According to its own formula, the BCS selected the wrong team to play in its title game.
On January 7th, the Alabama Crimson Tide will face the Texas Longhorns in the BCS Citi National Championship Game in California’s Rose Bowl Stadium. The Longhorns should face Cincinnati or TCU, however, because Alabama was ineligible to receive votes in one of the human polls that comprise BCS standings. The Crimson Tide’s votes should have been cast for the Bearcats or the Horned Frogs.
The highly controversial BCS system produces a game between college football’s two top-ranked teams. To do so, the BCS uses a complex
formula that includes the Harris Poll, USA Today Coaches Poll, and six computer-generated rankings.
The USA Today Coaches Poll, administered by the
American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), accounts for one-third of a team’s BCS ranking. According to the latest Coaches Poll — the results of which factored into the selection of teams for the BCS title game — the Alabama Crimson Tide ranked highest, receiving 54 first-place votes. But as Jennifer Floyd Engel of McClatchy Newspapers
noted earlier this week, the
fine print of the Coaches Poll states that “The AFCA prohibits coaches from voting for schools
on major NCAA probation.”
On June 11th, 2009, the NCAA placed 16 Alabama sports — including football — on three-year probation for “
major violations of NCAA legislation.” The Crimson Tide also paid a fine of $43,900 and vacated wins in which the violating players competed. The NCAA’s official
press release and
report highlight the severity of Alabama’s repeated violations.
No one disputes that Alabama is now on probation or that the NCAA deemed the Crimson Tide’s violations to be “major.” So how does a team on three-year NCAA probation for repeated “major” violations remain eligible to receive Coaches Poll votes when the Poll expressly disqualifies teams “on major NCAA probation”? Good question. In an e-mail to Ms. Engel, the AFCA responded: “[a] school is ineligible for coaches' poll consideration if it is hit with any of the following sanctions—1. Postseason competition ban. 2. Live TV ban. 3. Loss of 20 percent of total scholarships in a given season.”
Nice try, AFCA. That explanation is nothing more than an after-the-fact attempt to justify a failure to enforce rules. AFCA is cherry-picking sanctions that were not levied against the Crimson Tide. A one-season, 20-percent loss of total scholarships is a not necessarily a markedly more serious sanction than three years’ probation, a $43,900 fine, and a loss of past victories for repeated violations of NCAA rules.
AFCA has some explaining to do. Perhaps AFCA is now attempting to cover-up an inadvertent mistake in drafting its initial rules. Perhaps AFCA is overtly turning a blind eye to the problems of the powerhouse SEC’s champion. Regardless, the BCS and AFCA must account for why a team that failed to play by the rules will play in Pasadena next week, and why “major” NCAA violations are somehow not “major” under the BCS system.