Exposing the Injustice of the BCS Caste System

[Editor's Note: this article was written prior to the 2009 season.]

The proponents of the exclusionary aspect of the BCS system repeatedly point to Hawaii's 41-10 loss to Georgia in the 2008 Sugar Bowl. This isolated thought demonstrates a gross lack of perspective and/or complete ignorance.

Keeping non-AQ's out isn't justifiable. I'm not going to argue about overall league strength, or get into the fact that the disparity between the bottom of the BCS leagues and the bottom of the non-AQ leagues is multiplied by such branding. The BCS, presumably, is about showcasing the best teams in the land. Teams from outside the six money conferences have proven that they deserve a spot at that table.

Those that use Hawaii's Sugar Bowl performance as the crux of their argument to keep out those schools from the non-AQ leagues fail to mention that the Warriors' loss to the Bulldogs is far from the worst performance in BCS history. Four BCS games have been bigger blowouts ... including Oklahoma (55-19 loss to USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl), Maryland (56-23 loss to Florida in the 2002 Orange Bowl), Illinois (49-17 loss to USC in the 2008 Rose Bowl), and Notre Dame (41-9 loss to Oregon State in the 2001 Fiesta Bowl). No one is arguing to take away the Big XII, ACC, Big Ten, or Notre Dame's auto-bids over those performances.

In all, the BCS's 47-game history has included 14 games decided by twenty points or more. In addition to Hawaii, the ACC, Big East (twice), Big Ten (three times), Big XII (four times), Pac-10, and Notre Dame (twice) have been on the losing ends of those games. It should be noted that Pitt's 28-point loss in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl is in this list. Who administered that beatdown? Well, that would be Utah, a team from a non-AQ league.

Let's not forget who Hawaii lost to. It was Georgia, a member of the SEC. The SEC is 12-5 in BCS games for a .706 winning percentage. That success rate is the best among the auto-bid conferences. SEC teams average a win by 9.47 points in BCS games.

Hawaii was the only non-AQ team that lost a BCS bowl in four tries. That 3-1 record, or .750 winning percentage, is better than even the SEC's performance in BCS games. The rest of the field? Pac-10 is 9-4 (.692), Big East is 6-5 (.545), Big XII is 7-9 (.438), Big Ten is 8-11 (.421), and the ACC is 2-9 (.182). Notre Dame, by the way, is 0-3.

Furthermore, the average point differential in BCS games for non-AQ teams is +3.00 points per game. Only the Pac-10 (+12.08) and the SEC (+9.47) have a better cumulative performance. Every other automatic qualifier averages a loss. That includes the Big East (-0.91), the ACC (-5.09), the Big XII (-5.31), the Big Ten (-5.58), and Notre Dame (-24.33).

Despite only being given four chances in the major bowl games, the non-AQ teams have posted three wins. That's already more than the ACC has earned, despite being granted an automatic berth into the series every year for the past 11 seasons.

The current agreement, which began with the 2005 season, is a step forward. Many qualified teams were left out in the cold prior to Utah breaking down the door in the 2004 season. Still, a full seat at the table wasn't given. The premise for that argument was that the BCS wanted to ensure that only elite teams were in these games. The slap in the face implied by that statement notwithstanding, the argument simply does not hold any water. The automatic bids that have been handed out since the inception of the BCS have virtually ensured that non-elite teams will make these games. Ten schools, representing all six AQ leagues, have received bids to play in BCS games despite 3 or more losses coming in. Those teams went on to post a 2-8 record. Elite? Really?

• Syracuse, 1998, Big East, 8-3, lost Orange Bowl
• Stanford, 1999, Pac-10, 8-3, lost Rose Bowl
• Purdue, 2000, Big Ten, 8-3, lost Rose Bowl
• LSU, 2001, SEC, 9-3, won Sugar Bowl
  
• Florida State, 2002, ACC, 9-4, lost Sugar Bowl
• Kansas State, 2003, Big XII, 11-3, lost Fiesta Bowl
• Pittsburgh, 2004, Big East, 8-3, lost Fiesta Bowl
• Florida State, 2005, ACC, 8-4, lost Orange Bowl
• Illinois, 2007, Pac-10, 9-3, lost Rose Bowl
• Virginia Tech, 2008, ACC, 9-4, won Orange Bowl
  

With Utah's Sugar Bowl win over Alabama, they joined a select group of eleven schools that can boast multiple BCS bowl wins. The other ten are USC (6), Ohio State (4), Florida (4), LSU (4), Miami (3), Texas (3), Oklahoma (2), Georgia (2), West Virginia (2), and Wisconsin (2). Imagine if they had a chance to compete for a BCS berth every year.

In all, 41 schools have appeared in BCS games. In addition to the three schools that have broken the barrier (Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii) and Notre Dame, which is provided automatic qualification status, 37 of the schools that played in BCS games came from automatic qualifying leagues. There are currently 65 programs in automatic bid leagues. So, approximately 57% of them have made it to a major bowl. That's an order of magnitude higher than the access rate for programs with non-AQ status (3 of 53, or 5.7%).

Interestingly, of the three schools that were 'promoted' from a non-AQ league to an automatic bid league (Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF moved from C-USA to the Big East following the 2004 season), two of them have won their new league and received the automatic berth in a BCS game.

The data presented, on its own, is enough to clearly illustrate how absurd the BCS structure is. For those that are still proponents of the current setup, know that it is unjust. Similar practices are not allowed in society or commerce ... and for good reason.