"Who is #1?" The question has plagued college football players, coaches, and fans of all ages for many years. Ever since the game was first played back in 1869, controversy has always had a place in determining the true national champion in college football. Throughout its history, college football has had numerous bowl coalitions and polls. All of them have had the same goal: to determine a true national champion. Recently, the institution of the Bowl Championship Series has worked to better achieve that goal. College Football continues to seek a genuine national champion from polls prior to the Bowl Championship Series, during the early years of the BCS, and through the results of BCS football.

      The first taste of controversy came with the very first season of college football. Only two games were played back in 1869, the first one resulting in Rutgers defeating Princeton, and the second game ended with Princeton beating Rutgers. So, who won the inaugural national championship? (1) The first widely used college football poll did not exist until 1926 when Frank Dickinson, a professor at the University of Illinois, developed a mathematical ratings system.(2) In the late 1920's and early 1930's there were several mathematical formulas used to determine the top teams. College football ratings systems changed in 1936 when the Associated Press (AP) introduced its poll, which was voted on by sportswriters and broadcasters nationwide.(3) Distributed nationally, The AP poll became highly regarded by people everywhere. The AP poll was revered because it became the one true source for answering the question, "Who is #1?" It also continued on as the single main poll in college football until 1950. In 1950, the United Press International (UPI) joined in by soliciting votes from a board of college football coaches.(4) The difference in these two very similar polls lay in the fact that the UPI had decided to take their votes from coaches while the AP took their votes from sportswriters and broadcasters. The main idea behind the UPI poll is that a college football coach would naturally know more about the game than any sportswriter or broadcaster. Many more similar media polls have existed throughout the history of college football. The Football Writers Association of America has had a poll since 1958, The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame poll has been in existence since 1959, and the USA Today/ CNN college football poll was started in 1991.(5) The UPI poll, ending in 1992, was replaced by the USA Today/CNN poll.(6) That poll was replaced in 1997 with the ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll, which along with the poll of the Associated Press currently serves as the basis for deciding who is the No. 1 team in college football. Because there has been more than one poll since 1950, the college football world has been stricken with controversy every time the two polls disagree on the No. 1 team. The most recent example of such controversy occurred in the 1997 season, Michigan was voted No. 1 in the Associated Press poll after an undefeated season, while Nebraska was voted No. 1 in the ESPN/USA Today poll after also completing the season undefeated. These two teams were not able to meet in a bowl game because the bowl coalition that year did not allow it. Therefore, after both teams won their bowl games and remained undefeated, controversy of who was really the best team remained unresolved.

      The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is the newest system in college football of determining the national champion. It was put in after the 1997 season to assure that the No. 1 team and the No. 2 team meet in a national championship game. The BCS has four main components in establishing the real No. 1 and No. 2 teams. The first of four components is the subjective polls of the sportswriters and coaches. This component is calculated by averaging the rank of each team in the AP and ESPN/ USA Today polls.(7) A team ranked No. 1 in one poll and No. 2 in the other would receive 1.5 points for this component.(8) The second component that goes into the BCS formula is the computer rankings. This element consists of eight different computer polls, each using its own mathematical formula. The score for this component is determined by averaging together the seven highest rankings, while disregarding the lowest one.(9) Even though this may be seen as the weakest part of the full BCS equation, it does have the ability to make a difference. The computer rankings made quite a large difference this past season when Miami was ranked higher than Florida State in both of the AP and the ESPN/USA Today polls. However, Florida State's computer average was so much better than Miami's that the Seminoles were able to overtake Miami in the BCS rankings and earn a spot in the national championship game. The third of the four components taken into consideration in the BCS formula is strength of schedule. This is calculated by taking the cumulative won/loss records of the team's opponents and also the cumulative won/loss records of the team's opponents' opponents.(10) The formula is also weighted two-thirds for the opponent's won/loss record and one-third for the opponents' opponents record.(11) From there each team is ranked based on its strength of schedule and then its rank is divided by twenty-five to conclude the amount of points that they would receive for the strength of schedule component.(12) Although a team playing a weaker schedule of competition may acquire wins more easily, this may come to ultimately hurt them with this component of the BCS formula. This means that the toughness of each opponent of a team during their regular season can be crucial to their BCS ranking. The fourth and final component is based on the number of losses a team accumulates during the season. This constituent evaluates the team's won/loss record by adding one point in this category for each loss the team has on its record.(13) These four components are then added together to get the overall BCS rating for each team. The two teams with the lowest score will be ranked one and two and will play in the national championship game at the end of the season.(14) One of the main purposes of the Bowl Championship Series is to assure that the two best teams play in a national championship bowl game at the end of the season.(15) It attempts to achieve this through its unique formula including four components. The BCS also provides an effort to avoid controversial situations such as when the two polls produce a split decision.(16) This goal is always met because the BCS poll is regarded as the single poll in deciding which two teams will play in the national championship game.

