 should pull out of the BCS and take the Rose Bowl with it. I'm not a fan of USC, as I'm a Duck, but we got the shaft two years ago. I figured the BCS would have learned its lesson by the thumping Miami gave Nebraska and then Oregon dominated the supposed best team Colorado two seasons ago. Get real! The finish of the season should be the final determining factor. LSU vs USC is the only legit championship matchup. Oklahoma got its butt handed to it and does not deserve to play in a championship. I believe there will be retribution, and I hope the Pac-10 tells the BCS to go to a warmer climate
-- Ryan, Bend, Ore.

I can understand USC fans being upset that the team ranked No. 1 in the polls isn't in the national championship game, but that's exactly why the BCS was created in the first place: to get away from the polls and to have the best two teams play each other. In order to pick the best two teams, you have to some way of picking them, thus the BCS formula. In the end, we ended up with the two best teams. OU and LSU have better winning percentages against tougher schedules.
-- J.B. Blansett, Oklahoma City

Simple solution:

1. Use the BCS poll only as a tiebreaker or to settle conflicting poll results.

2. If there's a consensus No. 1 in both human polls, they play in the title game. Period. Unless they don't meet the condition in No. 3 below.

3. If you don't win your conference, you can't play for the national title, no matter where you're ranked. No team should be allowed to back into the title game.
-- Kemp Honeycutt, Charlottesville, Va.

I think that it's obvious now that the BCS is flawed. In my humble opinion, we need an eight-team playoff, but that's a different story. It seems as if USC doesn't get to play for the national championship because it didn't play in a conference championship game. If USC had played, say, Washington State again, it would be in the Sugar Bowl. Everyone who was complaining about ACC expansion and other expansion should see now exactly why the ACC and other conferences want a title game. It's not really fair that Big 12 and SEC teams get extra help with their strength of schedule and other teams don't. It's sad that it is this way, and maybe the Pac-10 and the Big Ten will be forced to jump on the superconference bandwagon now. I guess this is the future of college football.
-- Joe, Lexington, S.C.