Thomas J. Reynolds, a former University of Notre Dame and Michigan State University professor, performed a statistical analysis on the validity of the BCS.
Reynolds claims the results of his analysis show that the BCS lacks fairness in its ranking system, which is used to select the teams that will play for the national championship.
The study, Reynolds says, shows the BCS has a pro competitive benefit, a component necessary to file an antitrust lawsuit.
Based on his analysis, the BCS ranking system uses a simple formula combining won-loss records and factors the quality of opponents beaten.
Therefore, Reynolds suggests the BCS has no “existential validity” and is subject to antitrust litigation.
Reynolds concludes his study by offering an alternative to crowning college football’s national champion, using a playoff system that doesn’t favor the six automatic qualifying BCS conferences and eliminating what he suggests is a monopoly.
When people start applying terms like “existential validity” into the BCS debate, college football is in serious trouble.
The analysis that Reynolds claims is the biggest issue with the BCS – the ranking system – focuses on the one element that actually drives the rankings, that being the polls.
While the ranking system should focus on the quality of opponents played, the biggest problem the BCS has is its perceived bias towards the major programs in the coaches poll.
If human polls were eliminated from the equation, in its current form the BCS ranking system would be driven solely by computer generated results.
Thus, any claim of bias towards the major conferences could be disputed since the formula used takes into account only pure statistical data.
However, even using Dr. Reynolds formulas, the statistical likelihood that teams outside the six automatic qualifying BCS conference would play for the national championship is remote.
Since teams playing in the six major BCS conferences face stronger opponents, their computer rankings are going to be higher.
Regardless of Dr. Reynolds motives, his theory is sound but the outcome will generally be the same, meaning that teams from the power conferences will still have an advantage over the programs playing in the five non-automatic qualifying BCS conferences.
