In my opinion, that has to be the best way to describe the BCS. I find it amazing that college players and coaches, many of whom have little familiarity with computers, put their faith in computer modeling to determine the best football team.

Today, Miami will be informed they are #2 in the BCS standings behind Oklahoma. Why? It's not because of how they've played on the football field. It is because of who they've played. You see, Miami has played teams like FSU and Florida, while Oklahoma has played teams like Texas and Iowa State. While Texas and ISU are having very good years, FSU and Florida haven't been playing too well lately. Sure FSU is still ranked, but they are likely to drop a few more games with teams like Notre Dame, Florida and NC State still on their schedule.

Why should Miami care how their opponents fare? Well, now that margin of victory has been removed from the BCS formula, who you play and how they play the rest of their season becomes very important to you. Ironically, powerhouse teams like Miami and Oklahoma are actually penalized for being good. Virginia Tech and Texas for instance have tougher schedules, in part because they play good teams like Miami and Oklahoma.

Another problem with looking at strength of schedule, is that teams don't have a whole lot of flexibility over who they play. The conference opponents are the same year after year, and non-conference opponents are scheduled 8 or 10 years in advance. There is no guarantee that a quality team today will still be a quality team in 2010, when you get around to playing them.

The BCS also favors the major conferences. This has prompted the BCS to give Notre Dame, an independent, a special rule for being included in the BCS picture. Meanwhile, teams in lesser conferences need more than to finish undefeated to make it to the National Championship.

What all this means is that the best team in football isn't always determined on the football field. Instead, it is 'calculated' by several different computer models. Tell me again how this is better than simply using the AP and Coaches polls?

It should also be noted that the BCS formula keeps changing from year to year. Every year they add a rule to fix some blunder from the year before. The first BCS in 1998 picked Florida State over Ohio State because they had a loss earlier in the season. To fix it, strength of schedule was added and more emphasis was put on the computer formulas. Then in 1999, margin of victory was the only thing that kept undefeated Virginia Tech ahead of one-loss Nebraska. Again, the computer formulas were tweaked.

In 2000, one-loss Florida State was picked ahead of one-loss Miami, even though Miami had beaten FSU head to head. Miami claimed they were screwed by the BCS, and the formulas were once again changed, and a 'quality-win' component was added. Last year's blunder had Nebraska playing in the National Championship, even though they couldn't win their own conference. The scandal once again resulted in a change of the BCS computer formulas.

In summary, the BCS is more about money and less about declaring a National Champion. That is why organizers vehemently oppose a Division 1-A playoff. However, I think that even the old polling system is better than the monstrosity we have to put up with now. The idea that your win-loss record and score are not enough, and that we need to factor in the teams you played, and the teams that your opponents played is utterly ridiculous. src