Bill Connelly makes a sensible point about overheated anti-BCS rhetoric.
… What I hope to see from Death to the BCS, when I get the chance to read it, is simply why “the BCS” is the enemy instead of the overall college football structure. To me, the BCS has long been an improvement over the previous system. We may disagree on which two teams should rank No. 1 and No. 2 at the end of the regular season (and to say the least, the rankings process itself could be improved drastically) … but at least we actually get a No. 1 versus No. 2 matchup this way. It very rarely happened before the BCS (and its Bowl Alliance predecessor) came into play.
If you want to rage against college football’s status quo and the people who ensure that it remains the status quo, then I’m all ears. But labeling the BCS itself as the enemy has always struck me as extremely misguided — as if the higher-ups were almost ready to put a playoff together before the BCS folks stormed the gates and got their way…
Of course, the problem with raging against the powers that be is that they’re the same people you’re hoping will make the changes you’re clamoring for.