After the weekend games in college football, it continues to be apparent that the BCS is a joke. Despite some still defending this bogus system, more and more seem to be jumping on the “ditch the BCS/create a playoff” bandwagon.

There are probably many more I’m missing at the moment, but here are a couple of the glaring problems I see with this nonsensical system.

Losing early vs losing late

I don’t have a problem with Georgia, but they are currently #4 in the BCS. They are the highest ranked SEC team, and they are not even in the SEC championship game. Why? They didn’t even win their division. In one sense, you could say that the BCS system is working because, in my opinion, Georgia is probably playing better than any other SEC team right now. However, they have 2 losses. Why are they #4, and not another 2-loss team like Virginia Tech, LSU, USC or Oklahoma? Or, even more so, 1-loss Kansas?

Here’s why: Georgia’s most recent loss occurred on October 6th. The rest of those teams I just mentioned have lost since then. And, evidently, that matters. It’s not just that you lost. It’s when you lost. If you lose late, you drop regardless, and someone with the same record and a similar (or sometimes lesser) schedule than yours moves ahead of you because they lost before you did.

Another obvious issue is Kansas and Ohio State. OSU is now #3, while Kansas sits at #5. If Kansas had lost 3 weeks ago when OSU did, and OSU had remained undefeated and lost a game this past weekend, chances are Kansas would be ranked ahead of OSU. But they’re not. Because they lost Saturday. Both played a similar schedule that was probably a little lighter than most of the other top 10 teams, so I don’t buy any SOS arguments. The only explanation is that Kansas lost most recently.

And none of that addresses why 1-loss Kansas is ranked below 2-loss Georgia. Granted, Georgia has probably played a tougher schedule, and could very well be the better team right now. But taking that into account, I still think that some of the other 2-loss teams - particularly LSU who also played a tough SEC schedule and lost both of their games in triple overtime (as opposed to Georgia’s home loss to South Carolina and being embarrassed by Tennessee) - can make a case to be as high or higher than Georgia. LSU also beat another top 10 BCS team in Virginia Tech.

I fear I’m starting to ramble, and I’m certainly not trying to make a case for LSU. I’m just pointing out that any way you look at the BCS rankings, there are serious problems. Teams can always make a case against another team ranked just above them. And when it ends up being #2 vs #3, as is often the case, the system is questionable at best.

Conference championship games are unfair

This can go both ways. It can be good or bad. On the one hand, it can help to play a conference championship game. Last year, after the last week of the regular season, Florida was #4. The following week, after winning the SEC championship game, they jumped to #2. Michigan, one of the teams they jumped, had no such game. They were helpless to improve their lot with an extra game.

On the other hand, it can work against you. If there was no Big 12 game, Missouri would likely hold their #1 ranking and already have secured a spot in the national championship game. Instead, they still have to win another game, while a team like Ohio State can sit by and watch (and, if Missouri loses, advance into the top 2 and the title game.) *

If not every conference is going to have one, they are clearly unfair. They either allow a team to improve their standing while other teams don’t have that opportunity, or they force a team to play an extra game that could damage their standing and cause them to miss out.

I have other problems with these games, like the fact that it is often the case that the two best teams in a conference are in the same division. But, that’s for another day. When it comes to the BCS, these games are simply unfair - one way or another - to everyone.

Playoff solution is imperfect

So, what’s the obvious answer? Playoff. However, I’ve already heard several this weekend mention that a playoff system would dilute the importance of the regular season (John Saunders, I’m talking to you) and someone would still be left out.

Of course, this will not be a 64-team field, as in basketball, since there are far fewer football programs than there are basketball. This is going to be a small pool, and so the regular season remains important.

A positive is that one slip-up in mid-November won’t eliminate you from the opportunity of a national championship (while giving the opportunity to another team whose slip-up occurred in September.) Consider the current BCS. If you took the top 8 BCS teams and made a playoff, you have a pool of 8 strong teams, and they have to win 3 games to call themselves champion. Sounds fair and much more reasonable to me than the current BCS system.

And yes, a negative is that someone will whine. Whoever is #9, and probably #10, would want to stake their claim as a part of the pool. Just like #66 always whines in college basketball. My answer to that is: so what? Not everyone can play. And, again, that’s why the regular season still matters.

So, sure, the system isn’t perfect. There is no perfect system to determine who the best team is, and standards on who gets in are harder to come by than, for example, professional sports (where you have division winners and then base the rest on records and various tie-breaking criteria.) Still, it must be determined on the field. You can always question who deserves #8. But that seems preferable to deciding who deserves #1 and #2 only. You put 8 teams out there, and you have a (more) valid champion. Granted, Missouri or West Virginia - the current #1/#2 - could come out of a playoff as champion this year. But wouldn’t everyone be a little more satisfied if they had to beat, say, USC, Virginia Tech and Ohio State on the way?

Still the standard

Finally, one other important point: while it may be imperfect (as any system would be), it is also the standard. NFL. NBA. MLB. College basketball. College football in non-IA divisions. And practically every other team sport. They all decide their champions via a playoff/tournament. There’s only one that doesn’t. Division IA in college football.

So, I continue to believe more strongly each year that it’s long overdue to ditch the whole BCS/bowl system in college football and determine the champion the way everyone does.

Funniest crowd sign I saw this weekend, during the Alabama/Auburn pregame on ESPN:

I’m no AU fan, but that was pretty clever, I have to admit. Probably even funnier than this.

* There has also been the bizarre scenario where not even making it to your conference title game helps, as it did a few years ago when Nebraska didn’t even make the Big 12 game, but managed a slot in the BCS championship nonetheless (still a possibility for Georgia this year.) Or, even more bizarre, when Oklahoma was plastered by Kansas State in the Big 12 game and still went to the BCS title game, where they were easily plastered again by USC.