I've heard it over and over again in all the BCS talk that there should be no preseason polls because it unfairly screws up rankings down the line, and that rankings should start in October or something like that.

And while it's true that many voters are hesitant to knock down highly-ranked teams from early in the year if they haven't lost, I think everyone is forgetting about the practical purposes of the poll that has little to do with crowning national champions (at least in August and September): People covering college football on a national basis are trying to figure out who to watch/cover/hype.

Yes, it is the media's fault -- we need an outline as to who to cover, other than angry letters that say "your definately a moron because you said my team will loose". (Yes, the misspellings are intentional.)

While the rankings numbers are a bit of a crutch, it does give plenty an idea what is important to cover/mention/etc., especially early in the year when no one is sure what to expect. In fact, doing away with rankings until October puts the lesser teams at more of a disadvantage because many will be paying even more advantage to the major conferences and the major teams. The lesser teams will only get on the initial October polls if they're undefeated, and probably only lower on the list (like it is now).

The polls are getting shot down so much now because they are such a huge part of the BCS formula now, despite their obvious inherent flaws that have now been beaten to death, even though we've all known about it for a while. But what does it say to a system that relies heavily on polls that were designed as much for sports editors and assignment producer as it was for the sport as a whole?

Of course, some conferences even take advantage of some of human polls inherent flaws toward keeping the top teams at the top. Of the three BCS conferences without a title game, only the Big Ten has a somewhat logical system for rewarding a spot in the top bowl game in case of a tie atop the standings. Both the ACC and Big East tied their berths in the BCS bowls to the BCS rankings, pretty much assuring them that Florida State and Miami (when it was still in the conference), respectively, would make it in case of tie -- mainly because both would be ranked very high and only move down so much in case of a loss or two.

Both conferences could see a potential mess for rewarding berths to the BCS this season since there's a shot at a four-way tie atop the ACC and a three-way tie atop the Big East. Instead of using traditional paper tiebreakers like head-to-head matchups, it's putting it in the hands of the rankings since they're just looking for the most "marquee" name to get in there. It won't be so bad in the ACC, given there are four teams with reasonable credentials. But if BC loses Saturday, you've got three teams who potentially may not even be in the BCS rankings at all tied for the top in the Big East and relying on those systems to determine its bid. Use a paper tiebreaker, Pittsburgh would win since they beat both BC and West Virginia, but who knows if that will happen.