  The time-tested BCS theory of superconductivity is generally accepted to be
the correct theory of conventional superconductivity by physicists and, by
extension, by the world at large. In a different realm of human activity, until
very recently Bernard Madoff's time-tested investment operation was generally
accepted as true and legitimate in the financial world. Madoff's Ponzi scheme,
where old investors were being paid off by funds contributed by new investors,
was fundamentally flawed, yet was able to thrive for decades because of many
vested interests. `Red flags' suggesting its illegitimacy were ignored. Here I
suggest that the same is true of BCS theory. There are an increasing number of
`red flags' that strongly suggest the possibility that BCS theory may be
fundamentally flawed. For example, an ever-growing number of superconductors
are being classified as `unconventional', not described by the conventional BCS
theory and each requiring a different physical mechanism. In addition, I argue
that BCS theory is unable to explain the Meissner effect, $the$ most
fundamental property of superconductors. There are several other phenomena in
superconductors for which BCS theory provides no explanation, and BCS theory
has proven unable to predict any new superconducting compounds. From one day to
the next, Madoff's edifice came crashing down and a staggering 50 billion
dollars evaporated, and I suggest that this may also be the fate of BCS theory.
I outline an alternative theory to conventional BCS theory proposed to apply to
all superconductors, `conventional' as well as `unconventional', that offers an
explanation for the Meissner effect as well as for other puzzles and provides
clear guidelines in the search for new high temperature superconductors.
