College football is a big, diverse family. Like most families, it seems the various factions cannot agree upon anything.  However, 85 percent of the college football family can agree upon one thing: the BCS smells bad. 
While this strong majority presents uniformly anti-BCS positions, their rationales vary.  In part, Playoff PAC exists to provide a forum to allow such fans to post, discuss, develop, and refine their advocacy for a better football future.  Obviously incomplete, the following list includes but a few of the BCS’s deficiencies:

1.  Competition, Not Balloting Should Determine Champions: The BCS does not allow teams to settle it on the field; instead, voters, computers and random dumb luck combine to determine the final BCS title-game contenders.   Playoff PAC feels that the once-noble culture of amateur competition is disserved by the current unholy stew of polling, computers, and conference tie-ins.

2.  The BCS Gets it Wrong: The BCS nearly always fails to accomplish its own stated mission: to match the two best teams in college football. Substantial controversy has erupted over the past several seasons, as teams have been arbitrarily excluded from the title game.

3.  The BCS Devalues the Regular Season by “Motivating” Big-Time Teams to Schedule Weak Non-Conference Opponents: Pro-BCS advocates often insist that the current system insures that every regular season game remains exciting.   However, in recent years, the BCS selection system appears to reward teams that intentionally avoid scheduling difficult non-conference  games.  Playoff PAC’s empirical analyses reveal that in the years since the BCS’s creation, perennial BCS contenders have scheduled progressively fewer top-flight inter-conference games.   In short, elite teams are hesitant to schedule dangerous out-of-conference opponents under the BCS system for fear of losing a game and then being kicked out of BCS bingo (see Penn State schedule, 2009).

4.  The BCS Values Reputation over Performance:  The BCS rewards teams pursuant to their past performance, reputation, and marketing heft, rather than current merit.

5.  The BCS’s Revenue Distribution Suppresses Inter-Conference Competition: BCS apologists cite “greater access” by noting the recent history of “non-BCS” teams participating in BCS bowls (e.g., Utah, Boise State, Hawaii).  However, even when a little guy knocks out Goliath, the BCS formulas nonetheless send nearly all monetary proceeds back to the six automatic qualifying conferences.  Thus, last year,  the 0-12 Washington Huskies still came away with more BCS money than the 13-0 Sugar Bowl Champion Utah Utes.  Playoff PAC acknowledges that life is not fair, and that the money in football is created by those teams with the fan bases and the marketing heft.  Nonetheless, fans are rightly frustrated that the BCS formula sets the distribution in stone and in advance, which establishes a self-reinforcing caste system that harms the competitiveness, breadth, and excitement of this game.

6.  [Your favorite rationale here!]: Again, Playoff PAC feels that the only limiting factor in a list of BCS deficiencies would be the human time involved in its creation, or perhaps the availability of sufficient computing memory.  In short, this preliminary list attempts merely to communicate a few of Playoff PAC’s reasons for its conclusion: With respect to matters both cultural and economic, and as supported by reputable empirical research, the BCS is a poor steward of this beautiful game. Playoff PAC will regularly use its Blog to expound upon the BCS’s flaws, so check back often to stay abreast of how we’re rebutting the BCS.