BCS going to Capitol Hill is just

Back in January 1999, when Tennessee and Florida State prepared to face off in the inaugural national championship game under the Bowl Championship Series settings, no one would have thought the controversy over the flawed system would have gone this far.

Finally, it has.

On Tuesday, the Senate subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights had hearings on college football’s method of crowning a national champion.

Whether it’s judging a team’s schedule, quality losses or quality wins, this system simply does not work. Is it better than The Associated Press naming a national champion after the bowl games are said and done? I’m not so sure. At least then there wasn’t an annual argument on who was playing in the game labeled “National Championship.”

When you sit down and look at the BCS piece by piece, it becomes clear the flaws are subtle but numerous.

Last year, Oklahoma, who fell to Texas in the regular season, had the better computer average, which pitted it against Florida for the glass football. I’m not here to say the BCS Selection Committee was wrong or right in choosing the Sooners over Texas for the title game.

Therein lies the problem: We don’t know.

There are just too many questions after the fact for the college football nation, aside from the national champion, to be happy.

Another problem with the BCS? It’s too predictable. Each year, it’s almost guaranteed each of the two teams qualifying for the BCS National Championship
will have either zero or one loss (with the exception of LSU in 2007, which had two).

Take another 2007 squad in Michigan. The Wolverines, coming off a two-loss season in 2006, were ranked third in the country in the coaches’ poll and were considered a legitimate contender for the national championship. In week one, possibly the greatest upset in college football history took place when Football Championship Subdivision team Appalachian State came into the Big House and knocked off the Wolverines in the game’s final seconds.

While Michigan’s Big Ten Championship hopes weren’t killed, its national title hopes were. With the way the computer scores a team’s season, there was no way Michigan could bring Lloyd Carr his second championship in 10 years.

And there were still 11 games to be played.

It’s branded into collegiate football players that every game matters and there is always something to play for. With the plethora of bowl games and conference titles at stake, that’s true.

However, there is no doubt that from the first Saturday until the Capital One Bowl against Florida in January, Michigan felt a void. They were supposed to be title contenders. After all, it did have the eventual No. 1 overall pick in the NFL Draft in tackle Jake Long, “Super Mario” Manningham at receiver and two four-year starters in quarterback Chad Henne and running back Mike Hart.

The system’s ability to crush a team’s dreams before Thanksgiving simply isn’t right.

Hopefully, the Senate can work with the NCAA and the BCS Committee to form alterations. While no system may be perfect due to the length of the season and multitude of teams, there is a better way.

Maybe use the BCS rankings to rank opponents for an eight- or 16-team playoff?