For some reason, many people feel totally alienated by the BCS. Maybe it's because they are intimidated by its seemingly complex formula. The funny part is, however, that it's not that complicated. As one those involved, I'm hoping that by relaying the formula in simpler terms fans might embrace the concept, which very simply put is, "the best two teams in the nation should be those who play difficult schedules while incurring the least amount of losses, and are the consensus picks of the best polls America has to offer."

Sounds easy enough, but the formula is not without controversy. Some of that, again, may be attributed to ignorance of the formula. Some may be deserved. I'm not here to defend the BCS as much as I am to present information so individuals can at least form an educated opinion.

The formula consists of four distinct parts, with each having sub parts, and these parts are very basic, yet fundamentally sound components. The four parts are: Polls, Strength Of Schedule, Team Losses and Quality Wins. The tabulation reads: Poll Average + Strength Of Schedule + Team Losses - Quality wins = BCS Rating. The LOWEST score total is ranked first.

Part 1 -- Polls
The AP and ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll. These are the two subjective components in the poll process, they are averaged together and form 50 percent of the poll factor. These two polls are subject to an individual's emotions and personal bias. Additionally, these polls are not subject to any particular rules or regulations, they rely on the experience and expertise of the individual participant.

Any computer formula needed to include these two polls. After all, these were the time honored polls of four generations. The AP started in 1936 and the coaches poll in 1950. But they could not be the sole determining factor. Why? The reason is simple -- they are too subjective. Is there such a thing as regional or team bias? There could be. Do coaches vote for teams on their upcoming schedule so if they win, it makes them look better? I doubt it happens, but it could. The sportswriters and coaches that I know who are voters on the AP or coaches polls take their voting VERY SERIOUSLY, and they are to be commended for their service, but I don't know all of them. Do they all take their polling that seriously? Something needed to be used to balance out the potential for bias. Bring on the computers.

Computer Polls. This component accounts for the remaining 50 percent of the "Poll Part" of the formula. It is derived from an average of 8 computer polls, all of whom were carefully chosen for their particular strengths in reflecting different, yet popular points of view in ranking teams. The highest and lowest rankings are discounted allowing the remaining 6 to become a truer average of those varied points of view.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks math polls are new to college football. Nothing could be further from the truth. Various forms of mathematical formula's were used to declare National Champions long before the AP. Deke Houlgate, a professor of economics at Illinois created a widely known math formula in 1926. In 1929, Dick Dunkel perfected a formula that is still being used today in the third generation of The Dunkel Index. The computer polls have become the most controversial part of the formula and I'm sure it stems from the fact that at times, computer polls can vary greatly position to position, team by team among themselves, and also in comparison to the AP and coaches polls. Most people are offended by this and consider it to be a flaw. Actually, it's just the opposite. It's logical, if you understand the concept that early in the season computer polls, would at times, reflect the opposite results from the AP and coaches. Computer formula's are not designed to mimic those polls. They are, in fact, designed to take out the exact ingredient that the AP and coaches polls hold so dear -- subjective opinions.

Roy Kramer and Charles Bloom did an excellent job of pulling together the right combination of polls to give America a sampling of different rating systems. What would be the use in every computer poll following the same point of view when there are so many different philosophies from which to choose? For instance, some people feel very strongly that a limited capacity margin of victory should play a role, others believe that margin of victory should not count at all. There are those who feel strongly that a team's strength of schedule should supercede their won/loss record, others feel a won/loss record supercedes a strength of schedule. Some sports enthusiast believe every team should begin the season equal, others believe you should start where you finished last year, and still others just believe you should use your expertise and start them wherever you choose (like the AP and coaches polls). Some feel each game should weigh equally on the season, others feel the most recent performance should count more.

There is no way any of these groups can be ignored because they are all valid points of view. The fact is there is no right and wrong when it comes to ranking college football teams. It's a matter of personal opinion as to which point of view an individual chooses to follow.

In the wisdom of the BCS, all of these philosophies are included, and only the very best, the ones that have proven themselves over time, are used. This was not done lightly or frivolously. Countless painstaking months of evaluation went into the research of each computer poll that was chosen.

Part 2 -- Strength of schedule
The strength of schedule factor is the key ingredient in all of the computer polls, and I would say, the overall BCS poll as well. Why? Because the 132 year history of college football has proven to us repeatedly that teams with one or more losses on the season are indeed better than some undefeated teams that have played weaker schedules. This is the most challenging part of the formula simply because of the tremendous research that has to be done to create the end result. The formula itself, however, is quite simple. The strength of schedule is broken down into these four subparts: