What’s wrong is having the Associated Press (AP) vote after the season is over to determine the nation’s top team (hasn’t happened since the birth of the national championship game but in 2004 UCS and LSU were virtually tied so the AP voted USC number one after their win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl).
The team that has most recently been notoriously known for getting shafted at is Boise State.
In 2005 I was lucky enough to watch Virginia Tech play in the Sugar bowl against the Auburn Tigers, as they were one of only three teams to be undefeated at the end of the regular season.
Auburn ended up defeated the Hokies by a score of 16-13 and finished the season 13-0.
Most, if not all, of us know that the great controversy of college football is of course: the BCS system vs a playoff system I wrote a shorter 6 page paper on this same topic last semester but I'll re-word everything to avoid that whole plagiarism thing. I want to improve my paper but don't want to post it on here so my teacher doesn't Google a section of it and find it on a sports blog.
(I almost did, that would have been stupid of me) At the moment there are no rebuttals to why a playoff system would be bad but from what I've read around here, the BCS makes a lot more money than a playoff would.
Alabama plays in arguably the best conference in college football, the Southeastern Conference (SEC), and Boise plays in unquestionably one of the weakest conferences in college football, the Western Athletic Conference (WAC).
For all of those who would like to see a matchup of an SEC powerhouse against a weak conference dominator, it won’t happen with the current BCS system.
What’s wrong in the public’s eyes is the selection for certain bowl games, most importantly, the title game.
The championship game is played between the BCS ranked top two teams.