College football just doesn’t need a championship. Clearcut, easy-to-determine championships aren’t bad — most people like them — but the constant debate behind today’s so-called championship is far more valuable to the sport than having any kind of true, undisputed champion. In that sense, the BCS is the perfect solution. It kinda makes a champion which kinda pleases a lot of people, but the process is so open for debate that people are prone to spending far too much time, well, debating it.
So I’m going to contribute to the greatness of NCAA DIA football by putting my 2 cents on the table.
As if we were not aware already, human polls are crocks-o-crap. As a detractor, I’ve said it for years. The proponents love it because they can subjectively change rankings for no really good reason. Which is also why I am a detractor. And this weeks’ polls are perfect examples.
In all the polls — USA Today, AP, and Harris — Michigan was ranked ahead of Florida from Week 8 onward. That continued even after Michigan was handed a 3 point loss by #1 Ohio State in week 13. And that seemed fine with everyone because it looked like USC was headed to play Ohio State in the “national championship” game.
But then, then, USC unexpectedly lost.
And the OSU-Michigan re-match was on!
Or at least the re-match was on until the voters realized it and decided they just didn’t want a re-match. I don’t personally want to see a re-match, but it’s pretty dadgum clear that the voters voted on a matchup and not on rankings. Out was voting on who deserved to be #2. They voted on who they felt deserved to play Ohio State.
Ri-fucking-diculous.
On another note about the whole debate, is the issue of strength of schedule. My problem is that most people use NCAA “toughest schedule” (.pdf) The NCAA ranking is based solely on opponent wins and losses.
That bothers me because people who use it are basically saying that it is not enough to judge just by record. But they unblinkingly go on to use the NCAA ranking… which is based on just records. I take this as further proof that the talking heads — much like politicians — are happy to cherry pick data for the sake of making themselves seem important.

