News that margin of victory has been removed from the BCS formula will be welcomed news to many college football fans across the nation and probably disappointing to an equal number of others.

I feel the commissioners have made a wise decision. Margin of victory has no place in determining participants in a championship game. In addition to being unsportsmanlike, there are simply too many variables surrounding the score of a game that a computer does not have the ability to analyze, regardless of the complexity of the formula. Rivalries, fumbles, interceptions, injuries and weather have all played havoc with gridiron scores over the years.

What we need to recognize is that margin of victory has only been removed from the computers. It has not been removed from the overall formula itself. The AP and ESPN/USA Today Coaches polls are still the most heavily weighted part of the formula and the commissioners have no control over the minds of the coaches and sports writers.

There have been times we have witnessed a 31-10 final score in what was really a close game (with the winning team returning two interceptions for touchdowns in the last minute of play). There have been other times we've seen relatively easy contests look hard fought at 31-24 (with 14 points scored against reserves in the last quarter). For these reasons I say good riddance to margin of victory.

I know there are those who disagree adamantly, but history is the best teacher. College football has proven to us over the years not to fall into the trap of thinking "My team won by an average of 30 points per game, so we're better." Hypothetically, if Alabama beats Utah State 45-0 and Nebraska beats Utah State 3-0, does that mean Alabama is better than Nebraska? If we look back through the history of college football there are hundreds of scenarios that clearly prove the answer to that question is no.

A perfect example came last season. Oklahoma defeated Texas 14-3 in one of the most thrilling games in the series' long, storied history. A week later the Longhorns demolished Oklahoma State. 45-17. So, since the Sooners beat Texas and the 'Horns routed Oklahoma State, OU should easily beat the Cowboys, right? Wrong. Oklahoma State posted a 16-13 win costing Oklahoma a shot at a repeat national championship.

The message here is very clear: margin of victory in one game has absolutely no bearing on the result of a future game. I have been told that using margin of victory is a better "predictor" of future games, but I have not found that to be true. Evaluating both formulas over a 20-year period revealed the exact same percentage of higher ranked teams winning over lower ranked opponents. Using margin of victory is indeed a better predictor of point spreads in future games, but that's not what the BCS is trying to accomplish. Fans need to learn from this page in the BCS playbook: concern yourself with who wins, not by how much.

What we need to recognize is that margin of victory has only been removed from the computers. It has not been removed from the overall formula itself. The AP and ESPN/USA Today Coaches polls are still the most heavily weighted part of the formula and the commissioners have no control over the minds of the coaches and sports writers. Believe me, the solid pounding of Colorado over Nebraska last season did not go unnoticed by the human element of the formula. The only thing the BCS has done is put margin of victory on a more balanced playing field. This is a good thing.

The most important question remaining is what impact this new formula will have on this season's rankings. Will it be an improvement on what we have seen? I think so. Remember, the BCS is only four years old. Making modifications of this manner in early development is quite normal and appropriate. Just as an earlier change was made to satisfy concerns about head-to-head competition (as in the case of Miami and Florida State in 2000), this year's change should answer whatever questions may have lingered over margin of victory keeping Oregon out of the Rose Bowl.

Let's not forget, margin of victory represents both ends of the spectrum, 65-0 and 10-7. The fact that five of Oregon's ten wins came by a touchdown or less is what doomed the Ducks in the computers that used margin of victory last year. This was a clear injustice and removing margin of victory will prevent this in the future.

Who will be the greatest benefactor of this latest rule change? Most likely, coaches and upper-echelon non-BCS teams. First of all, since coaches will not have to be concerned over whether or not another touchdown will boost their BCS rating, maybe they will be able to focus on getting those reserves some much needed experience, which only helps during a title run.

As far as non-BCS teams are concerned, in 2000, a 31-0 Florida State win over previously undefeated Louisville dropped the Cardinals like a rock in the computers. Louisville was simply not able to recover from such a drastic drop because their schedule later in the season was too weak to overcome it. Now, we can expect only a slight drop, due to more emphasis being placed on Louisville having played a top ranked team, regardless of the final score. As a result, if teams like Louisville, BYU, Southern Miss or Fresno State suffer a loss to a highly ranked team, they will have a greater chance of moving back into BCS contention since they won't have as much ground to make up in the computers.

Overall I think the removal of margin of victory will not only make the process more equitable, but also more competitive and exciting.

BCS Pollster Richard Billingsley is a college football historian and author. His complete Rankings are available at www.CFRC.com.