Opinion: When math fails, teams just need to play it out

December 09, 2008
By Michael Omenazu
Sports writer

Simple math: if “A” is greater than “B” and “B” is greater than “C”, then one should be able to assume that “A” is greater than “C”. What happens though if “C” beats “A” on a neutral field by ten points?

In this equation “A” would be the Oklahoma Sooners, “B” the Texas Tech Red Raiders and “C” the Texas Longhorns because all have suffered one loss against each other this college football season. The confusion caused by the outcomes of these colossal college collisions should be sorted out by the BCS.

The BCS is a computer calculation that takes into consideration various factors such as human polls and strength of schedule. Intended to use a scientific formula to clearly identify the nation’s top two teams in order to have them oppose each other in a national championship game, the system seems like simple math.

However, since its inception, controversies have arisen. An example is in 2003 when USC, LSU, and Oklahoma failed to go undefeated. Each team suffered one loss with no team making a strong case for being the top team that year.

Although viewed as the superior squad of the group by both the media and majority of coaching staffs, USC was inexplicably left out of the title game because of a weaker strength of schedule. LSU continued on to trump Oklahoma and became co-champions with USC, who won their bowl game as well.

The sharing of the national title that year proved credible evidence as to the futility of the BCS structure.

Alabama, the lone undefeated team, was ousted by Florida from the top spot in the BCS last Saturday during the SEC conference championship.

The number two team, Oklahoma, managed a win in the Big XII conference championship because they held the tie-breaker, highest standing in the BCS, over two other worthy teams: Texas and Texas Tech. Interestingly, Texas defeated Oklahoma on a neutral field by 10 points.

However, the Longhorns have suffered defeat to instate rival Texas Tech, a team the Sooners recently thrashed by 40. Theoretically, they were a dropped, game-sealing interception, and last second, gamewinning connection between two Heisman hopefuls on a touchdown pass away from playing their way into the national title game.

College football pundits justify Oklahoma’s BCS standing with the reasoning that they are the “hot” team, peaking at the right time as they have put sixty on the scoreboard in consecutive weeks. According to this logic however, many would insert USC into the discussion as year after year they are recognized as the best team with the most talent but possessing the worst one-loss on its season resumes.

Many disapprove of the current system in place including fans, coaches and even the most recent president-elect. Campaigning upon a crusade of change, Barack Obama has offered a solution to the problematic method by insisting upon an eight school playoff. All the hypothetical “what if” questions become actual results.

If college football shared the same determining system of its other sports, a playoff, there would neither be debate over who was the best at the end of the year nor a need to share a championship. The mathematical computations have done nothing but add up to displeasure as it has subtracted away from the validity of national championships.