      The burning question, the one on the mind of every college football fan who is not quite sure is, "Is the BCS good for college football?" For the answer one must turn to the experts. To this question, former college football coach and ESPN expert, Lee Corso responds, "The only thing the BCS ever promised was a match up between the No. 1 and the No. 2 teams, and it has delivered for two straight years."(17) Another expert of the game and ESPN analyst, Kirk Herbstreit responded to the question with, "The BCS really hasn't been tested yet. People think the system is working, but if the old bowl coalition or any other system were in place, the end result probably would have been the same."(18) He views the BCS as a good thing, but says that it still needs to prove itself. Another way of looking at the situation is that although it might not be as ideal as a playoff, the BCS is positive. This was proved in its first season when the two best teams were matched up for the national title, and it seems to be much better than simply relying on the polls alone to produce a valid match up for a national championship game.(19) Also, each year the BCS generates more interest and talk, and that is good.(20) In suggesting that the BCS is indeed a good thing for college football, it is important to remember that the BCS poll is only in place to determine the participants and not to crown a champion, that is still left up to subjective polls.(21) People also feel that there are many problems with the Bowl Championship Series. After this last season one conclusion made is that despite the BCS, too much controversy still remains. Much of this controversy surrounds the computer rankings. Five of the computers had ranked Florida State No. 1, even though Oklahoma was the only undefeated team.(22) Finally, for the future there has been many suggestions of a college football playoff system to guarantee that the national champion is deserving of it. A playoff system is one way to ensure that the champions are determined on the field and not by a computer. Another advantage to a playoff is no longer would one loss kill a team's chance to win a title, and no longer would there be little or no confidence that two best teams have made it to the championship game.(23)

      Through polls prior to the Bowl Championship Series, during the early years of the BCS, and with the result of play under the BCS, college football has always and will always search for a genuine national champion. Whether or not the Bowl Championship Series is the most effective way of determining the participants of the major college football bowl games, it is currently the basis for the answer to that question, "Who is #1? In its first few years the BCS has proved to work somewhat well. Controversy still may arise, but that is what makes college football such an interesting game.

"About the BCS." Online. Internet. 15 January 2001. Available. http://www.abc.com.

"Analysis of BCS." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.collegeplayoffs.com/proposal.htm.

Barr, Josh. "Some Teams Burned by Bowl System; But the Outcry for Change to Playoff Isn't Loud Enough." The Washington Post, 8 December 1998, p. E03.

"BCS FAQ." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.collegebcs.com.

Billingsley, Richard. "In Search of a National Champion." Online. Internet. 15 January 2001. Available. http://www.cfrc.com.

Brown, Gerry and Michael Morrison, eds. The 2001 ESPN Information Please Sports Almanac. New York: Hyperion, 2000.

"College Football: Insider: Burning Question." The Sporting News, 22 November 1999, p. 49.

"Controversy." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.collegeplayoffs.com/proposal.htm.

Dienhart, Tom. "Bowl Championship Series is Better Than a Tournament." The Sporting News, 22 June 1998, p. 38.

Dodd, Dennis. "Computer Geeks to Decide College Football's National Champion." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://cbs.sportsline.com.

Edwards, Brad. "Figuring Out the BCS Isn't as Hard as it Looks." Online. Internet. 15 January 2001. Available. http://espn.go.com.

"ESPN experts: Is the BCS a good thing?" Online. Internet. 19 February 2001. Available. http://espn.go.com.

Maisel, Ivan. "Inside College Football: Compute This the BCS Crunched the Numbers, and the Result was Controversy." Sports Illustrated, 11 December 2000, p. 80.

Pells, Eddie. "Old School Football Left Behind With New Bowl Formula." Online. Internet. 3 February 2001. Available. http://www.sportserver.com.

Peterson, Ivars. "Who's Really No. 1?" Online. Internet. 3 February 2001. Available. http://www.maa.org.

"Playoffs, Only Way to Decide No. 1 College Football Team." USA Today, 12 December 1997, p. 13A.

"Problems With the Current BCS Format." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Turf/1000/prob.html.

Reilly, Rick. "The Life Of Reilly: The BCS Formula: Bad Will Hunting." Sports Illustrated, 29 November 1999, p. 168.

Stang, Mark. "Mark Stang's Unofficial, yet Amazingly Accurate Bowl Championship Series Rankings." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.go- bucks.com.

Sullivan, Tim. "Weakness of BCS Fully Exposed." Cincinnati Enquirer, 31 December 1998, p. D01.

Tellshow, Rich. "Rich Tellshow's BCS Standings and Analysis." Online. Internet. 17 February 2001. Available. http://www.geocities.com/rtell/.

Wieberg, Steve. "Big Money, Dreams Back Playoffs Push." USA Today, 30 December 1998, p. 05C.

Wieberg, Steve. "Billion-dollar Push for Bowl-based Playoff." USA Today, 30 December 1998, p. 01A.

Wilson, David L. "American College Football - Rankings." Online. Internet. 3 February 2001. Available. http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/.