I’ve unfortunately been working night shifts quite a bit the last few weeks. The disruption of my circadian rhythm has left me temporarily incapable of carefully articulating educated opinions on complex issues of national policy. So I decided to exercise the prerogative discussed in my about the blog section and talk about football. For disclosure purposes I have to say I’m an avid Boise State fan, so anyone who knows anything about college football knows I have at least some issue with the BCS system. In case you read this blog because you’re more interested in political commentary on deep social issues than football and don’t know what an automatic qualifying (AQ) conference is, let me give you the cliff notes. There are five bowl games that make up the bowl championship series (BCS), and the teams that play in those premier games are determined by a complex process and get lots of money for their schools and conferences. Teams that are winners of an AQ conference are guaranteed a spot, while teams from non-AQ conferences must have a near perfect season for even a chance at the big time. AQ conferences have historically produced some of the most dominant teams in the country, which usually play the toughest schedules so their success is often without question. However, teams from non-AQ conferences like TCU and BSU have had some of the best records in the country for the last five years and have struggled for a chance to play in the big games. Even more frustrating, some of the historically strong AQ conferences have been particularly weak, and thus this year we will see unranked and unimpressive UCONN (a team that lost to 4 unranked teams) play in a BCS game while BSU and Nevada, both impressive one loss teams, are relegated to mediocre non-BCS bowl games with no chance to prove their ability to play with the “powerhouse” teams.

So while my true country boy, down-home, football-loving self may be apparent in this departure from my normal political commentary, let me try to continue this blog’s theme of objective, independent consideration of important issues. I care enough to write about football because I honestly believe it played a significant role in my development as a person. While it’s just a game, it has the potential to teach valuable lessons to young people and strengthen and reveal character in a very real way. I love college football because, although it has its share of scandals and frivolous details, at its core it is still a bunch of young people (90% of which have no hope of ever making money at football and are actually trying to be successful college students outside the several hours a day of football practice) working extremely hard together to achieve a goal. At its best, it can remind us of deeply rooted American values about accomplishment coming to those who are willing to work for it, determination overcoming obstacles, and anyone having a chance at success. My complaint is that the current BCS system undermines those values. The current system says that achievement comes from being associated with those who were successful in the past, and has more to do with where you come from than what you do. If you’re in the Big East Conference and aren’t very good you are more important that a team from the Western Athletic Conference that had a spectacular season – and that, said with my best George W. Bush accent, is un-‘merican.

So how should it change? Some people advocate a playoff system, while some believe that the bowl system has many benefits and shouldn’t be thrown out. I think both these arguments have validity, but actually don’t like the idea of a playoff because in the current system every single game throughout the year is extremely important. The bowl system rewards consistency and precludes a team who lacks consistency from becoming the national champion. However, whether or not you advocate a playoff, there is one simple change that could significantly improve the current system. We simply need to eliminate the concept of automatic qualifying conferences. The highest ranked 10 teams at the end of the season should play the in the BCS games, regardless of conference championships. Football fans can argue forever whether or not there should be some sort of playoff among those top ranked teams, but without question the preeminent teams should not be determined based on what conference they come from.

Now I can hear Nebraska and Florida fans complaining already about how they should be rewarded for consistently playing tougher teams in their tougher conferences than Boise State has to play. (I had Ohio State on this list, but removed them in light of their President’s fantastic retraction of his inappropriate comments about BSU & TCU. I also thought about putting Alabama and Oklahoma on the list of complainers, but we all know what happened the last time these “powerhouse” teams played a non-AQ conference team in a bowl game and don’t think they have a leg to stand on in the debate.) I agree that tough schedules should be rewarded, but the reward is in the ranking – not an automatic BCS game. A one loss team from the Big Ten or SEC will always be ranked higher than a one loss team from the Mountain West or WAC and everyone knows that. In fact a one loss team from any of the current AQ conferences will almost undoubtedly always be ranked in the top 10. And if there’s a question about a one loss team from the SEC and an undefeated team from the WAC and who should be ranked higher – then let them play a BCS game and sort it out. Even without AQ conferences, there’s no possibility that a team from the “powerhouse” conferences will ever be cheated out of a ranking by a non AQ conference team.

Think how good the removal of automatic qualifications would be for the sport. Instead of seeing unranked UCONN and #13 Virginia Tech (which lost 2 games, one of which to BSU) playing in the big games, we’d see one-loss BSU (one overtime loss to a #19, 11-1 team on the road – a slip that would be excused to any AQ conference team) playing a one-loss Big Ten team and wouldn’t have to argue about who’s really better anymore. If we took it a step further and non-BCS bowl games weren’t determined just based on what conference a team came from, then we’d get to see if Nevada’s stellar season in the WAC means they can really play with a solid SEC team instead of an unranked, 5-loss Boston College team. We’d start to see what I really love about football, teams having a chance for success based on their performance as a team, not based on their proximity to teams that used to be good. Some say there’s tradition in certain conferences playing in certain bowl games – but I think there’s a lot more tradition in watching competitive teams play a well-matched game than watching disappointing teams play in a game simply to represent once impressive conferences.

So in the spirit of this non-partisan, political blog, I’m offering a solution that may not satisfy either extreme (those who want to eliminate the BCS altogether or those that think non-AQ conference teams should never play in the big games), but is a reasonable, moderate improvement to the current system. Unfortunately college football isn’t that unlike politics: all too often a chance for improvement is lost because reason and compromise give way to money and bias.